HC Deb 05 July 1932 vol 268 cc382-409

I beg to move: That the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Order, 1932, dated the 8th day of June, 1932, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 10th day of June, 1932, be approved. The two Orders on the Paper tabled by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have a closely related subject matter and I trust that Mr. Speaker will agree that we may discuss them together. The Orders are accompanied—


On a point of Order. Will that enable us to take the Votes on the two Orders separately?


Oh, yes. We can take two Votes on the two Orders. It has been the practice in the past to take one discussion on the two Orders.


I was suggesting that I might consult the convenience of the House. The Orders are accompanied by reports from the Advisory Committee, and several minor modifications are suggested in the scheme originally proposed and approved by this House. The reasons for those minor modifications are given in the reports which I have mentioned. They are all based either upon experience or upon convenience, and it would be redundant to make any further observations upon them. Two branches of manufacture besides iron and steel, with which I shall deal in a moment, are selected for additional duties. One is the transparent cellulose wrapping industry, which has made such strides that the Committee feel satisfied in suggesting that it should be put within the range of those articles enjoying a 20 per cent. duty. The other is the safety razor blade industry, which developed very rapidly during the period when it enjoyed Safeguarding. The Committee make this significant observation, so relevant to modern industrial tendencies: In the case of mass-produced articles of this character, successful competition is dependent on the maintenance of a large output, and, in order to justify the capital necessary to secure sufficient output, some assurance as to the continuance of the duty is required. Accordingly, the Committee suggest giving the industry that assurance for a period of five years, and imposing a duty of 2s. a gross in addition to the 20 per cent. duty which now prevails. But the main purpose of these resolutions is to, give to the iron and steel industry an opportunity—the greatest opportunity ever enjoyed by any great industry—to readjust itself to modern conditions. The House will recollect that, in the first Report of the Advisory Committee, this phrase was used: We are satisfied that the maintenance of a prosperous iron and steel industry in the highest degree of efficiency is essential to the economic progress of this country, while from the point of view of national security it must still be regarded as vital. We therefore proceed from that assumption, that the iron and steel industry and its maintenance are indispensable. The Committee, at the time that they made this report, had had no time even to sketch out a framework of a permanent scheme, and they therefore asked that the iron and steel industry should enjoy for a period of three months a duty of 33⅓ per cent. During that period of three months, which is due to expire on the 25th July, Sir George May and his colleagues have interviewed the leaders of the industry, and have persuaded them— I do not know that much persuasion was necessary—to agree to undertake their own salvation. Those leaders of the iron and steel industry have established a National Committee and a series of regional and sectional committees, and the Advisory Committee are now in a position to report that they are facing the issues involved with energy and determination. While they are drawing up their plan, and, if possible, forcing it through to execution, a further period of protection is required, and the Committee again ask for three months—not that I would lead the House to believe that it will not he necessary to continue that period still further; it depends, of course, on the progress made by the industry itself. But, when the Import Duties were under discussion, even those who opposed those duties, or many of them, stated that they would be reconciled to them if a condition were made that there should be reorganisation and reconstruction. That is the course which the committee has pursued.

Why is the iron and steel industry selected for special treatment? It is an industry which consumes the products of other industries on a very considerable scale—coal, ore and limestone. It is itself basic to almost every other industry, including engineering, building, and ship construction. It has on its hooks 200,000 registered employés, and £160,000,000 of capital is sunk in it. That is the importance of the industry. Why does it require exceptional treatment? I will endeavour in a few words to explain that to the House. Before the War, we were producing 7,000,000 tons of steel a year. Last year, we produced 5,000,000 tons. But it is when these production figures are looked at in connection with the export and import position that they give ground for grave reflection. We imported 2,000,000 tons of steel a year in the years immediately preceding the War. Last year we imported 2,900,000 tons, despite the decline in the demand. We were exporting, before the War, 4,700,000 tons of steel a year. Last year we exported 2,000,000 tons, and, in the previous years, when conditions were more normal, we were exporting considerably less than before the War, so that last year we reached the position, for the first time in our history with the exception of 1926, the year of the general stoppage, of importing more steel than we exported.

That is the serious condition in which the industry finds itself. What are the reasons? Is the industry to blame for this condition? The reasons are various. One of them is that during the War we expanded our plant in a shapeless manner. We had before the War a productive capacity of 8,000,000 tons and we extended it to 12,000,000 tons and in an unsymmetrical way, so that each unit was not related in proper proportion to the next. Vast capital was attracted into the industry as it amorphously expanded. After the War our Continental neighbours were able to wipe off most of their prior charges, owing to inflation or reparations. Starting from highly protected markets and agreeing from time to time amongst themselves under a cartel to eliminate Continental competition, they were table to send their surplus production here below cost. If anyone should require proof of that, I would direct his attention to the last report made to the shareholders of the great French combine, the Comité des Forges de France, in which they say they have been obliged to sell in this country at 30 to 40 per cent. below cost of production. Those are the obstacles with which the iron and steel industry has had to deal.

It is not only the quantity of the imports, but the character of them, and anyone who analyses the import position of steel in this country is bound to see the strategy of our continental rivals. The iron and steel industry is a sequence of productions one related to the following. What our foreign competitors have been doing is this. They have been destroying the basis of our industry stage by stage. First they will sell billets below the cost of production—cheaper than they can be produced here or anywhere else. The roller of rods rejoices. He says, "I will buy my billets cheap." Then he finds that, having got his goodwill and established relationship with him, the continental exporter next attacks the rod. The maker of wire gets his rods cheaper and, of course, that is to his immediate advantage. Then wire is sent to this country and so, stage by stage, every process of production is conquered. We still have in this country the supremacy in finished products. The independent tinplate maker buys the bar from which he makes his plates abroad. He gets a temporary advantage, but by buying that bar abroad he dislocates the whole sequence that I have described, from the blast furnace to the making of the ingot, from the bloom right up to the final stage, and so our industry is being progressively conquered, not by fair competitive methods, but in pursuance of a set policy of selling in this country below the cost of production.

I say that these are new conditions, and that if we are agreed with the Advisory Committee that the steel industry is worthy of preservation, and, indeed, is essential of preservation in peace and in war, we must endorse the findings of the Advisory Committee. You can regard the iron and steel industry as a number of separate and isolated manufactures, or you can regard it as a whole, but I warn the House that if we become progressively dependent upon foreign supplies, however cheap, to the destruction of supplies in this country, the foreigner will not continue to sell below the cost of production. Therefore, the Advisory Committee have looked at this matter as a whole, and at the industry as a whole, an inseparable whole, from the blast furnace to the finished product, and that is why they have recommended the inclusion of pig iron. Will the committee which has been appointed carry out or fulfil the hopes that have been expected of it? I do not know. Their duty is to eliminate surplus plant and to get rid of dead capital, and to make the industry the most efficient steel industry in the world. That is their duty. The Advisory Committee, fulfilling and carrying out what we desired it should do, namely, to give tariffs on condition of reorganisation, has given them an opportunity. What industry or what man can ask for anything better than an opportunity? They have an opportunity here.


One of the disadvantages of this procedure in tariff legis- lation is that at a very late hour one is expected to embark upon a discussion of vitally important matters. I do not propose to go over again the many arguments which have been put forward from this side of the House against an attempt to regulate competitive industry by means of tariffs. The hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary has given us a very vivid picture of the capitalist system. Cut throat competition, whether it be international or national, is, we believe, the wrong way of organising industry; and he is apparently beginning to realise that at least as far as international industry is concerned.

There are one or two specific points I want to raise with regard to the two Orders before the House. Firstly I desire to get rid of the small point as regards safety razor blades and blanks. The hon. Member did not explain to us why it was thought necessary to protect an industry in which at present the wholesaler is making 450 per cent. profit, according to the findings of the Committee. One might have thought that a 450 per cent. profit was a fairly decent profit in hard times and that that industry should not particularly complain. At least before putting a tax upon the goods coming into the country it was incumbent upon the industry and the distributors to see that those profits were very materially reduced. They draw attention at the end of their report, in page 3, to this fact. They say: We see no reason why this duty should result in any increase of the retail prices of British blades—indeed there would appear to be margin for reduction—as these are already very high in relation to the prices realised by the manufacturers. For example a brand of blade now being retailed at l½d. each is, we understand, being supplied in bulk to the wholesale merchants at.…⅓d. each"— a profit of something like 450 per cent. I do not understand the argument which permits the hon. Member to recommend that these people who are so carrying out their trade to-day should be given a further privileged position, so that they are enabled to make, apparently, larger profit out of the sale of safety razor blades.

A very serious point which is raised by this Report (No. 3) of the committee is the question of the powers of the May Committee. They said in the second paragraph under the heading "Iron and Steel Products": Since the date of that report. That is, their last report on this matter— We have, after a careful review of the situation, appointed a national committee with area and sectional sub-committees to prepare a scheme of reorganisation of the industry and the complicated issues involved are being faced with energy and determination. Later on they said that when the scheme has been prepared— its examination and possible modification in consultation with other interests affected will necessarily occupy our attention for some time. I should like the hon. Member to explain to the House how it comes about that the May Committee are assuming this power of reorganising British industry. When the Import Duties Act was before the House, we suggested, and I think one of the hon. Members for Stockport also suggested, that a certain Amendment should be introduced giving power to the Board of Trade to carry out the reorganisation of industries before tariffs were allowed to be put upon the products of that industry. We were assured, I think it was by the hon. Member himself, that such a thing was quite impracticable. Now we find that this commitee, which has no such power under the Act which sets it up, and which has no authority, are starting to set up reorganisation committees which, apparently, are being looked upon with favour by the Board of Trade and the Treasury. We should like to know what this reorganisation committee is. How are the workers represented on it'? Are the Government responsible? Is the President of the Board of Trade prepared to answer questions regarding its procedure? What control have they over it? How does it fit into the legislative procedure which this House has set up for the purpose of imposing tariffs? These are very serious questions. It is one thing for this House to take steps to instruct one of the Ministers to proceed with some scheme which may be considered here, but it is an entirely different proposition when the triumvirate take into their own hands powers to order the reorganisation of industries—reorganisations which are not being carried out as part of any publicly conceived scheme, reorganisations which cannot be questioned and in which particular interests may suffer.

It may be possible under these schemes to wipe out whole townships by shutting down particular works for the convenience of the steel industry, and neither this House nor, apparently, the President of the Board of Trade nor the Treasury, nor anyone else will be able to say one word, provided that Sir George May and his colleagues are satisfied. It was not for that purpose that this House, as appears from the whole course of the Debate on the Import Duties Act, set up this Commission. Let me call attention to the provisions of the Act, because it is only in the Act that you can find any of the powers of this Statutory Commission. It has no powers apart from those given to it by the Statute which set it up. Section 2 of the Act says: For the purpose of giving advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under this Act, there shall be constituted a committee. That is the whole purpose for which this committee was set, to give advice and assistance to the Treasury in discharge of their functions under the Act, and the functions of the Treasury under the Act are to put duties on various classes of goods. It is only in order to advise the Treasury as regards the imposition of tariffs that this committee was brought into being, or has any power. In Subsection (3) it says that the committee shall take into consideration the provisions of the Act, nothing else and any representations which may be made to them with respect to matter on which, under the provisions of this Act, action may be taken. On three separate occasions it is emphasised in this Section that the powers of the committee are strictly limited to those laid down in the Act. In Sub-section 6 (b) of the same Section, the only delegation of powers allowed to the committee is a delegation of its functions to a subcommittee consisting of members of the committee. There was a Debate on the point as to whether they should be allowed to delegate their powers to persons not members of the committee, and the Government took the view that such powers would be wrong in these special circumstances. It was so important a matter that the committee must act by its own members, and must not be allowed to delegate any of its functions. In Sub-section (2) of Section 3 we have a provision as regards what the committee should take into account in deciding what recommendations, if any, they are to make. It says that they shall have regard to the advisability in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom, and in the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom, including those industries which are consumers as well as producers of goods.

There is not a single provision in the Act which can possibly be said to confer upon this committee the power to enter upon such matters as they are, apparently, entering upon. Sub-section (5) of Section 2, which makes provision for the expenses of this committee, only covers the expenses they incur in carrying out the duties put upon them by the Act of Parliament, and nothing further. Yet we understand that they are going to occupy a considerable amount of their time and attention in considering a scheme for the, national reorganisation of the steel industry—a thing for which they have absolutely no power whatever. It is the strongest evidence that we were right in saying that the steel industry requires reorganisation. The Committee have said so in no uncertain terms but that reorganisation should not be carried out in a secret manner under the control of this Tariff Committee, but should be carried out in public and under the control of the House of Commons. [Interruption.] An hon. Member opposite laughs. He will laugh, I suppose, at some future date when three people outside the Rouse of Commons are setting up a reorganisation of the social basis of the whole of the industries of this country; and perhaps his second laugh will be more bitter. This raises the question of undertaking State action through a body which has no responsibility whatever. That is, to some people at any rate, a serious 11.30 p.m. consideration. It is a matter which should not be allowed to pass without the public and the Members of this House realising what they are doing. It may be that the hon. Mem- ber thinks it wise to do it in this way. If he does he must get authority from Parliament first. He has no authority at the present time. He has not only no authority on the face of the Act, but from the very Debates which took place, when he was pressed to put in some provisions enabling the Board of Trade to do something of this sort, which he strenuously rejected, he is convicted out of his own mouth of now permitting something which is wholly illegal.


After the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary I hardly thought it would be necessary for anyone connected with the industry to say anything on the matter. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has, I think, rather amazed the House by some of his statements. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time we have heard him so completely misunderstand a document that has been placed before the House. He has complained bitterly that the iron and steel industry is facing reorganisation. During the whole of the discussion on this question the one complaint of the official Opposition and some of their friends was that the iron and steel industry was badly organised. I never claimed that we had 100 per cent. efficiency, but I did condemn this continual whining on the Floor of the House about what is supposed to be the inefficiency of the industry. It was suggested that these duties should not be given except on conditions, and those conditions should be reorganisation. I personally supported that plea, and stated that I was in favour of safeguarding the industry, with safeguards for the producer, for the consumer and for the State. That was why I differentiated myself from the mere Protectionist. There was laughter at my argument. What has happened? We knew, and every sensible man knew, that the very moment this Advisory Committee recommended to the Treasury that certain duties should be placed on imported iron and steel some conditions would be forthcoming. The only difference between the Home Secretary and others on these benches was that he wanted reorganisation first and the duties afterwards, while others wanted duties first and then reorganisation.

What have Sir George May's Committee done? They are not reorganising the iron and steel industry. They have no authority and no business to do it. All that the Advisory Committee have done is that they have invited members of the industry to meet them, and Sir George May has told them, "You have had your duties, but remember that you must not remain in your present state. The country believes that the industry can be better ordered and people within the industry believe that that is possible. We are prepared to give you these duties for three months conditionally upon your facing this question of reorganisation." The position in the industry is not lack of efficiency in its individual plants. It is redundant, as the result of over-building, if you like. The industry has been called together to discuss the whole situation as suggested, and to take upon itself the task of reorganisation and to appoint regional committees. I know what I am saying because I am a member of one of these regional committees, which will be meeting on Thursday morning to deal with reorganisation in South Wales. We will make our plans and, when we have completed our schemes—which will take some time—for dealing with redundancy and the other matters which I have mentioned, we will go back to the Advisory Committee and justify the confidence which they have placed in the industry in giving us these duties for a specified period. But the House must not run away with the idea, and hon. Members opposite must not believe, that Sir George May has taken upon himself the reorganisation of the industry.


Perhaps the hon. Member has not read what Sir George May said. He said: Since the date of that representation we have appointed a national committee, with area and sectional sub-committees, to prepare a scheme of reorganisation. "We"—that is Sir George May and partners—have appointed the committee. That is what I said.


The hon. and learned Member must give me the credit of having read the report very carefully. Sir George May has asked that this committee should be formed.


He has appointed it.


All right. Sir George May was at the meeting—was in the chair—and the meeting resolved itself into a national committee. That report says that he has appointed regional committees. Two or three representatives from each district were appointed at the meeting. Sir George May did not appoint the regional committees. [HON. MEMBERS: "He says he did!"] I do not mind what he says. What I want to point out, in regard to these regional reorganisation committees, is that the committee for the reorganisation of the South Wales industry, for example, was appointed by the steel trade in South Wales. I was appointed secretary of that committee by the steel trade, not by Sir George May. When we have completed our scheme of reorganisation we shall report to our own national committee which is representative of the national steel trade of the country. When they have completed their investigation, they will report to Sir George May as to the reorganisation scheme which they are adopting, in the hope that he will be satisfied that, for the continuation of these duties, the steel trade has carried out its part of the bargain.


I do not take exception, materially, to the speech of the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Lewis Jones). I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that these words certainly suggest a power, which obviously the committee do not possess, but, as far as this committee of three do use whatever power is vested in them to bring pressure on industry to reorganise itself, I am in favour of that course. As a matter of fact the setting up of these reorganisation committees does not appear in the Order. It has not the authority of the House of Commons. It is merely a recommendation by the committee of three and as I interpret it, the understanding is that if reorganisation cannot be carried out, if the industry cannot come together, the whole position will be reconsidered after three months' time and, perhaps, this protection will be withdrawn. I do not intend to discuss Order No. 3 because only three months ago we had a very full discussion when it was first put before the House. I am not going to follow my hon. Friend in surveying the whole industrial problem. We had a day on iron and steel and a very full discussion, and we do not want to discuss it again till two or three in the morning. But I want to discuss No. 2 Order, dealing with pig-iron. It is different in form and character and different in wording from the other Orders. They say: We have received representations from various quarters"— It does not say from whom— in regard to the scope of this temporary duty, and in some respects the economic conditions have changed since those recommendations were framed. It goes on to say—and this is very significant: Although the annual production of pig-iron in this country had fallen from an average of about 9,340,000 tons for the four years before the War to 7,160,000 tons in 1924 and 6,060,000 tons in 1930 (in part owing to the increased use of scrap in steelmaking), British production still provided all but a very small proportion of the pig-iron consumed, as such, in this country. It then goes on to justify putting a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on this essential raw material, this fundamental raw material of the iron and steel trade, in the following very curious words: In the last few weeks, however, quotations of Continental pig-iron have fallen to such an extent as to constitute in present circumstances a grave menace to the continuance of home production in certain areas even at the present low level. These low prices have not as yet been in force sufficiently long for their stimulus to foreign importations to be apparent in the published trade returns, but we are satisfied that with this threat of foreign undercutting to follow upon the absorption of the excessive stocks which are now being held, the risk of blast furnaces in these areas closing dawn is sufficiently definite to warrant the extension of the temporary duty to pig-iron. It goes on next to say: In making this recommendation we are fully alive to the danger of adverse reactions on some sections of the iron and steel industry from a marked increase of the price of pig-iron. It does not say on what evidence they have based that conclusion, but merely makes the statement that they think there may be a reaction; and it continues: With possibilities of future variations in the price of raw materials and with the very different trading results of individual firms it would be unreasonable to expect any general guarantee from the industry that prices will in no circumstances be increased during the period of the temporary duty, but we propose to watch the position and we shall not hesitate to recommend the immediate removal of the additional duty, should it appear to us to be operating unfairly against the users of pig-iron. We are now going into Recess, and we may not reassemble for four or five months. We are therefore going to hand over the future of this vital industry to these three gentlemen, with no power of control or supervision on our part. We are going to-night to push through this Order, at a quarter to 12, and it is possible that the Government recognise that it may operate unfairly against the users of pig-iron. They see the dangers, and they realise them.

It is very interesting to look at what has been happening during the first five months of this year. The home production, I am informed, works out at something like 1,624,000 tons and the imports at only 80,000 tons, of which forge and foundry pig-iron constituted 16,000 tons, of which again no less than 7,735 tons came from India—[Interruption.]—I have the figures here. I attach more importance to the three gentlemen constituted by Parliament as the authority than to the private figures of the hon. Gentleman who interrupted. The importation of pig iron was only something like 5 per cent. of the home production. I doubt whether the Parliamentary Secretary is right when he says that there is an organised attack on this country and that all the countries of the world have got together to ruin Great Britain by pouring in materials; but, if it be really true that this country is going to enjoy pig iron at a very much lower price than any other country in the world, it will act as a big bonus to the other industries, more labour will be employed, and more profit will be given to the producers. The Parliamentary Secretary may know of a sinister organisation, but he ought to give a little more evidence before making these bald statements.


I read to the House an extract from the shareholders' report of a French company, in which that is admitted.


I happen to have a statement by a firm which is fairly familiar to hon. Members. It is William Jacks and Company, a distinguished firm of which the late Mr. Bonar Law was a member. They say: The majority of our blast furnaces are out-of-date, obsolete in design, and of too small a capacity to be operated on an economic basis. It is largely this fact which is responsible for the competition of foreign and Empire pig iron…Britain, after all, derives less profit from the production of pig iron and semi steel than from the higher priced specialities of which crude iron and steel are the raw materials. They rightly point out that one of the troubles in this industry is the increasing use of scrap, both in steel furnaces and iron foundries, and that that has reduced the consumption of pig iron: The modern steel furnace, however, can perform miracles of alchemy. With a 50 per cent. charge of scrap can he produced high tensile steel of the finest quality, and scrap has been so abundant and cheap that there has been every inducement for the steel maker to use as large a proportion as possible. In other words, the depression in the pig iron industry is universal, and is due to the larger use of scrap rather than to the highly organised conspiracy in which the President of the Board of Trade apparently believes. This tariff will interfere with the highly organised industry of steel production and the 'hundred and one industries that are dependent on cheap steel and abundant raw material. As the President of the Board of Trade so well pointed out last December, you employ half-a-dozen or ten men for every one employed in the more primary sections of the industry. Therefore, I am going to vote against both these Orders without any hesitation.

As regards safety blades, it is pointed out by the committee that they intend to give this protection for five years. They say: In the present instance, subject to the adequate development of the industry and the pursuance of a strongly competitive policy, we do not contemplate recommending any alteration in the rate of duty now proposed for a period of five years. I might remind the House that that period does not appear in this Order. Here is a practical example of how these three pundits, conscious of their own importance, are taking authority far beyond that which the House originally intended. They cannot give such security; it can only be given by the House of Commons, and they are misleading the industry by the suggestion that they can offer this protection for five years. The last Order deals with what may appear to be a very small and insignificant matter. The Committee say: Transparent cellulose wrapping, manufactured from wood pulp by a, chemical process, is being used to an increasing extent for wrapping purposes. In other words, here again you have an important raw material of industry, used in a great number of trades and of importance to our export trade. The committee point out that it is not at present subject to any additional duty, and they go on to say: For some time supplies came entirely from abroad, but after a lengthy experimental period it is now being manufactured in this country to a substantial amount. The interesting thing is that this industry has come into prosperity without a tariff or safeguarding. The committee do not suggest it is being subjected to unfair competition, but recommend that it should be protected by a 20 per cent. duty. There we see the operation of this new machinery, and I am not satisfied that it is fulfilling the intention for which it was appointed.


I think the Government must regret very much that there are no articles of steel and iron imported from the Irish Free State, because in that case the scruples and difficulties felt by hon. Members opposite would have been entirely removed. However, I have not risen to call attention to this renewed outbreak of disunity in the ranks of the Liberal party, which prevents them from repeating the unanimity shown on the last Vote, but to ask the Government to explain the discrepancy between the account of the proceedings with regard to iron and steel given by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. L. Jones) and that contained in this White Paper which we have before us. The hon. Member for Swansea painted a picture of the meeting of the committee, with Sir George May in the Chair, pointing to the very serious condition of the steel industry and submitting schemes. We have to take the hon. Member's account. He was there; he knows all about it. What becomes of the extraordinary account which the Government gave us over the signature of Sir George May? He said noth- ing of the sort. He says: "We appointed a National Committee? Either Sir George May and his friends appointed it, or it was appointed by the trade. We want to know by whom it was appointed, because this is a very important matter.

Let me recall to the House what happened to the hop industry, when the question of reorganisation came up under the Agricultural Marketing Act. In Committee upstairs the Members of the Conservative party were very careful to put in safeguards, to see that all interests were represented and to keep things under the control of this House. In regard to the iron and steel industry there is to be no public inquiry, so far as we can make out. Sir George May and his friends appointed a committee. The hon. Member for Swansea, West, can tell us who is on that committee. I should like to know whether it includes any representatives of the workers. They are vitally concerned in the reorganisation of the industry, particularly in regional organisation. Also, I should like to know what trades are represented. There may be other interests affected which should be consulted. Otherwise, it is an extraordinary way of reorganising a trade.

We are putting very great power in the hands of these three gentlemen. I am not attacking them, but at the same time I do think it is time the House began to assert itself. Yesterday the Secretary of State for the Dominions came down and, without the slightest excuse, proceeded to hand over the taxing power of this House, a most jealously guarded prerogative, to the Treasury. That proceeding evoked protests from hon. Members in all parts of the House. To-night we are to hand over the reorganisation of an industry to three commissars. The Russian model is always followed by the Tory party! I say it is time the House of Commons asserted its rights. Of course, if this document is entirely wrong, as appears from the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, West, the Government had better withdraw it, and let us have a true account of the proceedings of these three gentlemen, because there is at present direct conflict over the facts. The hon. Gentleman says the industry is reorganising itself, is appointing its regional committees, is doing everything itself. Sir George May says he did it all, that he appointed them and that they will report to him; that he is going to examine the scheme, that he is going to modify it. Which is right? It may be quite right to leave this matter to the trade, it might even be right to leave it to these three gentlemen—though I do not think we ought to go outside this House in matters of this sort—but at any rate we cannot have it both ways. I hope we shall have some explanation of this extraordinary statement, from the Government. I have never before seen a statement put forward by a person in the position of Sir George May which has been so directly contradicted by an hon. Member who was apparently present at the proceedings.


I want to say two things. One is that the industry, although it is prepared to say, "Thank you very much for what we have received," 12 m. at the same time feels a little disappointed that the three-monthly period should be continued again and should be put on at a time when the present duties are going to expire. We are now told that we have another three months to reorganise and to get rid of redundant parts. The Home Secretary, some months ago when we had the first Order said that he would see what would happen at the end of three months. Now we have another three months. The House must be perfectly well aware that a great industry like the steel industry cannot possibly complete its reorganisation, scrap its redundant plant, and bring itself into a complete state of efficiency at the end of three months. I appeal to the Government, if they can see their way, to give this industry more generous treatment in tariffs and duties. It would help us to reorganise if we 'had some certainty that these duties would continue for at least a fairly definite period of years.

May I make one further statement, and use my humble voice to allay some of the doubts of the Opposition, that they apparently have, that this reorganisation of industry has been brought into existence by some magical power of the Advisory Committee? The machinery was in existence, and has been in existence for many years, and the Advisory Committee have merely used that machinery which was to their hand and ready. This industry, which over a period of years, with intense energy and increasing knowledge, has tried its level hest to bring itself into a state of efficiency, at last has the opportunity. I hope that that opportunity will not be curtailed or spoiled by a too-limited period being given to the industry in which to reorganise itself.


Might I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us what really are the facts, and whether this committee was appointed by Sir George May and his committee. Or is it a mistake in the document? It may be a matter for joke to the right hon. Gentleman, but two hon. Members have given slightly different versions about the committee. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) has told us that the committee have been in existence a long time and that they are simply starting to work over again. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. L. Jones) who was present, says that the committee were appointed. I am within the recollection of the House—


I want to make myself quite clear. I was not at the first meeting in London, but I was at the meeting in the Swansea area. I did not say that I was at the first meeting; I did say that I was at the meeting which appointed the South Wales regional committee. I also did say that the meeting convened by Sir George May was converted into a national committee. When the South Wales committee met, three members were appointed at the meeting in London and met the South Wales committee in Swansea.


I understand now that the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. L. Jones) was not present at the meeting with Sir George May.


I never said I was.


The OFFICIAL REPORT will settle that question. The point which we want cleared up, and which is of vital importance to the House, is whether this committee has or has not exceeded its statutory duty. If the committee is carrying out work which it had no statutory, legal right to carry out, we want to know. If not, we want someone to explain what the words in the Memorandum really mean, and I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought to tell us. [Interruption.] I know the hour is late, but that is not our fault, and so far as this matter is concerned we are prepared to sit till the morning. If these gentlemen are responsible to anyone, they are responsible to the Treasury, and the Treasury ought to answer.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is making much ado about nothing. The report states clearly that the committee is asked to prepare a scheme. There is no question of a charge on national funds. There was a committee, presumably, already in the iron and steel industry, and the Opposition, with the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), urged again and again that some special treatment should be adopted in the case of that industry. Sir George May and his colleagues, finding that there was an organisation in the industry, called them together and urged them to get down to this work at once, stating that the duty was a temporary one, dependent on whether the industry was reorganised. That seems to be so clear and obvious that I should have thought it was not worth while to continue to discuss it in this House. An hon. Member who all his life has been one of the strongest opponents of this policy commenced by saying that he strongly approved of Sir George May's procedure in asking this committee to prepare a scheme, and I should have thought that what we really want is to get on with the job. The only point about which the House might feel a little anxious is the shortness of the time for which the duties will extend, and it is to be hoped that something of this kind may be made permanent for the steel trade.


I rise out of courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition, who has asked me what is the exact position in regard to the committee. Surely the exact position is as has been stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Sir George May had power to appoint a committee, and has appointed a committee. [Interruption.] The steps which Sir George May has taken to provide himself with advice are steps which Sir George May has to consider for himself. What we have to con- sider is from whom we are to take advice. We take advice from Sir George May, and we stand the racket. The advice is given to us by the Advisory Committee set up under the authority of the Import Duties Act to provide us with advice, and on that advice we act. To whom Sir George May goes to get the advice which he provides for this House is, of course, a matter for Sir George May. No one pretends that Sir George May, out of his inner consciousness, is completely capable of producing all the information which he desires on this extremely complicated subject—


Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to point out the power in the Act under which Sir George May can set up or appoint such a committee?


That is a further point. I shall be glad either to go into it myself or, if the hon. and learned Gentleman desires it, to have a legal opinion given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am merely, as a layman, giving my opinion to the House on the general position. This is a Treasury Order. The Advisory Committee has provided us with advice, and on that advice the Executive is taking executive action. Where the Advisory Committee get their advice is a matter for the Advisory Committee, and the goodness or badness of the act is the goodness or badness of the conclusions which are come to by this House. The Executive of the day is bringing forward recommendations to this House. Finally, this House and the Executive of the day are responsible. We have no desire to shirk that responsibility.


There has been a good deal of confusion in the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have all the enthusiasm of a convert. I wondered how long he had been in the House and my mind went back. He has been in the House at least five years. If his wonderful enthusiasm and knowledge of the steel trade and its need of a tariff come at the end of five years, I wondered how long it has taken him to find it out. I am shocked at the way Sir George May's name has been bandied about. He has been trusted by all parties in the House and has been entrusted with all sorts of commissions and committees and now people seem to think his work is not proper and his recommendations are not right. I am beginning to wonder what has happened. We are almost coming to challenge his word. It is not fair and it is not right. This man is too great for that. Some people think it is his committee that has done this and others think it is not. The Financial Secretary says, "I do not care whether there is reorganisation or not. I have given Sir George May a job to do. We have asked him to look into the question and we are prepared to take his recommendations no matter what they are." When he was asked whether he 'had power he said, "We do not care whether we have power or not." He has not attempted to justify reorganisation. He could not. He has too sound a logical mind to do it. On what basis has Sir George May acted? I question if the industry needs reorganisation. Sir George May cannot say it needs reorganisation without examining all the facts and hearing evidence, without knowing what the employers have to say and what the industry has to say. Suddenly Sir George May says to the employers, "Set up a committee to deal with re-organisation," although he himself, great man as he is, cannot say whether the industry needs it or not. You cannot defend Sir George May on logic. You cannot say he has made out a case for re-organisation. All you can say for him is that certain Members of the House of Commons have asked for it and in consequence of that he is asking a committee to be set up. I ask hon. Members to apply their minds to the problem whether re-organisation is necessary or not.

Before you can find out whether it is necessary or not evidence must be explored. What evidence has Sir George May explored? He has explored none. [An HON. MEMBER: "HOW do you know?"] He has had no time to do so. Everybody knows, even the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) recognises, that three months provide no time for the job. No one in his senses thinks that it is sufficient time,

and yet he has handed the matter over to the employers for them to go into it. The procedure seems to be almost farcical. If Sir George May had said that the steel industry, the employers, and may be the workmen too, felt that they were not getting a fair and square deal, that tariffs were necessary and that he felt that we could not resist their demands, it would simply have been the position which is taken up by every tariff reformer. Every Member of the House knows that when we get the re-organisation it will not make the case for tariffs any the more necessary. I happen to know something of the steel trade in my part of the country. It is not only well organised but extremely well equipped. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) knows as well as I do the place and the plant. I am sure that he has visited the place. It has a wonderful organisation. The case for tariffs stands or falls apart from the re-organisation scheme. I regard the re-organisation with grave misgiving. Whether under a State inquiry or not, or a quota, or under the scheme of Sir George May, I view the matter with grave misgiving. Under all re-organisation, whether it is done by a Board of Trade scheme or under any Government scheme, only one section suffers. It is the section of workers permanently thrown out of work because of the shutting down of the redundant places. The Government, on all these matters, ought to take their courage into their hands. Instead of having a fictitious inquiry, they ought to come courageously to the House of Commons and say: "We feel that this industry must be protected with high tariffs." I think that to any decent Parliamentarian with anything like the mind of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who shows a love for logic and straight dealing, this "throwing about" and tinkering is belittling the House of Commons, and, above all, is showing a contempt for its views.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 42.

Division No. 283.] AYES. [12.20 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Allen, sir J. Sandemam (Liverp'I, W.) Atholl, Duchess of Blindell, James
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Balley, Eric Alfred George Boulton, W. W.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Apsley, Lord Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Boyce, H. Leslie
Aske, Sir Robert William Bateman, A. L. Bracken, Brendan
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Howard, Tom Forrest Pybus, Percy John
Broadbent, Colonel John Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Ramadan, E.
Browne, Captain A. C. James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Ray. Sir William
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Jesson, Major Thomas E. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Burnett, John George Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Ker, J. Campbell Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Carver, Major William H. Kerr, Hamilton W. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Chalmers, John Rutherford Kimball, Lawrence Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Robinson, John Roland
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Leckie, J. A. Rosbotham, S. T.
Christle, James Archibald Leech, Dr. J. W. Rose, Ronald D.
Clarry, Reginald George Lees-Jones, John Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Clayton Dr. George C. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Liddell, Walter S. Runge, Norah Cecil
Colman. N. C. D. Lindsay, Noel Ker Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Conant, R. J. E. Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe- Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Cook, Thomas A. Lloyd, Geoffrey Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffleld,B'tside)
Copeland, Ida Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Salmon, Major Isidore
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Lyons, Abraham Montagu Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Mabane, William Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Cruddas. Lieut.-Colonel Bernard MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick) Scone, Lord
Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C. MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil) McConnell, Sir Joseph Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Dickie, John P. McCorquodale, M. S. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Donner, P. W. McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel McKie, John Hamilton Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) McLean, Major Alan Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Dunglass, Lord McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Somerset, Thomas
Eastwood, John Francis Magnay. Thomas Somervell, Donald Bradley
Eden, Robert Anthony Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Marsden, Commander Arthur Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Elmley, Viscount Martin, Thomas B. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westmoriand)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Stones, James
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Mills, Sir Frederick (Layton, E.) Storey, Samuel
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Milne, Charles Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Fox, Sir Gifford Mitcheson, G. G. Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart
Fraser, Captain Ian Moreing, Adrian C. Summersby, Charles H.
Fremantle, Sir Francis Muirhead, Major A. J. Sutcliffe, Harold
Gibson, Charles Granville Munro, Patrick Tate, Mavis Constance
Giuckstein, Louis Halle Nail, Sir Joseph Templeton, William P.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Nation, Brigadier-General.J. J. H. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Thompson, Luke
Graves, Marjorie North, Captain Edward T. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Greene. William P. C. Nunn, William Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John O'Donovan, Dr. William James Train, John
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Ciement
Gunston, Captain D. W. Ormiston, Thomas Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Guy, J. C. Morrison Palmer, Francis Noel Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Patrick, Colin M. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hales, Harold K. Pearson, William G. Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Peat, Charles U. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Hanley, Dennis A. Penny, Sir George Wells, Sydney Richard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Percy, Lord Eustace Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Perkins, Walter R. D. Womersley, Walter James
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Worthington, Dr. John V.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Petherick, M. Wragg, Herbert
Hepworth, Joseph Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilst'n)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Pike, Cecil F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Potter, John Sir Victor Warrender and Captain
Horebrugh, Florence Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Austin Hudson.
Adams, D, M. (Poplar, South) Greaten, David Rees (Glamorgan) Logan, David Gilbert
Bernays, Robert Grundy, Thomas W. Lunn, William
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) McEntee, Valentine L.
Buchanan, George Harris, Sir Percy Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hirst, George Henry Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jenkins, Sir William Maxton, James
Dagger, George John, William Milner, Major James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Nathan, Major H. L.
Edwards, Charles Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Parkinson, John Allen
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Kirkwood, David Pickering, Ernest H.
George, Megan A. Lioyd (Anglesea) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Price, Gabriel
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lawson. John James Rathbone, Eleanor
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Rothschild, James A. de Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr.
Tinker, John Joseph Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) Duncan Graham.

Resolved, The the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Order, 1932, dated the 8th day of June, 1932, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 10th day of June, 1932, be approved.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1932, dated the 1st day of July, 1932, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 4th day of July, 1932, be approved."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 42.

Division No. 284.] AYES. [12.29 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mitcheson, G. G.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'I, W.) Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Moreing, Adrian C.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Muirhead, Major A. J.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Graves, Marjorie Munro, Patrick
Apsley, Lord Greene, William P. C. Nail, Sir Joseph
Aske, Sir Robert William, Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Gunston, Captain D. W. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Atholl, Duchess of Guy, J. C. Morrison North, Captain Edward T.
Balley, Eric Alfred George Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Nunn, William
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Hales, Harold K. O' Donovan, Dr. William James
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zti'nd) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Bateman, A. L. Hanley, Dennis A. Ormiston, Thomas
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Palmer, Francis Noel
Blindell, James Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Patrick, Colin M.
Boulton, W. W. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Pearson, William G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Peat. Charles U.
Boyce, H. Leslie Hepworth, Joseph Penny, Sir George
Bracken, Brendan Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) Percy, Lord Eustace
Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough) Hore-Bellsha, Leslie Perkins, Walter R. D.
Broadbent, Colonel John Horsbrugh, Florence Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Howard, Tom Forrest Petherick, M
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) Pike, Cecil F.
Browne, Captain A. C. Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) Potter, John
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Burnett, John George Jesson, Major Thomas E. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Ramsden, E.
Carver, Major William H. Ker, J. Campbell Ray, Sir William
Chalmers, John Rutherford Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Kerr, Hamilton W. Reid, James S C. (Stirling)
Christie, James Archibald Kimball, Lawrence Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Clayton, Dr. George C. Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D. Leckie, J. A. Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Colman, N. C. D. Leech, Dr. J. W. Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Conant, R. J. E. Lees-Jones, John Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Cook, Thomas A. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Robinson, John Roland
Copeland, Ida Liddall, Walter S. Rosbotham, S. T.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Lindsay, Noel Ker Ross, Ronald D.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliff- Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lloyd, Geoffrey Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Runge, Norah Cecil
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Russell, Albert (Kickcaldy)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset.Yeovil) Lyons, Abraham Montagu Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Dickie, John P. Mabane, William Russell, Hamer Field (Sherld, B'tside)
Dixon. Rt. Hon. Herbert MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Donner, P. W. MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Salmon. Major Isidore
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel McConnell, Sir Joseph Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.) McCorquodale, M. S. Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Dunglass, Lord MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Scone, Lord
Eastwood, John Francis McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Eden, Robert Anthony McKie, John Hamilton Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waiter E. McLean, Major Alan Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Skelton, Archibald Noel
Elmley, Viscount Magnay, Thomas Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Marsden, Commander Arthur Somerset, Thomas
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Martin, Thomas B. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Fox, Sir Gifford Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Fraser, Captain Ian Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Fremantle, Sir Francis Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Gibson, Charles Granville Milne, Charles Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Stones, James Thompson, Luke Wells, Sydney Richard
Storey, Samuel Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Strickland, Captain W. F, Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) Womersley, Walter James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. Train, John Worthington, Dr. John V.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Wragg, Herbert
Summersby, Charles H. Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Sutcliffe, Harold Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Tate, Mavis Constance Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Sir Victor Warrender and Captain
Templeton, William P. Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) Austin Hudson.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Harris, Sir Percy Milner, Major James
Bernays, Robert Hirst, George Henry Nathan, Major H. L.
Buchanan, George Jenkins, Sir William Parkinson, John Allen
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Pickering, Ernest H.
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Price, Gabriel
Daggar, George Kirkwood, David Rathbone, Eleanor
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Roberts, Aied (Wrexham)
Edwards. Charles Lawson, John James Rothschild, James A. de
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Logan, David Gilbert Tinker, John Joseph
George, Major G. Lioyd (Pembroke) Lunn, William Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
George, Megan A. Lioyd (Anglesea) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur McEntee, Valentine L. Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Grundy, Thomas W. Mallaileu, Edward Lancelot TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Maxton, James Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.

Bill read a Second time.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1932, dated the 1st day of July, 1932, made by the Treasury under tile Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the 4th clay of July, 1932, be approved.