§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI beg to move, in page 8, line 27, after the word "of," to Insert the words "agriculture and horticulture and of."
The purpose of the Amendment is that such returns as are called for from other trades and industries which are to benefit under this scheme should also be made by agriculture and horticulture. If the agricultural industry is to receive the benefit of a 10 per cent. duty, with the possibility of additional duties, we are entitled to know the value and quantity of the output, the quantity and cost of materials used, and such information, which is called for in the case of other trades and industries. Wherever such assistance is given, although we disagree with the method of giving this assistance, we think that the Government should impose some system of reorganisation on the industry, and we cannot see why information which is required as to the progress made by a trade or industry should not be required from agriculture and horticulture.
84 A large number of agricultural commodities, including some of the staple foods of the masses of the people, are excluded from the free list, and we think the right hon. Gentleman should require the same information from agriculture and horticulture that he is seeking to obtain from other trades and industries. We have put down other Amendments to this Clause, most of which are to substitute the words "appropriate Department" for the Board of Trade, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss them on this Amendment. In the case of agriculture it should be the Ministry of Agriculture which should ask for this information, not the Board of Trade. That seems to be fairly clear, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, having realised the fairness of the Amendment and its intention to help him to compel farmers to introduce some method of organisation into their industry, and also in order to see that the consumer is not exploited for the benefit of the landowner, will be able to accept the proposal. The subsequent Amendments are merely drafting and do not fundamentally affect the purpose of the Bill.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot)I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion to consider subsequent Amendments to the Clause on this first Amendment. Let me ask the Committee to consider the following points. This information exists in the case of industrial undertakings, and does not exist in the case of agriculture and horticulture. It is therefore reasonable to require this information in the case of trades and industrial undertakings, but it is not reasonable to require it in the case of agriculture and horticulture. Clearly it would be unreasonable to compel this great change in the organisation of agricultural and horticultural undertakings, more particularly as many of them are conducted by very small people who have no facilities for carrying out this some-what elaborate process. It is a little hard that the hon. Member who has done as much as anyone for the smallholder should suggest that he should be put to the trouble of the enormous amount of accountancy which is necessary to supply such a return. It is not difficult for a big firm or a large undertaking to make 85 these returns, although we have had complaints from them as to the amount of statistics that they have to supply. In these proposals we are asking from industrial undertakings the information which they have, and we do not propose to ask from the agricultural industry information which it does not possess.
The difference between agriculture and industry has been recognised by successive Governments since 1906, when the Board of Trade was given power to require at intervals from industrial establishments particulars similar to those which we are requiring in this Clause. Such information has never been asked from agriculture. In the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, we asked for information of agricultural holdings, such as they might be in a position to supply, in regard to the acreage under cultivation and the number of live stock. But even that was considered by the farmer as a totally unnecessary inroad upon his time. It was said that the farmer's time was much too important to be occupied with the making of statistical returns for Government Departments. This is a needless and unnecessary multiplication of statistics, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
Mr. PRICEThe excuse made by the Financial Secretary is a very poor one. In this Bill we are proposing to put taxes upon food and agricultural produce, to give protection in a very large measure to agriculture and horticulture. Why cannot the Amendment be accepted? The information required is very simple; there is nothing complicated about it. Even the smallholder can give information to the Ministry of Agriculture as to the quality and value of his output, the quantity and cost of the materials used, and the number of persons employed. If we are going to give protection to the agricultural industry, then it should organise itself on sound industrial lines. We are entitled to know how much such protection will be used and that reorganisation is faced in a fair and straight forward manner. There is nothing in the Amendment which calls for good scholarship from the farmer or the horticulturist; and, the Government might very well accept it.
§ Mr. HENRY HASLAMI am very pleased that the Financial Secretary has 86 refused to accept the Amendment. I can assure him that the reasons he has given are extremely sound and that the agricultural and horticultural community would very much resent having to compile this vast quantity of statistics. It may be that this information can be very simply obtained in the case of a large factory, which only produces one or two types of article, where the manufacture is scheduled and classified, but it is much more difficult the case of a small farm where the production varies from year to year. To expect a small man who grows a variety of produce and keeps a certain number of stock to be perpetually counting it at certain times would he to impose a very considerable burden upon him. This is a typical Socialist Amendment. It seeks to flood the countryside with a vast army of officials. If hon. Members opposite want to popularise their Socialist views this is the last way they should go to work. The people in the countryside do not want to see a large number of officials going about in expensive motor cars, and I hope we shall hear no more of such demands on the country folk.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§ Mr. ATTLEEWe have had two rather different speeches from the other side on this Amendment. The Financial Secretary reminded me very much of the man in Shaw's St. Joan—the only reason why it could not be clone was that it never had been done. The hon. Member who has just spoken rather backed up the Financial Secretary. As a matter of fact, there is no reason why a Government Department should demand enormous and complicated statistics from everyone. They can make the statistics that they demand suitable for the persons concerned. I am rather tired of the way in which the champions of the farming community in this House always represent the farmer as someone who cannot do the simplest thing in returns, and as some-one who must be left in that state. Here the Government are going to put the farmer in a protected position, and the community has every right to get full information with regard to the way the business is carried on, as to rents, as to wages and as to everything else. I do not believe that the Government ought to give an advantage to industrialists or to agriculturists without seeing that the State gets the fullest possible value for it.
87 Agricultural marketing will require a certain amount of organisation. The policy under the Act should be carried out here also. In fact the members of that Committee were quite agreeable to organisation. The only objection they made was that they should have protection first. Now when they get Protection they do not want the organisation. Our position is that if they are going to have Protection there should be re-organisation. We have on the Paper other Amendments which will considerably amplify the information required. Part of it applies just as much to agriculture as it does to industry. I have read many books by would-be reformers and by agricultural experts, and I have talked with many agricultural experts. They are particularly strong on the need for careful accounting. They say that agriculture is a highly scientific and organised business to-day, and that the men who make it a success are those who adopt these business methods. They measure carefully the foodstuffs that they give to their stock, and judge the results of the feeding; they keep statistics with regard to milk and so on.
If those things can be done by farmers and even by smallholders, I cannot see why they should not fill in a return. Directly there is any suggestion of any control by the State the hon. Member who spoke last always has pictures of highly-paid officials in high-powered cars rushing through the country. If he is against State officials he had better vote against this Bill altogether, for it will call for a greatly increased number of Customs officials. But the hon. Member does not mind officials in the towns; it is only when they are in the country that he objects. Customs officials are going to interfere with business of every kind, but apparently the agriculturist meat be left to go on in his own sweet way, and whether he is running his business well or ill the State and the community, which have to ladle out the money, are not to see that the business is run efficiently.
§ Mr. ROSBOTHAMI hope the Government will resist the Amendment. I am in close touch with agriculturists and smallholders, and I can say that the proposal of the Amendment would place an 88 additional burden upon these people. This class of person is well used to hard work and is not afraid of it, but lie is not used to keeping accounts. The smallholder comes largely from the class of agricultural workers. He has not had the advantage of a secondary education and is not capable of keeping these accounts. In fact they are a great worry to him. He would rather work very hard from morning to night than be bothered by keeping accounts.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI trust that my colleagues will forgive me if I say that the case in favour of the Amendment is much stronger than they have made it out to be. The opposition of the Government is proceeding upon an entire misunderstanding of the Clause. The Clause does not say, thank goodness, that the Government must demand these particulars from every manufacturer or every agriculturist and horticulturist. The Department may issue it to any person, but they are not under any compulsion to send it to everyone. If the demand were sent to every manufacturer the Government would be instituting a very complicated further demand for a census of industry. As I understand it, the proposal is intended to provide the Committee with materials to show whether the trader manufacturing in this country is or is not a person who should be protected more or protected less than he is under the Government scheme. The Committee will want to find out whether the protected English manufacturer is making a monopoly profit, and whether, therefore, he ought to have a lower protective tariff on his article of production or not; or the Committee may be seeking to see whether a manufacturer, if protected by a higher tariff, would charge higher prices and would pass the burden of the tax on to the consumer. For neither of these purposes do the Committee require to demand returns from the whole industry, but only from sample manufacturers. They will be demands that will be repeated frequently in the case of some manufacturers.
If these demands were made from the whole of the potting trade now there will be just as much indignation as there would be if they were made from all smallholders and agriculturists. The questions to be answered are by no means simple. "The quantity and value of out- 89 put"—there is hardly a manufacturer to-day whose output consists of one article. The output is infinitely varied in every manufacture. To ascertain quantity and value would require enormous calculation. "The quantity and cost of raw materials"—that too, without any definition of "raw materials," might lead to infinite inquiries. This Clause as a whole, if it is going to be used as a form of inquisition with every manufacturer, and repeated at frequent intervals according to the class of article that he manufactures and the class of raw material that he uses, will lead to more unpopularity than the Government, even with the Kill Trade Bill, are going to produce. But that is not the object of the Clause. The object of the Clause is to inquire with regard to specific raw materials or specific monopoly articles, what the costs of manufacture are.
Surely the Government need that information more in the case of certain horticultural and agricultural processes than they do in the case of manufactures. There are very few monopoly manufactures. Take the case of tomatoes, which are now unfortunately taxed 25 per cent. The manufacturers of tomatoes in this country, the people who grow the tomatoes in the greenhouses, are very often connected with big concerns. At any rate there are some large concerns interested in the business. It is ridiculous to suggest that there are not some firms engaged in the tomato industry which keep accounts from which this information is as essential or far more essential than in the case of multitudes of manufacturers of purely manufactured articles. The question of tomatoes is of enormous importance to the people of this country. The tomato has become the chief food of a large number of people. That the tomato should now be manufactured in this country at a largely enhanced price, that the price should rise by the full 25 per cent. of the import duty, plus the 40 per cent. due to the fall in the value of sterling, will be a question of really vital importance to large numbers of people. Are the Government not going to put themselves in the position of getting any information about the cost of manufacture of tomatoes, in order to see whether they can be sold at a lower price than that charged to-day?
90 I have used the word "manufacture" in regard to tomatoes. It is a manufacture. It is not a natural growth. There is all the cost of raw materials, the heating materials, the manure, and the greenhouses; they all come in just as in the case of any other manufacture. Why should the Government deprive themselves of the opportunity of finding out from isolated tomato growers what are the costs of manufacture? As to larger agriculture, farming itself, everyone knows that although the bulk of the farmers elect to be taxed under Schedules A and B, there are considerable numbers who keep accounts. They have to be elaborate accounts for Schedule D, and as one who knows I can say that they get off much more lightly on Schedule D than on Schedule B. If there are some taxed under Schedule D, would it not be possible to find out from them how typical costs of manufacture are made up? Otherwise the Government are obviously providing a loophole whereby the horticulturist and agriculturist can charge the consumer far higher prices, without being checked by their cost accounts.
It is certain that on these committees there will be no members, or very few members, who are connected with manufacture or with horticulture; they are to he impartial people with no axes to grind. This proposal will give them means of finding out in great detail the cost of manufacture and the amounts of raw material used. Well and good. It will be very unpopular with the people from whom the inquiries are made, especially if they are getting a monopoly price that is not justified by the cost of manufacture. It will be unpopular with all of them, just as unpopular as with the agriculturist or horticulturist. But in the interests of the consumer you have to find out the facts. You are finding them out from manufacturers and omitting to do so in the case of agriculturists and horticulturists. Why? Simply because you are afraid of them. You have no objection to their charging monopoly prices. You are depriving the Committee of any authority to find out whether it is a monopoly price or a price based on the cost of raw materials, labour and rent. It is symptomatic that in these questions, A, B, C and D, you inquire into 91 everything else but leave out the question of rent. It is almost blasphemous to ask what rent a man pays.
§ Mr. HASLAMVery little now.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWhere a man goes in for greenhouses and intensive cultivation the hon. Member will find that rent lately has had a tendency to go up.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now anticipating an Amendment which appears later on the Paper.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI thought we were discusing several Amendments at the same time.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Amendment I have referred to is not being taken with this Amendment.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIn that case the rent question will come up later. It is symptomatic that the omission of rents and the omission of horticulture and agriculture should coincide. There is certain information which any committee considering these matters ought to have. The Government propose to get it from the people who will not, they think, object to giving it, but not from certain other people of whom they are afraid. If the Clause is to be used in order to get sample information from sample firms, to see what are their costs of manufacture, what is the proportion of raw material used, and other information of that kind, it is clear that that is information which the Advisory Committee will require. Is it the intention, however, not merely to ask sample people, but to ask everybody engaged in every form of manufacture all these complicated questions I It will not be possible to get from them any more definite information as to the cost of manufacture, and these other matters, but by that method the antiquated firm and the up-to-date firm will be lumped together so that the up-to-date producers' returns of profits and costs of manufacture will be swamped in other returns, less accurately made out and based upon an industry not so well organised. The Advisory Committee will be overloaded with an enormous amount of material which they will never be able to use.
92 The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) talked about officials in their motor cars. It is not officials in motor cars of whom I am afraid, but the creation of a vast new department for collecting all this great amount of material. There could be nothing more ridiculous than the returns which are now sent out by the Ministry of Agriculture every year, in which they ask people how many fowl they keep, and whether they keep pigs or not. In that case there is a series of definite questions which you can answer as you like. I do not know what happens to those returns when they are made. But here it is, apparently, proposed to have returns from every manufacturer; those returns would have to be studied and boiled down and averaged and then made intelligible to a committee of gentlemen who know nothing whatever about manufacture. If you are going to use material, got in that way and on such a scale, you will indeed require a gigantic staff to deal with it. But surely it is not intended that everybody should be pestered with these questions, and that indignation and hostility should be aroused in the manufacturing population by such a procedure. What this Advisory Committee will want will be samples taken from sound manufacturers and sound agriculturists, and those samples they would have no difficulty in getting. The man who is sound keeps sound accounts and knows what those accounts mean. To obtain that information would only require a small staff. What every speaker up to now including the right hon. Gentleman opposite has supposed to be the purpose of the Clause is one which would involve unpopularity, expense and the building up of a Department of State larger than any of the Departments we have at the present time. There would be not merely the recording, tabulating and averaging of the material but the collecting of it. There would be inspection to see that the returns were accurate—inspection which would involve, a chartered accountant in every firm—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks now would be more appropriate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThey can be repeated then, Captain Bourne, but we are now considering whether agriculture 93 should contribute its mite of the genuine information, which the Advisory Committee must have, if it is to deal adequately and properly with the consumers' interests, as well as with the interests of those people who want a protective tariff in order to fleece the consumer.
§ Mr. MORRISONI hope that the Government will not be dissuaded from their opposition to this Amendment by the inconsistent arguments which have been advanced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He objects to the creation of what he describes as a vast new department, hut he is supporting an Amendment which would have the effect of making such a department vaster still. Surely one reason for not accepting this Amendment is that the information which it seeks to obtain is already available from other sources. It seems to me that those who support the Amendment are confusing the means with the end. The end of the Clause is to secure such information as will prevent the consumer being exploited. In the case of industries the information as to quantity and value of output, cost of materials, and so forth, is not available already, but in the case of agriculture and horticulture it is easy to find out the costs of raw material to the farmer and the prices which ought to be charged. The quantity and value of output are already tabulated in returns which show the amount of stock, the amount of land under grass, and under various crops and other particulars. The quantity and cost of materials used can also be ascertained—costing figures are frequently issued by the research stations under the Government—while the number of persons employed is already returned. All the information is available to enable this advisory committee to make a thorough investigation of the cost of agricultural production, and to make sure that any duties levied shall be in strict conformity with the needs of the people in this respect. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the question of rent as an element in the cost of production—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI had to stop the right hon. and gallant Gentle- 94 man from pursuing that subject and I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue it.
§ Mr. MORRISONI at once bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne. The real objection to the Amendment is that it is unnecessary. While it is true that many farmers keep accurate costing accounts, it is none the less true that many of those engaged in agriculture are smallholders to whom the already burdensome returns required are a nuisance. The complexity of the modern agricultural return is in itself sufficient to tax the energies of the ordinary smallholder. He has to return not only the information to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has already drawn attention, but he has also to descend to such minutix as the number of ducks he has under the age of six months. Where the information is already available, it would be wrong to place this further burden of accounting and statistical returns upon people who have already quite enough to do.
Major LLOYD GEORGEI hope that I will not he charged with inconsistency in supporting this Amendment. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Morrison) accused the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) with being inconsistent in a speech which was itself inconsistent. He said that the Amendment was unnecessary; he hoped the Government would oppose it, and then he gave as his reason that all the information sought for was already available. There, he differs from the Financial Secretary who said it was not available and I assume that we must take the word of the Financial Secretary. I can never understand the attitude of the Conservative party on agricultural questions. They pose as the champions of agriculture but when any suggestion is made to make that industry into a really profit-earning industry they oppose it. They want to get everything from the State but to give nothing in return. The opening words of this Clause are:
With a view to obtaining information as to the condition and progress of trades and industries.One of the most important industries about which we want information is the, agricultural industry. The Amendment asks that information should be obtained, first, as to the quantity and value of out- 95 put. It should not be difficult for any farmer to know that and, if he does not know that, it is about time he did. As regards the quantity and cost of materials the farmer must know that also. If we are to give certain facilities to the agricultural industry, surely we are entitled to know what the effect will be on the industry. We know already, from figures supplied by the Ministry, that the difference between the prices which the agricultural community get and the prices which the consumers pay is very great. If we are not careful the only effect of a protective tariff applied to agriculture will be to make that difference greater by causing the consumer to pay more while the farmer gets no more. Therefore, for the sake of the industry itself, it is important, in order to see how these proposals will affect the industry, that we should have this information. The Government's attitude apparently is that the collection of this information would be too much of a job. I am disappointed at their opposition to the Amendment, but I am not surprised because it is consistent with their attitude on everything in this Bill. Their attitude appears to be, "Do not let us find out anything at all but just get the Bill through without too much discussion." They are doing nothing to give real help to the industry which, in my judgment, if restored to prosperity, would do more for the general prosperity of the country than any other. I do not see how you can do anything at all for that industry unless you have every bit of available information in regard to it, and I shall support the Amendment.
Captain CROOKSHANKI have no difficulty in resisting the Amendment, because I would go further and resist all the inquisition which the Clause seeks to establish in industry, but if any small part can be excluded from that inquisition, it is better than that none should be excluded. As a matter of fact I understood that the procedure with regard to the agricultural industry was going to be largely that of reorganising commissions under the Marketing Act, and if that is so, there is going to be quite enough demand for information to keep the agricultural community drawing up returns for a good many months. I am sorry if I was absent from the Committee when the Minister made his reply, but I am not 96 clear why these powers should be required in the case of agriculture in view of the powers already given in Clause 2.
§ Mr. J. JONESOn a point of Order. Can Members give notice to Ministers that they are going to get up and talk?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI am not aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) gave such notice, or that such notice is necessary.
§ 6.30 p.m.
Captain CROOKSHANKI expect that the Minister has permanent notice that I am likely to do so on these matters. I was asking why there should be any question of obtaining information about agriculture, when the Advisory Committee have already been given powers under Clause 2 to require any person to furnish them with any returns or other information which they consider necessary or desirable for the proper discharge of their functions. Again in Clause 3, Sub-section (7), it is provided that the Committee may at any time make a recommendation that any additional duties ought to be varied or discontinued, and it stands to reason that in order to do that they could ask for any returns which they considered necessary for the discharge of their duties. As that Committee is permanent so far as this Bill is concerned, I cannot understand why the Government should wish the Board of Trade to have similar concurrent powers.
§ Major ELLIOTIf my hon. and gallant Friend will look at Clause 2, he will see that the Committee may by notice in writing, require any person to send in a return, whereas if he looks at the Clause now under discussion, he will see that the Board of Trade may publish in the "Gazette" notice that they will require returns.
Captain CROOKSHANKThat is extraordinary. Do I understand that the whole of this verbiage, covering two pages, is merely in order that a notice shall be legally inserted in the "Gazette"? If that is all that the Financial Secretary is hoping to get out of this, he had much better make a tiny Amendment in Clause 2 on Report. It is not necessary to set up this elaborate machinery in order to find out what it is already within their power to find out 97 under an earlier Clause. It may be said that it is the Board of Trade which will get this information, but surely my right hon. and gallant Friend will not tell us that the Advisory Committee will be so secretive with this information that it will not even let the President of the Board of Trade know what it has found out.
I am at a loss to understand the purpose of this Clause altogether, but as it is in, it would be worse if you required the unfortunate farmers to be dragged in at the heels of other trades to give this information. I hope we shall have a pretty complete reply from the Government in regard to these inquisitorial powers. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite talked about agriculture being able to charge monopoly prices and said the farmers would be able to get colossal profits as a result of this Bill, but from what one has read in the agricultural Press, they do not share his opinion and do not anticipate such a terrific rise in prices as does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The agriculturists have to provide quite enough information to the Department already. They provide at any rate as much as the Department themselves can assimilate, and if we are to have more information, we shall have the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Trade requiring to be increased in order to digest it, for whatever purposes they may wish to have it. It certainly would not be for their own good health.
§ Mr. TINKERI cannot understand why there should be any objection to the Amendment. As to the agriculturists, who for a long time have been contending here that they are not getting a fair deal, would it not be to their advantage if they allowed this Amendment to pass, so that the Board of Trade could, if they wished, get that information and therefore prove their case? I cannot altogether understand hon. Members opposite making use of the argument that agriculturists are so busy at their work and so poorly educated that it is difficult for them to make returns. My knowledge of agricultural people tells me that they are not so simple as all that, that they know the right thing to do, that they know the value of their undertakings, that they know what profits they have made or what losses they are mak- 98 ing, and that they could very easily give this information if they wished.
If this Clause, asking for some information from some industries, is to go in, why not include all industries? Tariffs are going to be put on most things, and I think we are entitled to get some information to justify their being put on. I ask hon. Members opposite to look at it in that way. If they think these tariffs are necessary, they ought not to be afraid to give all the information asked for, in order to prove their case, and if they do that they may justify what they say they are entitled to in the way of tariffs. I do ask hon. Members opposite not to say they ought not to give this information, because, if so, it will give a wrong impression, and their statements, if made without proof or examination, will not have the same value as they would have if they gave the information, so I appeal to them to accept the Amendment in their own interest.
§ Mr. REMERI hesitate to enter into a controversy with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the question of tomatoes, for the reason that not very long ago, on another Bill, he confessed that he was himself a producer of tomatoes under his own glass. If he will look at the later parts of this Clause he will see what kind of information he wants to be given by the horticultural and agricultural industries, and I do not think, if the duty were put upon him of finding out the cost of producing his tomatoes, he would find that the type of information asked for would be the kind of information which would be necessary to him. I do not think the quantity and value of the output, the quantity and cost of material used, the quantity and cost of fuel and electricity consumed, and the number of persons employed, would guide him very far in regard to the cost of producing tomatoes.
How in the world can the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) think he is performing an act of kindness to the agriculturists, and putting them on a profitable basis, if at the same time he asks them to produce information which would be of no use to the Committee and would probably require 'a chartered accountant to be employed, at considerable cost, in order to provide it? We have to be very careful that, with the 99 advantage which we are giving to industry and to agriculture, we do not cause ail the advantage to be taken away by the increased burdens that we put upon them. Therefore, I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for resisting this mischievous Amendment, which, if it were carried, would cause a very great burden to be thrown upon the agricultural community, already overburdened with too many restrictions.
§ Mr. J. JONESI am very pleased, as a great grower of tomatoes myself, and a consumer of more than I am able to produce, to have the opportunity of listening to experts. I do not know what the argument is about, but I, as an ordinary workman, have to produce time-sheets and to show everything I have done during the day and the number of hours that I have been employed. Now, when we ask certain bodies in industry to produce their time-sheets, to show what they have done and who they have done, it is a crime against industrial organisation and against their honesty, and an attack on their integrity. Is it true? They are going to get benefits from the State, because that is what it means. They are going to get the right to tax their fellow-citizens. I am not a farmer, but I am the son of an agricultural labourer, and I know of farmers in Essex who bring their stuff up to market, and who have told me that after they have sent their goods up for a week, they have been in debt at the end of the week. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your party policy!"] No, your capitalist philosophy.
I want hon. Members opposite to remember that some of us are not opposed to the agricultural industry, as they say we are. We believe that agriculture ought to be a national industry, organised for national ends, whereas they believe that it ought to he organised for individual purposes, with everybody engaged in it out to do the best they can for themselves and to leave the rest alone. We who live in the towns have an interest in agriculture just as much as those who live in the country. We want the best we can get, at the lowest possible cost, consistent with decent conditions of labour for the people who work in the industry. I do not say that everything is correct in the garden of Eden, but I suggest that the Amendment ought to 100 receive sympathetic support from the other side.
We would like to know the difference between what the farmer has to pay for the production of his goods and what he gets when he sells them in the market. I have had to pay, or my wife tells me that she has had to pay, though I have to find the money, as, I suppose, do most hon. Members, as much as 3d. for a cabbage and has found out afterwards, when she has got into consultation with people—she happens to be a member of some committee dealing with agricultural produce in parts of Essex—that they are very glad if they can get a halfpenny for the same cabbage. Surely that is something in which ordinary people are interested, and we ought to know the cost of production and to have some idea of the cost of distribution. If the farmer does not get his fair whack, he is entitled to get it, and I should vote for his getting it, but if there are people coming in between producer and consumer, and the facts cannot be produced by those responsible for the conduct. of the trade, there is something wrong, and we have a right to know what it is.
Therefore, in so far as this Amendment will help us in that matter, I shall support it, but I am not prepared to support those who say that everything is wrong so far as the farmer is concerned. I have met some decent farmers in my time, and I have met some indecent ones, too. We in the Labour party are not the enemies of the agriculturist, as some hon. Members opposite try to make out. We have a national policy of our own for agriculture which will stand the test of time, but. hon. Members opposite are now on their trial. They are trying by means of tariffs to solve a problem which they have never been able to solve. Governments have come and Governments have gone, but the problem goes on for ever. This method of solving it is like applying an old quack remedy. It "can't be did."
§ Sir P. HARRISThe hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has said that what is wanted in this Clause is provided for in Clause 2 (7). Clause 2 will come into operation, however, directly the Bill becomes an Act, and will give power to the Committee to make inquiries of any individual at any time in order to enable them to come to a decision as to impos- 101 ing a duty. Clause 9, on the other hand, does not come into operation until 1933, and it is clear that it affects articles only after they are subject to the protection of an import duty. Therefore, I assume that this provision is made in order to protect the consumer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is very much concerned about the inquisition for which this Clause provides. I agree with him; these inquiries into private business are very objectionable. They are the inevitable result, however, of Protection, and if manufacturers and farmers ask that people shall not be allowed to buy what they like in a free market, and if we tell them that they can have a market free from competition and a monopoly price, inquisitions in this form are inevitable.
§ Mr. LEWISThe hon. Member raised the point that this Clause cannot come into operation until 1933, but it says that
the Board of Trade may, before the commencement of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-three.
§ Sir P. HARRISThat makes the power more extensive, and therefore more subject to criticism. I do not like these Clauses, but these powers are the inevitable result of Protection. Let me give the example of milk. There was a great controversy recently about the price of milk. The milk combine resisted giving information to the chairman of the committee dealing with food prices. Milk was particularly selected for inquiry, and the chairman of the great combine, the United Dairies, refused to give the in-formation, defying the appointed officials of the Board of Trade and of this House. When competition is removed, one assumes that, owing to the high duty, the free import of milk from Denmark will be impossible. I believe in the public being allowed to have English milk of good quality when it is available at a reasonable price, but when the combine raises that price against the public, milk ought to be allowed to come in from outside. If the Committee which is to be set up decides that no foreign milk shall come in, they should have a right to inquire into the accounts and methods of business, the quantity and value of output, the quantity and cost of materials used, the quantity and cost of fuel and electricity consumed, and the number of persons employed. That is all that this 102 Amendment proposes to do; it proposes to extend this objectionable power from articles that are not really necessary to articles of necessity like food. I dislike State interference of industry; I am old-fashioned in that respect, and I am still an individualist, but hon. Members in the Labour party are not, nor are hon. Members behind me, and they are not logical. They want the State to interfere to protect them, but they will not face the inevitable result of that protection, which is Socialism in some form or another.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSWe are very disappointed with the reply of the Financial Secretary. We thought that this Amendment would have appealed to him, and that there would have been no need to take it to a Division. The reply of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was merely that it would involve a lot of work by a large number of farmers. If, as the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) suggests, a large volume of the information will be available at the Ministry of Agriculture when the Ministry of Agriculture marketing schemes are introduced and applied, there will be little or no necessity for the President of the Board of Trade or, as we would prefer, the Minister of Agriculture, to insist upon such information being obtained from all over the country. May I remind the hon. and gallant Member of the first two lines of the Clause:
With a view to obtaining information as to the condition and progress of"—"agriculture and horticulture," as we should like to see inserted. Members on the opposite benches have declared that if we only provide agriculture, and for that matter other industries, with some sort of protection, we shall have more land under the plough, larger numbers of men will be employed on the land, and the unemployment problem will be on the way to solution; and yet, when we ask, as we do by this Amendment, for information to show the condition of the industry and the progress which has been made, the Government refuse to enable that information to be collected. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Rosbotham) said that farmers—he referred particularly to smallholders—are not very good at figures, and do not keep statistics. That may or may not be true, but we are not anxious that every smallholder shall be called upon to supply a 103 great mass of statistics with regard to his holding. We do suggest, however, that when the President of the Board of Trade is searching for this information, he should secure the information from those sources where the least inconvenience would be experienced.The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to the milk combine. The President of the Board of Trade would be carrying into effect the purpose of Clause 9, if agriculture and horticulture were included, by inviting those milk producers within the area of a great combine to say what progress they have made. That also would apply to dairy farming. He could ascertain by sample information, information of the progress which dairy farmers were making, to what extent they were utilising their surplus milk, how far they had gone in developing cheese and butter-making, and how far they had gone to produce marketing schemes and a stabilised price that would transfer agriculture from a mere gamble into the business that we should like to see it. We believe that if the Government are really serious in wanting to establish a sound and efficient agricultural policy, they ought at least to insist upon securing the sample information upon which they can estimate, as they do in other directions, what progress is being made.
The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. H. Haslam), as usual, said that this was
§ a typically Socialist Amendment in that it would need a horde of new officials. It does nothing of the kind. We require no more officials. The Bill itself will mean a horde of Customs officials at a cost to the nation of £500,000 per annum. We have no complaint to make about that. If you have a Bill of this kind you must pay for all its consequences. We say that when we place an industry in the advantageous position of being able to work behind a tariff barrier, we are entitled to know what progress that industry is making, whether it has taken advantage of the facilities offered by The Government to develop marketing schemes, and so on. If not, this House, be it Conservative, Liberal, Socialist or Nationalist, will be justified in withdrawing from the industry any advantages that may accrue to it as a result of the Bill. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will undertake before the Report stage to reconsider this question, we shall be obliged to proceed to a Division. We do not, as some hon. Members opposite would have the Government believe, want every smallholder and farmer in the country to supply volumes of statistics; we merely want sample statistics in order to ascertain the progress of agriculture in its various forms.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 327.
107| Division No. 75.] | AYES. | [6.59 p.m. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Mallalieu, Edward Lanceiot |
| Briant, Frank | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Harris, Sir Percy | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Cape, Thomas | Hicks, Ernest George | Maxton, James |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hirst, George Henry | Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Holdsworth, Herbert | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Daggar, George | Janner, Barnett | Owen, Major Goronwy |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Price, Gabriel |
| Edwards, Charles | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lawson, John James | Thorne, William James |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Leonard, William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lunn, William | |
| Groves, Thomas E. | McEntee, Valentine L. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. John. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Aske, Sir Robert William | Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Barclay-Harvey, C. M. |
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles | Atholl, Duchess of | Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell |
| Apstruther-Gray, W. J. | Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Balniel, Lord | Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. |
| Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) | Fuller, Captain A. G. | Magnay, Thomas |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Ganzoni, Sir John | Maitland, Adam |
| Blindell, James | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest |
| Bossom, A. C. | Glossop, C. W. H. | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Goldie, Noel B. | Marjoribanks, Edward |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Bracken, Brendan | Graves, Marjorie | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Millar, Sir James Duncan |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Grimston, R. V. | Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y) | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Burghley, Lord | Guy, J. C. Morrison | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres |
| Burnett, John George | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Moreing, Adrian C. |
| Burton, Colonel Henry Walter | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Morrison, William Shephard |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Moss, Captain H. J. |
| Caine, G. 8. Hall- | Hanbury, Cecil | Munro, Patrick |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Hanley, Dennis A. | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Newton, Sir Douglas George C. |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Hartland, George A. | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) |
| Carver, Major William H. | Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) | Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster) |
| Cassels, James Dale | Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'f'd) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | North, Captain Edward T. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Nunn, William |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Patrick, Colin M. |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Hillman, Dr. George B. | Peake, Captain Osbert |
| Chalmers, John Rutherford | Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Pearson, William G. |
| Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W) | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Peat, Charles U. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) | Hopkinson, Austin | Penny, Sir George |
| Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Perkins, Walter R. D. |
| Chotzner, Alfred James | Horobin, Ian M. | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston) |
| Clarke, Frank | Horsbrugh, Florence | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. |
| Clayton, Dr. George C. | Howard, Tom Forrest | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Purbrick, R. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Hurd, Percy A. | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Cooke, James D. | Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Ramsden, E. |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Rankin, Robert |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. p. | Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Remer, John R. |
| Cross, R. H. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. |
| Crossley, A. C. | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Renwick, Major Gustav A, |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Ker, J. Campbell | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip |
| Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Kirkpatrick, William M. | Robinson, John Roland |
| Davison, Sir William Henry | Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Knebworth, Viscount | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Rosbotham, S. T. |
| Denville, Alfred | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Dickie, John P. | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Donner, P. W. | Leckie, J. A. | Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside) |
| Doran, Edward | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo |
| Drewe, Cedric | Levy, Thomas | Salmon, Major Isidore |
| Duckworth, George A. V. | Lewis, Oswald | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Liddall, Walter S. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Eales, John Frederick | Llewellin, Major John J. | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Scone, Lord |
| Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n) | Selley, Harry R. |
| Ellis, Robert Geoffrey | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th) | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Lymington, Viscount | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Mabane, William | Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.) |
| Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Ertkine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine,C.) |
| Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Smith-Carington, Neville W, |
| Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | McEwen, J. H. F. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | McKie, John Hamilton | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Fermoy, Lord | McLean, Major Alan | Soper, Richard |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Spencer, Captain Richard A. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. | Thompson, Luke | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Stanley, Hon. O. F.C. (Westmorland) | Thorp, Linton Theodore | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Stones, James | Touche, Gordon Cosmo | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Stourton, Hon. John J. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
| Strauss, Edward A. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Strickland, Captain W. F. | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Stuart, Hon, J. (Moray and Nairn) | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) | Withers, Sir John James |
| Summersby, Charles H. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) | Womersley, Walter James |
| Sutcliffe, Harold | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Tate, Mavis Constance | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. | Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | |
| Templeton, William P. | Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour- | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Wells, Sydney Richard | Captain Austin Hudson and |
| Commander Southby. |
§
The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
In page 8, line 29, to leave out from the word "description," to the word "the," in line 31.—[Mr. Attlee.]
§
In line 31, after the word "Act," to insert the words:
or would be so chargeable but for the fact that they are exempted under the provisions of Section one, Sub-section 2 (a)."—[Mr. H. Williams.]
§
In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) The capital, nominal and paid up."—[Mr. Attlee.]
§
In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) The rent of land or premises."—[Mr. T. Williams.]
§
In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) The profits."—[Sir S. Cripps.]
§
In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) Overhead charges."—[Mr. Lawson.]
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe subsequent Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) are out of order. I propose to take the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse, and to treat that Amendment and those standing in the names of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), the hon. Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) as one discussion as it seems impossible to keep the discussion separate. That does not interfere with the rights of the Opposition to have four Divisions if they desire.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI beg to move in page 9, line 7, at the end to insert the words:
(a) The capital, nominal and paid up.The object of this Amendment and of the following Amendments is to secure that the information which has been asked for in this Clause shall be full and complete. This Amendment deals with the capital while the other Amendments deal with rent, profits, and overhead charges. If one looks at the object of this Clause, it is:With a view to obtaining information as to the condition and progress of trades and industries engaged in the manufacture in the United Kingdom of goods of a class or description which, if they were imported into the United Kingdom, would be chargeable with a duty.It is obvious, therefore, that the points which we have put down in our Amendments are extremely irrelevant. At the present time we have a claim put forward by industry after industry to Protection, but they are extremely reluctant to give full information with regard to their profits, their capitalisation, their wage costs or anything else. We desire that this information should be obtained. The Amendment which I move deals with capital, nominal and paid up. In the course of discussions on industry we often hear of an industry which is said to be paying very little in dividends, but we do not know what its real capitalisation is. We do not know how far an industry, claiming Protection because it cannot get on owing to foreign competition, is really waterlogged by the amount of watered capital in that industry. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this and the subsequent Amendments in order that the country may know, not only the production figures for the various 109 industries but also the figures with regard to capitalisation, rent, profits and overhead charges.
§ Mr. JANNERI would like to know what exactly my hon. Friend means by this Amendment. If it refers to an ordinary partnership or to an individual carrying on this manufacture, then it is obviously wrong. If, on the other hand, it refers to a company which is registered, then he already has available to him at Somerset House particulars of the capital, nominal and paid up. I would like some explanation of that point.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSThe hon. Member has just said that certain information is obtainable at Somerset House, but that information does not show the amount, paid for rent and all these four Amendments are being taken together.
§ Mr. JANNERThis is merely a question of giving information, and I would not like any suggestion coming from my hon. Friends opposite to look ludicrous in an Act of Parliament. This one certainly would, because you have that information with regard to companies, and it does not cover the case of individuals or partnerships.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSMay I suggest to the hon. Member that the point he raises is a very flimsy one? It is perfectly true that that information is obtainable at Somerset House, but we want it to be available for the President of the Board of Trade in the one document with the other information, so that it can be examined there and then, without a visit having to be paid to Somerset House to dig it, out. [Interruption.] It may seem very thin to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), whom we are pleased to see back in his place. He is always so very pleased to lecture us that he will be giving us the benefit of his world-wide, comprehensive knowledge in a few moments. But I suggest to the hon. Member for South Croydon that even Solomons have been known, on occasions, to be wrong, and not able, to anticipate wholly the intentions which lay behind the mind of the other fellow. In this instance, we are entitled to ask—
§ Mr. JANNERI would like to ask the hon. Member what he really means by the nominal capital of an individual?
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThe nominal capital of an individual does not come into it at all. It is the capital of the trade or industry which is referred to in Clause 9. Only trades and industries are referred to; it is not a question a individuals. Apart from the question of capital, we want the Government to consider the advisability of adding to the four heads of information the amount paid for rent of land or for use of premises, and also what profits have been made. If the consumer of goods is called upon to pay an increased price as a result of these duties he is entitled to know what profit is being made, either direct or indirect. We are also entitled to know what the overhead charges are. We have had experience of industries which have not only been suffering, as the Lord President of the Council said, from too much dead weight of capital, but of many concerns suffering from dropsy, and we wish to know on how much watered capital work-people are providing profits. If the right hon. Gentleman will extend the information to be given he may remove a good deal of suspicion and turn a good deal of useful thought in a tariff direction. But if the information sought is to be limited to the four items (a), (b), (e) and (d), suspicion is bound to remain. Hon. Members below the Gangway may jibe at us in the Labour party for trying to make the Bill a good one, trying to remove all the doubts and suspicions which still remain in our minds, but we believe that if the right hon. Gentleman would include information relating to the rent of land and premises, profits and overhead charges it would whittle away many suspicions, anxieties and apprehensions from which we suffer, and I support all four Amendments which are covered by this discussion.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha)One sympathises, of course, with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, but if he examine the exact proposition before the Committee he will realise how difficult it would be to accept it. He has asked us to include "capital, nominal and paid up." My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) has already pointed out that that information is available, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept that answer and not press his point, because the information would be completely redundant. He 111 next asks for the rent of land or premises. The object of obtaining the information for which we ask is that we may be able to relate one period with another, and all the items in each unit of comparison must be identical. In some cases firms or individuals are possessors of the freehold, and therefore to add the item of rent would not give a basis of fair comparison, and it is for that reason, partly, that rents have not been included in the formula. He next asks that profits may be included. Here I would follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel and ask him what he means by profits. If there is to be a standard of comparison we must have a definition of what a profit is. Accountants compute profits in many different ways, and the standard of comparison would be again vitiated. Further, we want this information in respect of definite calendar years. All firms do not make up their accounts at the same date, and that, again, presents an obstacle in the way of accepting this Amendment. Lastly, my hon. Friend wishes to introduce the item of overhead charges. There are great differences of opinion as to what may properly be regarded as overhead charges.
If my hon. Friend looks at the particulars for which we have asked, and contrasts them with the particulars for which he asks, he will see that our particulars can be readily forthcoming whereas furnishing the particulars be seeks could only introduce delay and cause confusion. What we wish to ascertain is the volume of production, so that we may set one year against another, and therefore all the details in our comparison must be precisely related. As I have said, we appreciate what my hon. Friend bas in view, and had it been at all possible to include a number of other queries which could shave disclosed useful relevant information we should have been only too pleased to accept what he suggests, but we ask him to realise that, as regards most of the additional questions which he wishes to put answers could not be forthcoming in a form which would be profitable.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI am afraid the hon. Gentleman's explanation hardly satisfies us. I do not appreciate what it is the President of the Board of Trade really 112 wants to get at. The hon. Gentleman has told us that all they want is the volume of production, but the first thing they ask for is "quantity and value of output." What is the "value of output," if I may ask him a question?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAThe sale value.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSMay I suggest that it would be a very good thing to say so, if that is what it means, because the expression "value," as used in an Act of Parliament, generally means not a sale value but the value put upon the goods by someone who is competent to value them. If this means the price obtained for the goods, it would be a very good thing to say so, because otherwise we are embarking upon the prospect of an infinite amount of litigation over whether information supplied is the right information or not. The hon. Gentleman will find, when these forms are sent out, that a great many people will put a value on their production which is different from the sale value or the selling price. It would be a very good thing to insert "selling price" on the Report stage. Further, if the hon. Gentleman wants only the volume of production, why does he ask for the quantity and cost of materials used? What has that to do with the volume of production? Nothing at all. If he is told the amount of materials and the cost, it will not enable him to say what has been produced from them.
§ Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELIf the Board of Trade know the quantity and the cost of the materials used, that will answer the question of his previous argument.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSThey must be very much cleverer than anybody I have ever heard of if they can tell from the cost of the raw materials what the value of the finished article is. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are such things as cost of wages, overhead costs and rent to be considered in the case of manufactured articles.
§ Sir A. M. SAMUELDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that we do not know that?
§ Sir S. CRIPPSApparently the hon. Gentleman did not, judging by his interruption, and that is why I took the 113 trouble to tell him. Let me continue to deal with the point of the Parliamentary Secretary that these figures are required only for the purpose of ascertaining the volume of production. What has the quantity and the cost of the electricity consumed got to do with the volume of production of an article Nothing at all, is the answer. What has the number of persons employed got to do with the volume of production? It is quite clear that the Board of Trade are anxious to get data on more points than those connected with the cost of production. They are anxious, under (b), to find out whether these taxes have led to a rise in the cost of raw materials. A large number of materials will be taxed, and they want to see the influence upon the price of commodities. They want to know the number of persons employed, but are not interested to know what wages they get. May I suggest to the hon. Member that if he really wants to find out the effect on employment he must also have the wages paid? If he is really to find out the true facts about these businesses, and the true reactions of the taxes which have been charged, he must get a lot of other information than is being asked for under (a), (b), (c) and (d), among other things, the information asked for in these four Amendments.
7.30 p.m.
He suggested that the word "profits" means nothing. I suggest to him that a good deal of experience in Income Tax law has shown that profits mean something pretty definite. There would be no need for putting in profits here if it were possible to obtain from the Income Tax Department, or from the Board of Trade, the profits of all the various companies and concerns who are trading, but as I understand it, that information is confidential, and the Income Tax authorities are not entitled to communicate it to the Board of Trade. If the hon. Gentleman would like us to change the wording of this Amendment to—
profits as calculated for Income Tax purposeswe are quite prepared to make that alteration in our Amendment. Surely one of the things in which the Board of Trade must be most interested is to ascertain what effect this taxation has had upon the profits of the companies which are 114 to benefit by the taxation. It is the most material figure of all, if the object of this taxation is to assist British industry, because the mere volume of production may go up or down, but the Board of Trade will not be able to tell from that whether the taxes have benefited it or not. If the industries have an increased volume of production, but make less out of it, owing to their having to pay more for their raw material, they will be worse off, although I daresay hon. Gentlemen would like to come here, subject to the criticism of the "Economist," and say: "Look at this figure and see the wonderful thing we have done. We have increased the production of this or that business by 100 per cent." It will be material also to inquire if those businesses have made any profits out of the increased production. Surely that is the most material of all inquiries to be made. If, as a result of the price of the raw material going up, you make the business less prosperous, you reduce its profits. It is possible that in those circumstances the result of the taxation may be to reduce and not to increase the profits of a business.I suggest that this is an opportunity to get hold of some valuable information about British industry, so that the Board of Trade may be equipped at any time to use that information for various purposes which may in future be necessary. It is a chance which we suggest should not be missed. The vast majority in the House of Commons are only too willing to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade any powers he likes to inquire into any industry and to get any information that he wants. If he should miss this opportunity, it may never occur again, and it will be a great misfortune indeed to the Board of Trade and to British industry. We have put down this Amendment. in order to assist him, slightly against the will of his more reactionary followers, to get information which we know that he wants—for instance, for a review of the steel industry, so that when he goes down to make that review he will have all this information in his pocket, and he will be able to make a sound review of the whole industry.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSThe hon. and learned Member who has just addressed the Committee does not seem to be very familiar with the Census of Production. 115 That census was introduced in 1907 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and we have had three reports of that census since. One has just been issued. The information here demanded is to enable us to get a quick survey of a similar character to that which we have every five years in the Census of Production. The Government of 1924, of which the right hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) was a distinguished and attractive Member—always attractive I—set up a Committee on Trade and Industry. It had no policy, so it appointed the Committee on Trade and Industry in order to discover one. In the last volume of its reports that committee suggested that such information should be furnished in connection with safeguarding industries.
This will give just the information that any Department needs in order to determine whether an industry is definitely advancing or receding. If all the other information which is now demanded is to be incorporated in an annual return, there will be an enormous delay in getting the results. We want to be able to get the results quickly, in order to show what progress each industry is making.
There are some industries in this country in which the information is already available. Coal, for instance. There you can get complete information. The same with iron and steel. You can get complete information. In some industries, information is not collected, partly because trade associations are not completely effective for the purpose. We should have, in respect of all industries, that kind of quantitative information which we have in respect of the iron and and steel trade, and coal, and that we already have in respect of agriculture. I cannot understand why in the discussions on the earlier Amendment this point was not effectively pointed out. The Clause is merely a request that manufacturing industries shall furnish us with the same kind of information that agriculture already furnishes. If you pile up, in respect of these industries, a lot of additional information, your return for 1933, instead of being available in the early weeks of 1934 will not be available until 1937. If hon. Gentlemen opposite 116 will only try to understand what it means to aggregate rapidly a mass of statistics so that you can quickly furnish to the country and to the House of Commons some definite statement, they would never press that this heterogeneous mass of information should be added to the return. The hon. Gentleman who accused me of being a Solomon did not seem to have the faintest idea of what was meant by nominal and paid-up capital. This does not apply to limited capital. It applies to
any person who appears to the board to have been…the occupier or manager…
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESNot necessarily the proprietor.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThe proprietor may be an individual. There are a vast number of small companies in this country. The very people who are concerned are the small individuals—[Interruption]—I am talking about private businesses owned by private individuals, of which there are a vast number engaged in manufacture. There is also a vast number who work as partners. It is precisely of these people that you are asking for information. Other industries are very largely in the hands of large groups. What you want is information of the great mass of small industries and trades, precisely the industries where there is no capital in the legal sense, either nominal, paid-up, watered or anything else. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would only sit down and produce an Amendment which has some relation to reality, instead of putting down Amendments which would involve people in unbelievable loss and expense, they would he rendering some valuable national service.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESI am satisfied now that this Government is doing nothing more nor less than carrying out obedience to the Tory party. The hon. Gentleman for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) seems to know the history of these proposals from the beginning. I do not know whether he will consider it an honour that I have read his book on the subject. Hon. Gentlemen have criticised this Amendment from several angles. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question as to whether he would agree with our Amendment if we altered it to make it read as follows:
Capital nominal or paid-up.117 He does not seem to object to the principle so much as he objects to the wording of the Amendment. This is the first time that I have heard that a person can run a business without capital.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSYou are asking for a legal definition. I say that you cannot define capital, nominal or paid-up, in the case of a business owned by a private individual.
§ Mr. DAVIESThe hon. Gentleman cannot run away from it in that way. If he will look at his own words in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he stated definitely that there were some businesses run by small private owners without any capital.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSNo, no.
§ Mr. DAVIESWe are making a definition in this Bill. There is nothing wrong with that. Let me pass on. I am interested in the words "overhead charges." My name is attached to an Amendment to include the words "overhead charges." It is assumed that because we are Labour men we know nothing at all about business. I have the honour to be the secretary of a society with a capital of £400,000 invested funds.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSPaid-up?
§ Mr. DAVIESAll paid-up and all soundly invested. I want to disabuse the minds of some hon. Gentlemen of what may be their impression, that because we are Labour men, because we are colliers and factory workers, we know nothing about finance. I think I have handled more finance than has the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSObviously.
§ Mr. DAVIESLet me return to these words "overhead charges." The right hon. Gentleman has already replied to the discussion, so perhaps he will follow me. So far, I have come across cases where overhead charges have been made that had no relation to the business. I know firms where there are two or three managers and two or three motor cars, and all the expenses of those managers, only one of whom comes to the business occasionally, are set against the expenses of the business, and then we are told that the business does not pay. They have taken the swag away, in the first place. 118 We ought to have definite information about the overhead charges from all firms and businesses. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. These industrialists and manufacturers are coming to the Government to ask for a 10 per cent. tariff. Indeed, they are asking for more. Some of them will probably ask for an additional 50 or even 100 per cent. tariff. If they come to the State to ask for Protection for their manufactures, then the State is entitled to know and to get a balance-sheet from them in order to know where they stand financially.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSThe hon. Gentleman has referred to overhead charges. He seems to think overhead charges are the salaries of absentee directors.
§ Mr. DAVIESI did not say directors at all. If the hon. Gentleman knew as much about business as some of us he would not talk so glibly about it. How many relations come to the factory and the office and never do any work at all and are paid wages? They call that "overhead charges." Now does the hon. Gentleman understand?
§ Mr. WILLIAMSYou are not asking for that form of overhead charges to be shown separately. Everybody knows that overhead charges include rents, rates, taxes, office expenses, etc.
§ Mr. DAVIESThat shows that the hon. Gentleman does not know as much about business as we do. We want these items inserted for another reason. We are not satisfied with paragraph (d), "the number of persons employed." I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade understands what he is talking about, although some of his supporters do not. He has got down here "the number of persons employed." What indication is there in the number of persons employed as to whether the industry is doing well or not? A statement was made the other day from this bench to the effect that one shipbuilder produced, a few years ago, two and half tons of shipbuilding, and that five years later he produced six and a-half tons of shipbuilding. It seems to me to be quite clear from that that to-day 100,000 men can produce as much shipbuilding as 300,000 could five or ten years ago. What indication, therefore, does the mere number of persons employed give as to whether an industry is doing well or 119 otherwise? If we are to be criticised because our Amendments are not in good form, what about the proposals of the Bill itself?
I have seen it actually happen in industry that, where 50 persons were employed on a process 10 years ago, there are to-day only five employed, on exactly the same process, and producing very nearly as much as the 50 did 10 years ago; and the time may come, say some of the economists, when one man will be employed and 99 other men will be watching him producing all that is required for the community. There seems, therefore, to be much more sense in some of our proposals than there is in this particular item of the number of persons employed.
Whatever may be said about any of the other Amendments that we have on the Paper, the point with regard to overhead charges is a very important one, because of the facts that I have mentioned. Firms will be coming to the Government to ask for additional protection, and I am afraid that, unless these words are included, they will not show proper returns. I am not so sanguine as some hon. Members that manufacturers will come with clean hands to the Government. The House of Commons is embarking on a, very bad principle in politics, and we shall live long enough, I am afraid, to see that this Bill, in spite of all the nice things that are said about it, will have been found to have turned politics into a system of "graft" such as exists in America at the present time. I support these Amendments, and I trust that the Minister will have been convinced that there is substance in some of the points which I have made.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTHI think that hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench quite misunderstand the provisions of this Clause of the Bill. I have supported a good many of their Amendments, but I regard it as my business to try to make the Bill workable rather than merely to take up an obstructive attitude. Coming down to the House to-day, I travelled in the train with a gentleman who is interested in one of our great Dominions. I do not want to mention the name, because I refuse to be allied with those who would say one wrong word about the 120 Dominions, but in that particular Dominion mistakes have been made with regard to tariffs, and the four provisions made by the Board of Trade in this Subsection will, I think, overcome any mistakes of that kind.
They ask, in the first place, for the quantity and value of the output, the object being, I take it, that no duty shall be given to an industry which is not warranted by the size of its output. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asks what the number of persons employed has to do with this question. I take it that, if a tariff is to be levied, one of the most important things to know is how a tariff will apply in providing employment, and bow many people are employed in the particular trade in question. Surely, we ought to accept what is workable and reasonable in the Bill. Then the particulars asked for with regard to the quantity and cost of materials used are very essential. They show how subsidiary trades may be affected, and there can be no criticism of the Government on that point.
With regard to the Amendment which asks for a return of profits, it is possible to ascertain the capital of a firm by applying to Somerset House, and exactly the same thing is possible with regard to a balance sheet. The particulars as to profits can be obtained in that way. Again, particulars as to rent, which another Amendment proposes to include, really give no serious enlightenment as to the condition of any industry. The rent may he a purely nominal charge. As regards overhead charges, I venture to say that among any half-dozen Members of the House who are in business there would be a difference of opinion as to what really constitutes overhead charges, and, therefore, I do not think that such particulars would afford any really useful guidance. I am pleased to find myself in agreement with the Government on the four specific points mentioned in the Bill, and I am afraid that I cannot lend any support to the Amendments suggested by the Opposition.
§ Mr. McENTEEThe hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) does not apear to have read Clause 9, to which these Amendments relate. The Clause deals with the power of the Board of Trade to require 121
information as to the condition and progress of trade and industries engaged in the manufacture in the 'United Kingdom"—and so on. If the object of the Board of Trade is to obtain information, surely they would desire to obtain accurate information on the points in question, and, if that be their desire, the returns ought at least to be understandable. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Government Bench said that the sole object of the Government was to ascertain the volume of production, and later on he said that, by the value which is mentioned in the Bill, he meant the selling value. But what is the selling value? There is no such thing. Any economist will tell you that. You can talk about the selling price of an article, but but to talk about its selling value is nothing but nonsense, and it was obvious to me that a later speaker, who said that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the economics of the Bill, whatever else he may have understood about it, was speaking perfectly truly.There is no such thing as the selling value of anything. It has a selling price, which varies from day to day. It is governed by circumstances, and no one can say to-day what the circumstances will be to-morrow. For instance, normal selling prices in our markets to-day are entirely different from what they were 12 months ago. The selling price is governed by a number of factors, which cannot be determined from day to day. The cost of production enters into the value of the article, but has very little to do with the price. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should go to some of the old Liberal economists, if he does not like to read the more up-to-date Socialist economists, and get some of the elementary knowledge which they give as to the meaning of price and value.
I take it that, if information is wanted, it is full and useful information that is wanted, and not only for the Board of Trade. They are not the only people concerned, and the manufacturers are not the only people concerned; the public generally ought to be, and no doubt will be, far more interested than either, and the public have a right to know some of the particulars for which we are asking here. It is my definite opinion that an attempt is being made to keep back from the public that information which they 122 have a right to expect from a Government that calls itself a National Government. Why should they not know the real cost of production? Why should they not know what are these overhead charges that firms and companies will put forward when these inquiries are being made?
Not very many years ago, I had personal knowledge of a firm of timber merchants in the city, whose overhead charges were entirely and deliberately misleading. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has referred to some of the practices that are followed in business to-day, and to what he has said I may add that in the case of the particular firm of which I am speaking, and which is still in existence, two aunts of the principals in the business were always paid a regular salary year by year, though neither of them ever visited the business or took any part at all in it. Again, there was a young nephew of the principal, who at the time of which I speak was eight years of age, but whose name was on the books and who was paid a regular salary year by year. It all went into the cost of production, or, at any rate, into the overhead charges. How is it possible to get accurate information if people do as they are doing to-day, namely, setting out deliberately to mislead in their statements and returns?
The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said that it was impossible, in the case of a business owned by an individual, to get the information sought for in the first of these four Amendments. That may be so, but is the fact that it is impossible to get it from all a reason why it should not be obtained in those cases where it can be obtained? We are not asking that company information should be obtained from individual owners of businesses, but we ask that, where a company which comes forward as a company could and ought to give this information, an effort should be made to get the information as accurately as possible. The hon. Member for South Bradford said that the information could be obtained by applying at Somerset House, where the companies are registered; but why should that be necessary? A fee has to be paid, and, although it may be a small one, unless it is paid the in- 123 formation is not available. We desire that this information shall be made public, and that the public shall know what profits are being made, what overhead charges are being charged, and how they are made up.
With regard to the items in the Bill itself the hon. Member for South Bradford says that the number of persons employed is of importance. It may be, but what is of more importance is the character of the people employed—I do not mean their personal or moral character, but whether the labour is just cheap boy labour, or whether it is adult labour. We ought to have some information as to the type of people employed, and also as to the type of wages paid, but that is another matter. I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government made no reply at all to the important facts which were put forward in support of these Amendments, but evaded them, though, if I may say so, not very successfully, and showed that, as regards part of them at any rate, he had not the slightest idea of the meaning of the terms employed in the Bill. The Bill would be very much strengthened, and the information obtained generally would be of very much greater value, if the Government accepted the Amendment.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. ELLISI think the right hon. Gentleman would get much more useful information if he altered the expression to "market values." The hon. Member who has just spoken clearly does not understand the running of private businesses. The capital in a private business may be quite nominal. He does not seem to appreciate that the real thing that one depends on in a private business is the actual capital that is behind it. It seems to a good many of us that hon. Members on the Labour benches have been putting personal questions in all these things and what they want is to get some personal information which may be used as Labour propaganda.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt seems to me that the whole of this Clause is a shocking waste of public money. I cannot understand what the Government mean by including in a Bill which is supposed to impose taxes this Clause, which has nothing whatever to do with the imposi- 124 tion of taxes. This is a Clause solely for making annual that Census of Industry which has previously been an expensive five-yearly production. It has nothing whatever to do with protected industries, and the results of the Clause cannot be used to check the industries that are being protected. An hon. Member opposite thought—and for a time I thought that he was right—that, by testing the output of some protected commodity, we could see whether they were producing enough of it to meet the demand—whether there was a supply capable of meeting the home demand—but I do not think for a moment that you could get any information that would be useful to that end out of this Clause. You could out of Clause 2. In that Clause the Commissioners can get all the information which they want about any specific article.
This Clause demands from every manufacturer in the country their total output. Take varnish. I like to take a business I know nothing about. You are asking for the total quantity, in tons presumably, of varnish produced by a certain factory. They will produce in that factory dozens of different sorts of varnish, some made of goods that are taxed coming from abroad and some not, and some articles over which they have a patent monopoly or certain rights. All you get out is the gross total in tons of all sorts of goods produced in the factory. They may produce many other things besides varnish. Go, for instance, to Imperial Chemicals, Limited. You will get the total production in quantity and value, as sold to the wholesaler, of a gigantic factory. What guide is that to the Board of Trade or the Tariff Commission or anyone else?
§ Sir A. M. SAMUELIf the right hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the Amendment a few lines later down, he will find that we are trying to provide that the word "description" shall come in. We want to have the items described.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI can assure the hon. Baronet that that Amendment will not be accepted, and I can tell him why. It would be simply intolerable to ask the manufacturer of varnish to specify the total amount and value of every sort of article that he supplies. Take the case of the industryy with which 125 I am connected. In the factory with which my name is associated we produce the best china in the world.
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSBarring Swansea.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODSwansea was the century before last. That is one portion of our product. We produce earthenware—an entirely different article. We provide what is known as old Wedgwood—white figures on a blue background. In every single one of these three departments we have at least 10,000 articles—teapots, saucers, etc., with varying patterns and every one of the articles differing in price.
§ Mr. HOLDSWORTHIs there any provision in these Amendments which will deal with the particulars that you are complaining are not given?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI am not complaining. I say it is impossible to ask any manufacturer to supply them in such detail that they would be of any use whatever. You might if you got the head of any business up before the Commission and cross-examined him about specific articles, but you will not get it under this omnibus Clause except in broad outline. I believe all these returns under the Census of Industry are confidential. They are not open to the public. The Board of Trade would not dream of passing on the return of one manufacturer to a rival. There is nothing on earth to be gained from this from the point of view of the public or of the special committee. The only people who are going to benefit are the vast army of officials at the Board of Trade who are going to spend the rest of their lives collating and building up these returns.
I ask the Committee not to let the Government take the bit between their teeth and inflict an utterly useless annual return at enormous expense upon the industries of the country. It cannot help from the point of view of Protection or of production in any way. It cannot be any sort of check upon the finance of the companies. When the Companies Act was before the House two or three years ago, the Labour party rightly pressed for a maximum amount of publicity in the interests of the shareholders and the public. They were turned down every time. But this has simply nothing whatever to do with that. This 126 is simply in order that the statisticians of the Board of Trade may add up beautiful columns at the end of the year.
Both representatives of the Board of Trade have gone, but fortunately we have the Treasury present. Might I ask whether any estimate has been formed of what the cost of this return will be to the Treasury in increased staff at the Board of Trade and increased inspection? In Sub-section (4) any person who makes a false return is liable to a fine not exceeding £50, and it goes up. Who is to discover whether they have made false returns or not? An army of inspectors, I suppose. I do not know whether the Board of Trade has considered what it means. The Census of Industry has cost a great deal in the past, for no benefit to anyone except Chiozza-Money and the statisticians. The Treasury have already made it quite clear what their opinion is of statisticians and political economists. Why, therefore, go to the expense, year after year, of doing this—compiling the figures, adding up the totals, checking the manufacturers, employing lawyers to find out when they have given incorrect returns and all the rest of it? In Subsection (7) the Board of Trade take power to get the money to an amount approved by the Treasury. Do the Treasury really approve authorising the compilation of a Census of Production year after year Have they estimated what it will cost? That is a question we may reasonably ask when we are discussing Amendments to the Schedule of questions that will be put down. When we have got, as I hope we shall get, an estimate of what it is going to cost without these Amendments, proposed from Farnborough and elsewhere—you may add what it will cost with them if you like—let us remember what it is going to cost industry itself. It will not cost much to the big firms but it will cost something to the small trader.
I should like to see the items expanded. "Quantity and value of output." Are we sure that that means only the gross quantity of all articles produced? "Quantity and cost of materials used." You do not just use raw materials. Some of the materials are partly manufactured. Are you going to distinguish between partly manufactured and raw materials? Of course, the cost varies enormously. "Quantity and cost of fuel and electricity." That will be fairly simple. 127 "Number of persons employed." What on earth is the service of the number of persons employed? It is the number of hours worked by the people who are employed that matters. Most firms' employés are working three days a week. Are those people employed? My hon. Friend the Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee) pointed out that the number of persons includes infants in arms almost—boys and girls, women and men. Are you asking solely for the number of persons employed? We do not know. In any case it is no service unless you know whether they are working full time or short time. This is not merely going to be a vast expense to the Government. I press again for a figure of the estimate and I ask whether the Treasury really contemplate putting the Clause into common use in the present parlous state of the national finances.
Secondly, we have to consider the cost to the trade of the country of providing the returns. I should have thought the fact that the Board of Agriculture are said to be fed up with complaints about the simple returns asked of farmers would not encourage the Board of Trade recklessly to embark on the asking of infinitely more serious questions from manufacturers. I hope that the representative of the Treasury when he replies will give an estimate of what it is going to cost, and, if possible, give a pledge that the Clause will not be acted upon and the expense involved incurred until the country is in a better condition to meet the expense.
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSI wish to refer to the question of overhead charges raised by my hon. Friend. I am not concerned as much as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) about production and the number of men employed, because I believe that practically every trade union in the country and all associations of employers could practically tell the number of men employed in the mining industry, the iron and steel industry, the cotton industry, the shipbuilding industry, and so on. In fact, as far as the iron and steel trade is concerned, if one went to our statistical department at Gray's Inn Road, London, he would be able to ascertain every blast furnace, every mill, every tinplate mill, 128 and every sheet mill working in the country, the number of men employed, and the number of men out of employment. The employers' associations could give exactly the same information.
I do not think that there is anything causing more trouble among the working men of the country than the question of overhead charges. You may perhaps have an employers' association coming forward to meet the leaders of the men in regard to a proposal to reduce wages, or they may be introducing some labour-saving machinery and want to reduce the wages of the men employed or reduce the number of men employed on the old machines. But the question that is always in the minds of the men is that of overhead charges. I am not going to attack families in any way. A father owning works, often employs three or four of his sons. I am simply going to use a term made use of by the ordinary man in the street. They call them the "collar-and-tie men." I am not going to attack any persons, managers or under-managers, who are called "collar-and-tie men." You may go to a particular steel works and find at least from half-a-dozen to a dozen collar-and-tie men, and you may go to a steel works in another district and only find about two collar-and-tie men. Our men go to their officials before they go into conference with the employers and point out these things. They may say: "The works cannot possibly pay their way. You have the employer. You also have half-a-dozen collar-and-tie men." These men may have motor cars, and may be married, with wives and families to keep. This sort of thing has developed in the lifetime of the men who are employed in the particular industry. They say, "When we started working here only the father was employed, but to-day you have the father and four sons employed. All these considerations enter into the overhead charges."
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThey come into the wages bill; they are not overhead charges.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSThey enter into the costs of production. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the point, not only in the interests of the men who are always complaining and grumbling that this kind of business is going on, but in view of the costs of 129 production. There are pages of evidence of this kind of business in the report of the Sankey Commission pointing out certain mines where collar-and-tie men were much in evidence.
§ Mr. LOUIS SMITHWill the hon. Member allow me to say a few words? He is saying a good deal about the collar-and-tie men, and, I understand, refers to the men who are developing progress and looking after the scientific side of the business. I happen to know of a great many factories and even steel works where the advent of even 50 per cent. more collar-and-tie men has resulted in a very much reduced cost of production. We frequently have from the opposite benches a comparison drawn as between our steel works and those on the Continent, and I believe that if the hon. Member were to go on the Continent he would find perhaps that those collar-and-tie men who worry him so were just as much in evidence there as they are here. In many factories in this country and in Germany it is a great advantage to have a further number of collar-and-tie men, because they bring science into industry and help to lower the costs of production.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSI think that I have made myself perfectly clear. I did not attack the men who work in the interests of research in laboratories or anywhere else. I made myself clear by saying that I did not attack the employer and his sons and so on. I simply call then collar-and-tie men. If hon. Members wish me to give illustrations, I will give them, but I shall have to bring persons into it, and I do not want to have to do that kind of thing. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to get into that atmosphere I can do so even as far as Members of this House are concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Go on, let us have it."] You want it, do you? You shall have it. There are even Members in this House. I remember a particular firm in South Wales which started with four tinplate mills and to-day it is in a combine which owns over 200 mills in South Wales. There are five or six sons in that family, and all those sons, and their sons are in the tinplate trade to-day.
§ Sir WILFRID SUGDENWhat is wrong with that?
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSI will tell the hon. Member what is wrong. I will give the 130 case of a tinplate works with four mills in it, and with simply one manager. I will give another tinplate works under that particular combine with four managers, sons of directors or shareholders in that particular works.
§ The CHAIRMANWill the hon. Member say how this line of argument is connected with the Amendments under discussion?
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSI am dealing with the overhead charges. These matters come into the cost of production. I am pointing out how important this matter is so far as the workmen are concerned, because they always bring these things up.
§ Major ELLIOTIs it suggested by the hon. Member that these facts would be disclosed in any way to the workmen, even if they were ascertained?
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSWhy should not they?
§ Major ELLIOTBecause anyone who did disclose them would he liable to a fine of £50.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSBut this is a matter of overhead charges. I know something about the trade with which I have been connected for the last 30 or 40 years. Let us assume that works "A" have standing charges of 15 per cent. Works "B" have standing charges of only 7½per cent. The reason for the difference is that there are two or three managers in works "A" as against only one manager in works "B." Surely, therefore, if the proprietors of works "A" go before the Committee and ask for a protective duty in their particular case, the public are interested in that, and certainly the working classes.
§ Major ELLIOTThe bon. Member has not read the Bill. If he wilt read the next Clause, he will find that:
If any person publishes or discloses any information contrary to the provisions of this section, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.Neither the hon. Member nor any of his party have put down any Amendment to modify that Clause. Therefore, however much of the information was acquired it 131 would be utterly wrong, indeed impossible under the terms of Clause 10 to disclose it for the purposes which the hon. Member has in mind.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSWhat we suggest in our Amendment is that it should be disclosed to the advisory committee.
§ Major ELLIOTThe hon. Member suggested that it should be disclosed to the workmen. He hinged part of his argument on the assertion that they had a sense of grievance and that this information should be disclosed to them. He also suggested that it should be disclosed to the public.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSAssume that the evidence was submitted to the advisory committee. The advisory committee would make certain recommendations. Therefore, I think in the interests of the public this House ought to know when the recommendations are made what is the evidence on which the recommendation submitted by the advisory committee is based.
§ Major ELLIOTIf the advisory committee did that each individual member would be subject
on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
§ Mr. GRIFFITHSI may be called to order, but I am coming definitely to the conclusion that until we have utility organisations in the different businesses, no good will be done.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Sir W. SUGDENWe have listened to a very interesting contribution from the Front Opposition Bench and also to interesting speeches from the back opposition benches. The hon. Member who has just spoken and several of his colleagues have spoken in support of their "class" statistical inquisition. We have now come to a position in organised industry when, if it is to take its place in the world, we must have the data for which the Government ask. While I would not do anything in the way of establishing a quasi-economic department purely for the amusement of quasi-economists, I realise, as does every person who has had experience of industry 132 on its proprietorial and managerial side, that it is essential, if we are to face the competition of other countries, that a great forward movement should be made in the acquiring of the certain knowledge of industry which the Government desires we should have. If the Government are to take proper steps in support of industry those facts and figures are vital. I share the desire for statistical research which has been put forward by the Opposition, but not for the purpose for which I am afraid they may desire it, for one class only: I want the whole community to benefit thereby. The hon. Member who has just spoken let the cat out of the bag. Whereas in the United States of America the trade unions work hand in hand with leadership in industry and help forward the productions of industry as a whole, one regrets that in this country some—not all—trade unions consider that they must be antagonistic to the interests of those who are endeavouring to build up industry.
I hope that the Government will do all in their power to acquire such essential statistics as shall make this venture, if it may be so called, this great tariff movement, this experiment, as some might describe it, thoroughly efficient. Never forget, it is an emergency Measure. The need for reliable statistics in regard to British industry is most urgent. We can go to the American Consulate in London or we can go to American chambers of commerce and obtain particulars in regard to the position of every industry in the world. Even figures in regard to our own industries which are not available in a Government Department, namely, the Board of Trade, can be obtained in the American Consulate in London. I hope that in the interests of the future of our country, the future of industry, the provision of work for our people and for our trade unionists, our splendid craftsmen, everything possible will be done to obtain the most accurate and the most up-to-date information affecting our industries. While we do not desire that the search for the information shall be in any way objectionably inquisitorial, or to put industries to unnecessary expense and trouble, we do desire that such information shall be obtained as shall promote the efficiency of marketing throughout the world the productions of our magnificent craftsmen, of whom, indeed, we have every reason to be proud.
Mr. HOPKIN MORRISI agree with the general sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden), but he will forgive me if I say that it has no relation to the Clause. It would be a very desirable thing to obtain statistical information in regard to the progress and condition of industry in this country, but that is not what this Clause is concerned with. This Clause is entirely foreign to the whole purpose of the Bill. Whatever views we may entertain in regard to the Bill, we must recognise that this Clause is totally unrelated to its pro- visions. Whether one is in favour of or against the imposition of tariffs, one's position is totally unaffected by this Clause. The proposed Amendments would not improve the Clause, but might make it a little worse. No Amendment could improve the Clause. The only thing to be done with it is to cut it out of the Bill altogether. It is no use amending this particular Sub-section. To what use is the information to be put when it has been gathered? There is no provision in the Clause which indicates what use the Board of Trade is going to make of it. Is it to be placed before the Advisory Committee? What use is the Board of Trade going to make of the information after it has been demanded from various companies, after they have issued these forms, in any manner they think fit, because they can issue them to individuals and to groups of trades, to anybody they like—
§ Sir W. SUGDENThe hon. and learned Member will understand that if there is to be a meticulous inquiry into every department of industry it would never end, and would be quite useless for the purpose of this great change. All that is desired is to obtain information of certain industries and groups of industries which thereby will save the Treasury expense and give the Board of Trade the information they desire.
§ The CHAIRMANI must remind hon. Members generally that we are not now discussing the Clause. We are discussing certain proposed additions to the information which it is proposed to ask.
Mr. MORRISThe Amendment specifies additional information which is to be demanded; the Amendments vary the actual items set out in the Bill, and suggest that information should be asked in that form. In this connection it is 134 relevant to know to what use this information is going to be put, otherwise it is impossible to determine the relevancy of these items.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member is quite right up to a certain point and I have allowed him to proceed, but when he discusses generally whether it is advisable to obtain this information or not, he is going outside the Amendment.
§ Mr. HANNONIs it not obvious that the information is to enable the objects of the Bill to be carried out?
Mr. MORRISThis Clause does not enable the Board of Trade to utilise this information in any way. The Board of Trade may utilise it by giving it to the Advisory Committee, who are to make recommendations with regard to the orders to be made, but there is no provision for the utilisation of this information before the Advisory Committee make an order. If there was a provision for the Board of Trade to make an order on the information which is provided by this inquiry I could understand it. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the Bill, but the logical purpose of this information. There is nothing in the Bill to show what the Board of Trade is going to do with this information after it has been provided.
§ Sir W. SUGDENI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again—
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid I must interrupt both hon. Members. It is quite obvious that the hon. and learned Member is getting on to the principle of the Clause and away from the particular Amendment. For the purposes of this discussion he has to assume that the Clause will require information of some sort to be given, and he can only discuss what information shall be provided.
Mr. MORRISI have not the slightest desire to transgress the rules of order. There is only one point upon which I should like some information. The Board of Trade is going to ask for information relating to the quantity and value of output, to the quantity and cost of materials used, to the quantity and cost of fuel and electricity consumed, and to the number of persons employed. When the Board of Trade has obtained information relative to all these items—
§ Major ELLIOTMay I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman. If I answer the hon. and learned Member I shall be out of order. He is asking what use the Board of Trade propose to make of this information, and is doing so before we have even considered the Clause itself. It is quite impossible for me to reply to the discussion and keep in order.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member will no doubt appreciate, after what the Financial Secretary has said, that he is really transgressing the rules of debate.
Mr. MORRISIf it is more convenient for me to make my observations on the question of the Clause standing part I accept it. Let me take one item, the quantity and value of output, as a specimen. In what form will the Board of Trade seek that information? Take one instance, a huge company with many concerns carrying on different kinds of industries, a concern like Imperial Chemicals. Are you going to ask that company for the quantity and value of output?
§ Major ELLIOTI do not wish to limit the hon. Member, but I should like to make an appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on the limited point before us, as to whether these four items should be added to in the manner proposed by the Opposition, then we can discuss the wider question, which the Committee obviously desires to discuss, and indeed has been discussing for some time—the question as to whether any information should be required at all. It should be possible to dispose of this relatively small point, and then we can discuss on the question that the Clause stand part, whether any information should be demanded at all.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODUntil we know what details are to be asked for under these four general headings we cannot tell whether the Amendments suggested by the Opposition are practical or not.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is the point. We may discuss the details now, but the question as to whether any information should be demanded at all should he discussed when the question is put that the Clause stand part.
Mr. MORRISIn that case I will reserve my remarks. The real question is the relevancy of this Clause to the Bill.
§ Mr. MANDERI desire to make a few remarks which I think will have some relevancy to the question before the Committee. There is, I think, a case for arguing that further information should be required. The Clause is not very relevant to the Bill; it seems to have been taken out of something else—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now doing exactly what the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) did, and what he himself said he would not do.
§ Mr. MANDERI quite agree. My point is this. I am not so much interested in the four proposals in the Subsection, but there is something to be said for including a provision with regard to profits. We are told that there is to be no increase, or at any rate very little, in prices. It seems to me that it might be very useful to the Board of Trade, if they found that in a particular case, as a result of putting on a particular tariff in a certain industry, prices had gone up considerably, to be able to check the trade by asking for information from it as to the amount of profit that was being made. For that purpose it would be useful to have this Amendment embodied in the Clause. It will be noticed that the word in the Clause is "may," not "shall," and that the Board of Trade can exercise discretion in every case. It can ask for information in the one or two or three cases that may occur in the course of a year. It has been suggested that this information can be got already from Somerset House. That is not so. Private companies would not be covered at all. The Amendment is a sound one. It will do something to make a reality of the aspirations of the Lord President of the Council, who said that when a protective system was brought in by his party it would not have as one of its objects or results the making of this country into a profiteers' paradise.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSI beg to move, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) The rent of land or premises.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 248.
139| Division No. 76.] | AYES. | [8.48 p.m. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, George H (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Briant, Frank | Hicks, Ernest George | Maxton, James |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Hirst, George Henry | Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) |
| Cape, Thomas | Janner, Barnett | Owen, Major Goronwy |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | John, William | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Price, Gabriel |
| Daggar, George | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Thorne, William James |
| Edwards, Charles | Lawson, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) | Leonard, William | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lunn, William | |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McEntee, Valentine L. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | McKeag, William | Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr. |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Groves. |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Dickie, John P. | Kirkpatrick, William M. |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Drewe, Cedric | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) | Duggan, Hubert John | Leckie, J. A. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Lewis, Oswald |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Ellis, Robert Geoffrey | Liddall, Walter S. |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Elmley, Viscount | Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R, |
| Balniel, Lord | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | Mabane, William |
| Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) |
| Barclay-Harvey C. M. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Fuller, Captain A. G. | McCorquodale, M. S. |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Ganzoni, Sir John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | McEwen, J. H. F. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | McKie, John Hamilton |
| Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) | Glossop, C. W. H. | McLean, Major Alan |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Gluckstein, Louis Halle | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) |
| Blindell, James | Goldie, Noel B. | Magnay, Thomas |
| Borodale, Viscount | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Makins Brigadier-General Ernest |
| Boulton, W. W. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald | Greene, William P. C. | Marjoribanks, Edward |
| Bracken, Brendan | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Gunston, Captain D. w. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Guy, J. C. Morrison | Millar, Sir James Duncan |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) | Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Burghley, Lord | Hanbury, Cecil | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Hanley, Dennis A. | Moreing, Adrian C. |
| Burnett, John George | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) |
| Burton, Colonel Henry Walter | Hartland, George A, | Moss, Captain H. J. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) | Monro, Patrick |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) | Nunn, William |
| Cassels, James Dale | Hillman, Dr. George B. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh |
| Castle Stewart, Earl | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) | Pearson, William G. |
| Chalmers, John Rutherford | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Peat, Charles U. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) | Hopkinson, Austin | Penny, Sir George |
| Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Perkins, Walter R. D. |
| Clarke, Frank | Howard, Tom Forrest | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) |
| Clayton, Dr. George C. | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Purbrick, R. |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Hurd, Percy A. | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Cooke, James D. | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Ramsay, Alexander (W, Bromwich) |
| Craven-Ellis, William | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Ramsbotham, Herwald |
| Cross, R. H. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Ramsden, E. |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Rankin, Robert |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) | Ker, J. Campbell | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Kimball, Lawrence | Remer, John R. |
| Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. | Thompson, Luke |
| Renwick, Major Gustav A. | Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.) | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip | Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n A Kinc'dine.C.) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Robinson, John Roland | Smith-Carington, Neville W. | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| Ropner, Colonel L, | Somerset, Thomas | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Rosbotham, S. T. | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Runge, Norah Cecil | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Spencer, Captain Richard A. | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour- |
| Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) | Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Rutherford, Sir John Hugo | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. sir Arthur | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) | Stones, James | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart | Storey, Samuel | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard | Strauss, Edward A. | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Savery, Samuel Servington | Strickland, Captain W. F. | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Scone, Lord | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Selley, Harry R. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Sutcliffe, Harold | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.) | |
| Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) | Templeton, William P. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) | Mr. Womersley and Commander |
| Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast) | Thomas, Ma)or U. B. (King's Norton) | Southby. |
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI beg to move, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) The profits.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 258.
141| Division No. 77.] | AYES. | [8.57 p.m. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grundy, Thomas W. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot |
| Briant, Frank | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Brown, c. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Harris, Sir Percy | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Cape, Thomas | Hicks, Ernest George | Maxton, James |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hirst, George Henry | Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Holdsworth, Herbert | Owen, Major Goronwy |
| Daggar, George | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Price, Gabriel |
| Edwards, Charles | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) | Lawson, John James | Thorne, William James |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Leonard, William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lunn, William | |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | McEntee, Valentine L. | Mr. Croves and Mr. John. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) | Burghley, Lord | Dickie, John p. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Drewe, Cedric |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Burnett, John George | Duggan, Hubert John |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Burton, Colonel Henry Walter | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Butt, Sir Alfred | Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Ellis, Robert Geoffrey |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Elliston, Captain George Sampson |
| Balniel, Lord | Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Elmley, Viscount |
| Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell | Cassels, James Dale | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Castle Stewart, Earl | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Chalmers, John Rutherford | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) | Fuller, Captain A. G. |
| Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) | Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Clarke, Frank | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton |
| Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) | Clayton, Dr. George C. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Glossop, C. W. H. |
| Blindell, James | Colfox, Major William Philip | Gluckstein, Louis Halle |
| Borodale, Viscount | Conant, R. J. E. | Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. |
| Boulton, W.W. | Cook, Thomas A. | Goldie, Noel B. |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Craven-Ellis, William | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald | Crooke, J. Smedley | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas |
| Bracken, Brendan | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Graves, Marjorie |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Croom-Johnson, R. p. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Cross, R. H. | Greene, William P. C. |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Grimston, R. V. |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Magnay, Thomas | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Guy, J. C. Morrison | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Marjoribanks, Edward | Scone, Lord |
| Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Selley, Harry R. |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Martin, Thomas B. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Hanbury, Cecil | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Millar, Sir James Duncan | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Hartland, George A. | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) | Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast) |
| Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) | Milne, John Sydney Ward law- | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Mitchell, sir w. Lane (Streatham) | Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.) |
| Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmstord) | Moreing, Adrian C. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Hillman, Dr. George B. | Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Somerset, Thomas |
| Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) | Moss, Captain H. J. | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Munro, Patrick | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Hortbrugh, Florence | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Spears, Brigadier-General El-ward L. |
| Howard, Tom Forrest | Nunn, William | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | O'Connor, Terence James | Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Palmer, Francis Noel | Stones, James |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Peake, Captain Osbert | Storey, Samuel |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pearson, William G. | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas w. H. | Peat, Charles U. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Penny, Sir George | Stuart, Hon. I. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) | Satellite, Harold |
| Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. | Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A,(P'dd'gt'n,S.) |
| Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Templeton, William P. |
| Ker, J. Campbell | Purbrick, R, | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Kerr, Hamilton W. | Pybus, Percy John | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Kirkpatrick, William M. | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Thompson, Luke |
| Knight, Holford | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Leckie, J. A. | Ramsbotham, Herwald | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Ramsden, E. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Lewis, Oswald | Rankin, Robert | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Liddall, Walter S. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) | Warrender, Sir Victor A, G. |
| Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Remer, John R. | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour- |
| Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Rentoul, Sir Gervais S. | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Renwick, Major Gustav A. | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Mabane, William | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) | Robinson, John Roland | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Ropner, Colonel L. | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| McCorquodale, M. S. | Rosbotham, S. T. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Wise, Alfred R, |
| McEwen, J. H. F. | Runge, Norah Cecil | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| McKie, John Hamilton | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | |
| McLean, Major Alan | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo | Mr. Womersley and Commander |
| Southby. |
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
§ In page 9, line 9, after the word "The", to insert the word "description."—[Sir A. M. Samuel.]
§ Sir A. M. SAMUELHaving received an assurance that the point raised in this and a consequential Amendment is covered by the wording of the Clause, I do not intend to move them.
§ Mr. GORDON MACDONALDI beg to move, in page 9, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
showing separately the quantity and cost of such materials which were imported.The object of the Amendment is to make paragraph (b) a little more perfect 142 than it is at present. In the material used, there may be some imported and some that is made here, and we feel that it would he far better if the information given separated the two. You might find 75 per cent, of the material used British made and 25 per cent. foreign made, and there are many cases to show that it is vital, in our opinion, for the Board of Trade to be able to ascertain what is the difference. You might have a low percentage of the materials used imported, but costing more than the materials of British make, and if the Board of Trade are to gain anything by this information, the information given to them ought to separate the two. If they could say that the materials used cost, say, £1,000,000, and that £250,000 of, 143 it had been spent on foreign made materials, that would be some guide to them as to the action they should take. All that we want is to make paragraph (b) a little more useful to the Board of Trade. We agree entirely with the paragraph, but we feel that the Board of Trade itself would benefit by the addition of these words. We do not intend arguing the Amendment, but we hope it will be accepted.
§ Major ELLIOTWe are much indebted to the hon. Member for the cursory and courteous way in which he has put the Amendment, and I hope he will not consider me discourteous if I ask him to consider whether it would be in fact helpful, as he suggests, since a great many firms do not know offhand whether the materials they are purchasing are imported or home produced. They are often bought from merchants. You could find out this information, but it would add enormously to the imposition, it would add to the cost, it would add to the difficulty, and it would delay the usefulness of the return; and as the hon. Member knows very well, often promptitude in getting hold of a, return is quite as important as the fullness of the return when made. Therefore, I hope he will not press the Amendment.
§ Sir P. HARRISI understand that the purpose of the return is to enable us to judge of the working of a particular tariff, to find out, for example, whether, as a result of foreign goods not coming in, the public are being exploited by unduly high prices. It seems to me that a manufacturer might find that his prices of production had gone up owing to the fact of foreign yarns having to be used. In the hosiery trade, for instance, a great number of hosiery manufacturers have imported a large number of foreign yarns, and if there is a 50 per cent. duty on foreign yarns, a considerable increase in the price might follow. Then there would be an agitation by people like myself who are Free Traders to have the duty withdrawn, though, as a matter of fact, the particular cloth or hosiery manufacturers might not have got any profit, the raising of the price being due to the fact of his raw material being a manufactured article that was subject to the tax. That example could be multiplied by the thousand. In order to see 144 what advantage is taken of these tariffs by the manufacturer, it is very advisable to have this Amendment. I think the information would be given in practice, but it should be as full as possible, and particularly it should show where the cause of high prices was due to the fact that the raw material or semi-manufactured material was being taxed.
§ Mr. J. WALLACEI hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I am not very much in favour of the Clause at all, because I think that the less inquisitorial the Board of Trade is, the better it will be for the Board of Trade and for the manufacturers. We want as little as possible of bureaucratic control of industry.
§ The CHAIRMANI think perhaps the hon. Member was not in the House some time ago when I pointed out that hon. Members must not talk about the Clause generally, but must confine their remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.
§ Mr. WALLACEAll that I wish to add is a confirmation of what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, to the effect that to call for these particulars as to what is produced at home and what abroad would be to put an unfair burden on the manufacturers of this country.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI beg to move, in page 9, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
(e) The quantity and value of goods sold for export and the countries to which they were exported.This Amendment is on very much the same lines as the last one, and I do not propose to delay the Committee at any length with it. But it seems to us again that one of the most material things to know, when you are dealing with the value and quantity of the output, is the destination and distribution of the goods, whether it is output for export or for sales in the home market. That is a matter which the manufacturer will know in practically every case. There might be cases where he would not know, and then it would be a sale for the home market, but export sales he would clearly know, because otherwise they would not fall within the definition of export sales. It seems to us that either this Clause will provide useful information which will be 145 valuable to the Board of Trade for future needs, or else it is merely laying down the few matters that are there and will be quite useless afterwards.
§ Major ELLIOTAgain I would ask the hon. and learned Member to consider that in many cases a manufacturer would sell to a merchant, and if he were to return that as a home sale, it would give quite a misleading picture of the industry; and, furthermore, that you have the trade returns, which give you the value of the exports. Therefore, I hope that in this case also he will not find it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. RAMSDENI beg to move, in page 9, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
(e) The number of machine units forming the equipment in industries where the machine, unit is a significant measure of capacity.This Amendment is intended to get information which will be of real value to industry. In 1924, the Home Office inquired into the number of principal machine units comprising various textile industries, with benefit to the industries concerned. After the passing of the Census of Production Act these duties were handed over to the Board of Trade, but, unfortunately, I understand they did not consider that their powers entitled them to ask for information with regard to such important machine units as combs, looms, carding engines and other textile machines of that sort. Attempts have been made to obtain this information, but unfortunately they have failed. The idea of the industry is that these powers should be granted to the Board of Trade, and that if they made use of them the Board would be able to supply the industry with information which would really be valuable to-day. Since 1904 they do not know whether the machinery in the industry has increased or decreased. That is an unfortunate position, and if they were placed in possession of the facts it would be of real help to them.
§ Mr. HANNONWill it not rather hamper the operation of the Bill if too much is imposed on the investigation that is to be made for the purposes of the Board of Trade? Surely the information 146 is required to enable the Department to determine the relative competition of industry in this country and of industry abroad. We are not asking for the information to enable industry in this country to have a full knowledge of its internal capacity for production; we need it in order that we may protect industry in this country from unfair competition from abroad.
§ Major ELLIOTI have every sympathy with the Amendment, which I understand has had the consideration of some of the trade associations concerned, but I would ask my hon. Friend whether there is not a danger of overloading the inquiry which we are about to make. I think that there is a definite danger in that. Although it is very desirable to have a census of machinery, are these the proper powers under which to procure it? Statistics would have to be collected in considerable detail; they would have to take account of types of machines, capacity, age and so on, and the work involved would be of a very intricate character. This is more in the line of the work of trade associations than the work of the Board of Trade. Consider this point. Statistics would have to be taken of machinery in factories which have been closed down during the year. The powers under Clause 9 would not enable the Board of Trade to obtain information in respect of such machines in factories. In this case, as in so many others, the best is the enemy of the good. We are trying to get information to enable us to work this emergency scheme—
§ Mr. HANNONEmergency scheme?
§ Major ELLIOTWe are putting through an emergency scheme for the present difficulty. I am not discussing what we are going to do hereafter, but at the present moment we are discussing a Clause which in many parts of the Committee has already aroused the suspicion that it is going too far. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether it is wise to load it further. The sense of the Committee seems to be rather apprehensive that too much is being asked of industry rather than too little. Therefore we should not press the matter too far, and I hope that this explanation will make it possible for my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
§ Sir P. HARRISAn important statement has just been made by the Financial Secretary. He has told us that this is an emergency scheme, and he made that his argument against this Amendment. Let me remind the Committee that the words in this Clause are
before the commencement of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-three.It has nothing to do with the emergency. This Amendment has to do with the working of the proposals in the Bill, and I hope that it will not be turned down on the ground that this is an emergency scheme, for that is humbug. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) is more honest; he is quite clear about it. This is a permanent change in our tariff system.
§ Major ELLIOTIf the hon. Member does not think that it is going to be an emergency to get a full-blown tariff in operation in this country in one and a half years I do. Anyone with experience of departmental administration knows that this will entail close attention and an enormous extra work on the part of the Department, and the first to complain if it was not done would be the hon. Member who is pressing us to collect more statistics than the machine can possibly get.
§ Sir P. HARRISI only want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be sincere with the Committee, and to make it clear that this does not pretend to be an emergency scheme.
§ Mr. RAMSDENI am sorry that the Financial Secretary has not been willing to accept my Amendment because it would have been very valuable to the industry. They can only obtain the information through official channels, and it would have been of real value to the Advisory Committee. However, in view of the right hen. and gallant Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI beg to move in page 9, line 15, to leave out the words, "manner required by," and to insert instead thereof the words, "accordance with."
This is a very small Amendment to provide that the form shall not only be filled up in the manner required, but within the 148 period required. The period was omitted, and the words "accordance with" will meet that point.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir A. M. SAMUELI beg to move in page 9, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:
and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.I move this Amendment simply to bring the Clause in accordance with Sub-section (2) of the following Clause. I think that it will be necessary to make that alteration, but, if the wording does not quite appeal to my right hon. Friend, perhaps he will on Report see if he ran meet me by finding words which will bring the two Clauses together in their application.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI am much obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to this matter. He is quite right; the wording will require a hale alteration, and I will look into it between now and the Report stage.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESThe Committee has now reached the final consideration of Clause 9, and I do not think that we should allow the Clause to pass without one or two comments upon it. The Committee will notice that there has not been a single change in the Clause. Not a line has been altered except one or two words moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. All that is in spite of the fact that we on these benches have put forward several Amendments which we thought were very pertinent to the Clause. I was very pleased to hear the short speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace), who followed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). The purport of their remarks may be summed up in this way—that Clause 9 is not necessary in the Bill at all. We on these benches will go into the Lobby in order to try to delete this Clause from the Bill altogether.
What does the Clause really purport to do? The Government want more information. I was very interested to hear 149 from the statement made to the Committee by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who suggested that the information required in this Clause would be after the event, when the duties had actually been imposed, in order to find out exactly what was happening in the several industries. That is not quite clear in the Clause itself. I hope the Committee will pardon me if I repeat one or two statements I have already made. The country was told during the General Election that we were to have a tariff system because the Government were very much concerned about unemployment, low wages and bad labour conditions. That, indeed, was the main reason for the birth of this Measure. If we take the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite during the election, what provisions ought to have been included in this Clause? Not an inquiry as to the amount of the commodities produced, nor the quantity and cost of fuel and electricity consumed. The first item of inquiry in accordance with the promises made at the General Election should have been as to whether the wages paid in these industries were such as to warrant the imposition of a tariff to protect them, to prevent wages becoming lower still. Here we have a Clause to make inquiries about all conceivable matters except the one thing that was promised, namely, as to the wages and conditions of the workers. What is the use of finding employment for all the workers in this country if their wages are to be reduced to a level where they cannot live a decent life on them? I do not for a moment believe that these tariffs are going to find employment at all.
9.30 p.m.
We on these benches are very disturbed because an inquiry into the conditions of labour of the workpeople is not to be made under this Clause. The balance of trade is important, and the value of the pound is important, too, but surely the wages of the working people in these protected industries are as important as anything else? There has been a statement made that some trade union leaders abroad—and there has been a suggestion that even in this country there are some Labour leaders also—who would be willing to have a tariff imposed provided they could be assured that the tariff would safeguard the interests of the workpeople. Let me make this statement about what 150 has happened in this country. We have lived long enough to see in this country several trades safeguarded under the Safeguarding of Industries provisions, and, except in one case, those safeguards never helped the workpeople by one-halfpenny per hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is there any hon. Gentleman who will stand up and say it has? [HON. MEMBERS: "Motors, paper, lace and glove industries!"] The cutlery trade in. Sheffield was safeguarded for five years. I give that as one instance. I am assured by the trade union concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—surely they know better than some hon. Members here?
Let me repeat a classic example. A woman employed in the Sheffield cutlery trade at 21 years of age and over, after five years of Safeguarding, is paid 23s. a week. That figure is lower than any point in the trade boards' scales of any industry in the land. The trade boards were set up in order to prevent sweating. I am assured that low conditions apply to sections of the silk industry in Macclesfield as well. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) was not here last night; I am glad he is here now.
§ Mr. L. SMITHMay I ask if the hon. Gentleman will explain the reason why 6,000 operatives in the cutlery industry petitioned this House for the Safeguarding Duty to be allowed to continue for a further five years, seeing that be says Safeguarding has done nothing for the cutlery industry?
§ Mr. DAVIESThose workpeople were probably misled by their employers. They are not the first workpeople to be so misled, and if any body of workpeople in this land have been induced to believe that this Bill is going to give them an increase of wages, they will find out in less than 12 months that the statement cannot be borne out in fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"] We have been waiting and seeing a long time, and wages have declined steadily during the last five or six years.
§ Major BEAUMONT THOMASParticularly in the last two years.
§ Mr. DAVIESHon. Gentlemen say the introduction of these duties will improve wages. The history of tariffs in every country in Europe—and it has been proved by the best authorities in the 151 world—is that where you have a tariff system in operation, whatever else it has done—and it may help certain industries—it has not helped the workpeople or the wage-earners.
§ Mr. HANNONOn a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the object of this Clause is to empower the Board of Trade to require information, and that it does not raise the question of tariffs in other countries?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have been thinking that the hon. Member was getting rather wide of the Clause.
§ Mr. DAVIESI was asking, with due deference to the hon. Member that we should secure information about what is more important than anything else to the workpeople, and that is the wages they have to live upon. Hon. Members do not like to talk about wages now. Before this Bill appeared they told the work-people "We will give you tariffs, and that will mean good wages and decent conditions of labour." We have a really genuine complaint against the Government for not including in this Measure an inquiry into the conditions of labour of the workpeople.
§ Mr. REMERThe hon. Member a few moments ago said he would make some remarks in reference to Macclesfield, and I should be glad if he will tell me what they were.
§ Mr. DAVIESThe information about Macclesfield is this, that the safeguarding of the silk industry in the Macclesfield area did not improve the conditions of the workpeople.
§ Mr. REMERMay I inform the hon. Member that the silk industry is not safeguarded at all. There are taxes on the raw material, but that trade at the present time has got no protection of any kind.
§ Mr. DAVIESI hope to prove to the hon. Gentleman, in due course, and I hope on the Floor of this House, that he is wrong in regard to this industry. [Horn. MEMBERS "Why not now?"] The wages of the workpeople in some of the industries which are probably to be protected under this Bill are declining rapidly, and if the Committee will bear with me I will mention one or two 152 instances. One difficulty with which I am confronted in dealing with this problem is that we do not know which industries are actually going to be protected. For example, is the cement manufacturing industry—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member cannot go into the whole question of tariffs on this Clause; and I would remind the Committee, also, that there are other important Amendments to be dealt with this evening.
§ Mr. DAVIESI will conclude by saying that I agree entirely with the statement of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that this Clause is not necessary for the working of this Measure. It could be administered without it and I was very pleased to learn from a prominent business man that this Clause will be regarded as very irritating to business men. Having said that, I feel sure that I can carry every Member on this side of the Committee, and maybe a few of those below the Gangway, to vote against the Clause.
Mr. HOPKIN MORRISWhatever may be the merits or demerits of this Bill, the unfortunate thing about this Clause is that it has no relation to the Bill. The Clause provides that the Board of Trade may send out a form demanding information either from whole trades, or persons engaged in those trades, or from sections of a trade, or from individuals in any given trade, and it specifies the information that will he required. Companies and individuals will be put to great expense and trouble in providing the information, and, after all, it will be of no value for the purposes of this Bill. I am not arguing whether it is a desirable thing to impose duties upon commodities coming into this country. The question is whether the information to be sought under this Clause will assist the working of this Bill. After the information has been obtained, all that the Clause provides for is that it shall be tabled in this House; apart from that it will be valueless. Clause 2 sets up an advisory committee which can call evidence and make recommendations. That is evidence which is being used for a specific purpose. Under this Clause the companies are to be put to great expense to provide additional 153 information which is not to be used for any purpose at all except to be laid on the Table of this House. There can be no justification for putting companies to such expense and trouble for a useless purpose.
The only reason that I can conceive for inserting this Clause in the Bill is the argument put forward by those who are concerned about the condition of the workers, that no protection should be given to an industry unless it shows that it is doing its best, so that we shall not protect inefficient industries. If there were a provision in the Bill to enable the Board of Trade to see that these industries were efficiently conducted I could understand the purpose of the Clause, but there is no such provision. All the information will do is to fill an additional Blue Book, which no one will ever read, adding to the cost of running the Department and adding to the cost of running all the industries of the country; and all to no purpose. For those reasons, I hope the Government will reconsider the Clause and cut it out.
§ Mr. LEWISI think the discussion on this Clause has already gone on so long that the Committee are getting rather tired of it. May I make a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He has already undertaken to reconsider the powers given in Clause 2, Sub-sections (7) and (8). Could he not at the same time consider this Clause with a fresh mind in conjunction with that one and see to what extent it might be possible, perhaps, to dispense at any rate with some of these powers? If he would give some such assurance it would probably satisfy the Committee and we could pass on to something else.
§ Mr. ATTLEEWe have put down Amendments to this Clause in an endeavour to make it a really effective instrument, and 5o that the Committee could have an opportunity of taking a broad survey of the economic situation of the country. The Government have not accepted any further Amendment, and as the Clause now stands we are inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. H. Morris) that in practice it will be useless. There is not enough information in it, and as it is quite clear that the Government do not intend to 154 make use of this Clause as an effective instrument, we propose to vote against it.
§ Major ELLIOTI think, with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), that the Committee has discussed this Clause so long that it is getting a little bored, and therefore I want to say, first of all, that we most readily give the assurance that he seeks, not that we shall consider this Clause in itself, for he will realise that there is no time for that, but that the Chancellor will naturally consider very carefully before the Board of Trade issues a demand for information which will throw an extra burden upon an industry. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will be satisfied.
Two points were raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughten (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. H. Morris). The first complained that no attempt was being made to inquire into the vital question of wages. Let me point out to him that inquiries into wages have been held, and are continually being held. An inquiry is being held at this moment by the appropriate Department of the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour in 1924 received 127,000 returns which gave particulars of the wages paid to over 5,000,000 workers, In 1928 they got 51,000 employers to whom inquiries were addressed, and approximately 40,000 furnished returns, covering 4,000,000 work-people. Of 110,000 employers to whom application has been made for the purpose of the inquiry now in progress, nearly 70,000 made returns, and more are coming in every day.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESIt is a fact, is it not, that under this Measure the Committee will not be entitled to consider those facts?
§ Major ELLIOTThe Committee will be entitled to consider those facts. This is not the hon. Member's lucky evening. The Committee, I assure him, will he entitled to consider those facts, and other facts coming under Clause 2. In certain industries, for instance the cotton industry in which he is interested, in the wool, worsted, pottery, and the boot and shoe industries, in which he is also interested, the Ministry of Labour receive monthly returns, and the information for which the hon. Member is asking is there- 155 fore entirely unnecessary; it is being covered in the proper way by the proper Department. To get the information he wants would be to overload this inquiry, and to make the figures that were obtained too late for any deduction to be drawn from them.
The hon. Member for Cardigan said that there was no reason for this Clause and that he could not imagine why it was put in, except at the will of the bureaucrats, who always desired to extend their power. Let me point out to him that the information authorised by the Clause was asked for not by bureaucrats but by business men. It was asked for by the Committee on Industry and Trade under the signature of men like Sir Arthur Balfour and Sir Harry Goschen, Sir Norman Hill, the shipping magnate, Sir John Hindley, Sir Clare Lees, Mr. Pybus, and now more familiar to us in this House in another association, Mr. Arthur Shaw, representing the woollen industry from the Labour point of view, Sir Allan Smith, Chairman of the Engineering Employers' Federation, and Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith. It is not possible for us to dismiss requests for this information made by those authorities, when there is an opportunity of obtaining it.
Mr. H. MORRISI had not said anything about it not being desirable to obtain information for a scientific tariff. That is one thing. What provision is there, in the present case, when you have obtained this information, desired by all these eminent gentlemen, for using that information for the purposes of the tariff?
§ Major ELLIOTI can assure the hon. Member that we do not intend to obtain this information and then, as he says, seal it up in blue books which nobody will look at. It will be the duty of the Tariff Committee to use these facts, the collection of which he alleges is already covered by Clause 2. It is not covered by Clause 2. The difference between Clause 2 and the present Clause is that Clause 2 will cover a specific demand made in writing to a certain person, but this Clause covers information published in certain journals, and the machinery applicable to one is not applicable to the
§ other. In view of the fact that this information was asked for by the Committee on Industry and Trade and the Committee on Finance and Industry, and under the hand and seal of eminent business authorities, and not under the hand and seal of politicians and civil servants, he will perhaps consider that the point that he made is to some extent dealt with. I would like to ask hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to consider the information I have given as to the compilation of the inquiry. The Department of the Ministry of Labour, whose special responsibility it is, is following and tracing these matters, which it would be altogether out of place to put in a Clause like this.
§ Mr. CHARLES BROWNI have listened with very great interest to the discussion on this Clause, and nothing has surprised me more than the docility of the Government supporters in regard to it. A little while ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did see the red light when one of the hon. Members below the Gangway belonging to his own party moved an Amendment which was subsequently rejected. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. British industry is on its hands and knees, begging Parliament to give it Protection. When, in moving Amendments to this Clause, we seek to have further information which we think desirable in the interests of the general well-being of the community, that information is refused to us. It ought to be distinctly understood that when British industry comes to Parliament and begs for Protection in the way it is now doing, it is the right of Parliament to insist that all necessary information for the general well-being of the community in the future in regard to the operation of British industry shall be at the disposal of Parliament. From that point of view, we on these benches have every reason to be very hostile indeed to the reception which has been given by the Government this afternoon to Amendments.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 43.
159| Division No. 78.] | AYES. | [9.54 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) | Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S. | Aske, Sir Robert William |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Atholl, Duchess of |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Fermoy, Lord | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | McLean, Major Alan |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Magnay, Thomas |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest |
| Balniel, Lord | Gibson, Charles Granville | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Glossop, C. W. H. | Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Marjoribanks, Edward |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Bernays, Robert | Goldie, Noel B. | Martin, Thomas B. |
| Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn) | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Gower, Sir Robert | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Millar, Sir James Duncan |
| Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) | Graves, Marjorie | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Borodale, Viscount | Greene, William P. C. | Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw- |
| Bossom, A. C. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Grimston, R. V. | Mitcheson, G. G. |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Boyce, H, Leslie | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Moreing, Adrian C. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald | Guy, J. C. Morrison | Moss, Captain H. J. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Munro, Patrick |
| Briant, Frank | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | North, Captain Edward T. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hammersley, Samuel S. | Nunn, William |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hanbury, Cecil | O'Connor, Terence James |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hanley, Dennis A. | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh |
| Burghley, Lord | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Harris, Sir Percy | Patrick, Colin M. |
| Burnett, John George | Hartland, George A. | Peake, Captain Osbert |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) | Pearson, William G. |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Peat, Charles U. |
| Caine, G. R. Hall- | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Penny, Sir George |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Perkins, Walter R. D. |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) | Petherick, M. |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilston) |
| Cassels, James Dale | Hillman, Dr. George B. | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl | Holdsworth, Herbert | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Purbrick, R. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Pybus, Percy John |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Hornby, Frank | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Chalmers, John Rutherford | Horobin, Ian M. | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) | Horsbrugh, Florence | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Howard, Tom Forrest | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Chotzner, Alfred James | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Ramsbotham, Herwald |
| Clarke, Frank | Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hackney, N.) | Ramaden, E. |
| Clayton, Dr. George C. | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Rankin, Robert |
| Clydesdale, Marquess of | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Raid, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) | Renter, John R. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Rentout, Sir Gervais S. |
| Conant, R. J. E. | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. | Renwick, Major Gustav A. |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip |
| Cooke, James D. | Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Robinson, John Roland |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Ker, J. Campbell | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Kerr, Hamilton W. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Cross, R. H. | Kirkpatrick, William M. | Rosbotham, S. T. |
| Crassley, A. C. | Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Knight, Holford | Rungs, Norah Cecil |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Leckie, J. A. | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Dickie, John P. | Leighton, Major B. E. p. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Dormer, P. W. | Liddall, Walter S. | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Drewe, Cedric | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Duckworth, George A. V. | Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Scone, Lord |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n) | Selley, Harry R. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Ellis, Robert Geoffrey | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Mabane, William | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Elmley, Viscount | MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) | Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast) |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | McCorguodale, M. S. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.) |
| Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | McEwen, J. H. F. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) | McKie, John Hamilton | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Somerset, Thomas | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour- |
| Somervell, Donald Bradley | Sutcliffe, Harold | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.) | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Templeton, William P. | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Soper, Richard | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. | Thompson, Luke | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Spencer, Captain Richard A. | Thorp, Linton Theodore | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Touche, Gordon Cosmo | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Stones, James | Turton, Robert Hugh | Womersley, Walter James |
| Storey, Samuel | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Stourton, Hon. John J. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) | |
| Strauss, Edward A. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Strickland, Captain W. F. | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) | Commander Southby and Mr. |
| Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. | Blindell. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hicks, Ernest George | Maxton, James |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Hirst, George Henry | Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Owen, Major Goronwy |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Dagger, George | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Price, Gabriel |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Lawson, John James | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Leonard, William | Thorns, William James |
| Edwards, Charles | Logan, David Gilbert | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lunn, William | Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | McEntee, Valentine L. | |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Mr. John and Mr. Groves. |
Motion made and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.