§ Mr. TINKERI beg to move to leave out the Clause.
Clause 7 gives the Import Duties Advisory Committee power to recommend the taking from the Free List of any article which they may think desirable, and the Treasury may accept the recommendation if they so desire. We on the Labour benches look upon this proposal as a very serious departure from the ordinary Parliamentary procedure. It places great powers into the hands of a certain body of men who ought not to possess such powers. I can foresee that the Committee will be able to remove from the Free List those two important articles of food, meat and wheat. That may be necessary sometime. It may be that those articles will have to be taxed, but if and when that is done it ought to be done in the full light of discussion in the House of Commons. We ought not to take a great departure of that kind lightly or allow it to be covered up by any obscure methods. The Government may say that they would not be obscure, that these gentlemen will examine everything carefully, that they will be unbiased, and that they will lay their report before the Government and make recommendations with regard to the Free List. I do not doubt that, but I have been sent here to speak on behalf of a big constituency and when any matter of importance comes forward, although I am in a minority, I am expected to voice my 2140 opinion. If we pass Clause 7 I shall not be given that opportunity. One of the greatest rights of democracy will therefore be removed. Surely, every Member of Parliament must view with grave concern anything of that sort happening.
If I am right in my contention and meat and wheat were excluded from the Free List, it would mean that many pledges given by hon. Members opposite would be broken. I do not think that any of them gave pledges that these articles of food would be taxed, or that they would agree to them being taxed. If, however, they think that the time has come for that to be done, then let us face the situation on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is the proper course to adopt. We want the matter to be thoroughly discussed before any such right is given. Reforms often spring from what the mass of the people consider are grave injustices that are being put upon their shoulders, and it may be that the National Government in asserting their power at a time like this may be doing something more drastic than the House of Commons or the people would desire. I therefore ask the Government to give the most careful consideration to this question before we agree to Clause 7.
§ Mr. PARKINSONI beg to Second the Amendment.
§ Sir PERCY HARRISWe had a long discussion on this subject in Committee and we have not altered or modified our views as a result of that discussion. The whole ground was covered and we made our position so clear that it is not necessary to repeat our argument, but I want to press upon the House one important point. I understand that we are to disperse about the 18th July. That is only about six weeks distant. This Bill will in due course become an Act of Parliament and this delicate subject of taking 2141 articles out of the Free List will be handed over to the tender mercies of a committee of three. When we disperse a large percentage of Members of the Government will disperse far from this country. They will be in Canada, in Lausanne and almost in the four quarters of the globe, but the Treasury will still be in this country. I do not want to be pessimistic. I have considerable confidence in the committee of three, and I should think that three wise men when they survey the economic problem will think twice before they tax the food of the people and before they agree to take out of the Free List such important articles as meat and wheat. But we never know. Committees, do funny things.
These gentleman will have pressure brought to bear upon them by interests with great power. Unfortunately, the consumer in these discussions is very rarely represented or able to state his case, and I can foresee the possibility, it may be remote, of a recommendation coming to the Treasury from the Committee of three to take wheat and meat out of the Free List. We do not know when the House is going to meet again. It may not meet for many months. It may not "meet again this year. There is no compulsion that the House should meet again in 1932. Representatives of the Government may be so preoccupied that they may not think it necessary to call us together again this year. The Treasury meanwhile will be in full charge of the Government of the country with Ministers absent, the House in recess, and they might make one of these orders, subject to notice of 28 Parliamentary days. We may have this position, that for six months this Order, on the advice of this Committee, to remove from the Free List essential articles of diet, may be in operation without Parliament being able to say, "aye" or "nay," or to modify or reject the Older.
We are entitled to demand an assurance that an Order will not be issued by the Treasury removing from the Free List such essential articles of food as meat and wheat while the House is in recess. These are not ordinary articles to be subjected to taxation. We had solemn pledges given not merely by Private Members of the House inexperienced perhaps and not realising the 2142 solemnity of their pledges, but pledges were given by important Members of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade admitted that, although he gave no pledges about tariffs, he did solemnly pledge himself in the ancient town of St. Ives not to agree to tax wheat and meat. I am the last one to question the reliability of the President of the Board of Trade. I have complete confidence in his integrity and character, but I would remind the House that this thing can be done by Order in Council. The President of the Board of Trade may be in Ottawa at the time and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might be here giving effect to the recommendations of the committee of three set up by this House. He might say: "I am not responsible. This is not the result of my researches but the result of a recommendation by an independent tribunal set up by this House to decide a question of policy of this kind." I must object to the attitude of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. If they do not want to listen, perhaps they will go out. They have been talking ever since I have been speaking.
§ Major ELLIOTI have listened to every sentence of the speech of the hon. Baronet, and I can prove it to him. I was merely discussing with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade the delightful prospect that the hon. Baronet was holding out for me of getting the President of the Board of Trade out to Canada and then proceeding to govern this country entirely on my own by Orders-in-Council.
§ Sir P. HARRISI always have great admiration for the right hon. and gallant Member, and that admiration is immensely increased by the knowledge that he is able to listen with one ear and at the same time talk to his hon. Friend. I have always admired his genius. So long as he heard me and he can give me the assurance that I require, I shall be perfectly satisfied. On these two vital matters the House ought to realise that they are giving great power to the Committee of three, and we are entitled to know that the Financial Secretary will not spend his time at the end of a wire talking to his right hon. Friend in 2143 Ottawa. We ought to have an assurance that, considering the history of the last election and how vital these two essential articles of diet are, that in the Recess he will not enforce taxes on these articles by Order-in-Council. When the House is in Session it is another story. Parliament is supreme and Parliament is responsible. It may impose a tax on meat and wheat even at five o'clock in the morning, and we could not object to it on constitutional grounds. We ought, however, to have a guarantee that if we pass this Clause, the opportunity will not be taken to steal a march on Parliament and to impose these new taxes in the Recess, without adequate Parliamentary control.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSThe hon. Baronet has tried to make our flesh creep by describing all that might happen. It is unfortunate that he has not read with greater care the Import Duties Act and this Clause. We are not handing this matter over to the tender mercies of a Committee of three. They are only empowered to recommend. Recommend to whom? To the Treasury, which means the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Treasury must consult with the appropriate Department. If he will refer to the Import Duties Act he will find that the appropriate Department in the case of certain foodstuffs is the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries so far as Eng land and Wales is concerned, and the Secretary of State for Scotland so far as Scotland is concerned. Therefore, three Cabinet Ministers are involved before an Order can be made. Having regard to these circumstances and having regard to the hon. Member's contemplation that some of these gentlemen will not be in the same part of the world at a precise time, the risk is not very serious. Let us assume that they put through a big Order of the kind that he contemplates. If the results were disastrous and a serious prejudice to the interest of the consumers, the position of those Ministers would be very grave when they had to meet Parliament, because they would meet Parliament with a certainty that the Order would be rejected, and not only would their position be imperilled, but the position of the Government of which they are Members might be imperilled. 'Therefore, the hon. Member is describing 2144 fears which have no justification. I regret that the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) based their speeches solely on the assumption that the only articles that we are concerned with are wheat and meat. The Free List is a very much larger schedule of articles than wheat and meat.
§ Mr. TINKERI instanced those as being the most important from my point of view.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThis Amendment does not exist solely because of those. So far as the Government's immediate purpose is concerned I very much doubt if in their minds this Clause is related to either of those two commodities. It may very well be the case that if it is decided, as it conceivably might be decided, to take some steps in connection with meat and wheat, that those steps might be of a kind calling in due course for a Finance Bill. Those who were present when the Import Duties Bill was in its Report stage will remember that there were certain free list problems raised, but it was found to be out of Order to make the necessary Amendment then, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an undertaking that it would appear in the Finance Bill. The hon. Member for Leigh says that this is a serious departure from ordinary Parliamentary procedure. It is an unusual departure but it does not re present a new departure. The Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921 provided that duties could be imposed upon goods by administrative act, although they subsequently required confirmation by an affirmative Resolution of the House. Therefore, this is no new thing, although I realise that it is a bigger departure in detail though not in principle. The hon. Member also says that these things should not be covered up. Before any Order is made the committee have to make a recommendation and they sup port it with a report. In due course it comes before this House and we have a straight vote upon it. Nothing is covered up. There will be an effective Debate and the whole world will know the reasons for and against the proposal. He also says that we are taking away the rights of democracy. We are not taking away from this House the ultimate decision. This House will still remain the ultimate 2145 taxing authority of this country. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member should base his case on grounds which are so unsatisfactory.
Let me put forward the argument which I used at an earlier stage that if it is the position that you cannot take things out of the Free List it means that you are going to be reluctant to put things into it. At this moment the Advisory Committee is inquiring into six applications for transfer of goods now subject to the general ad valorem duty to the Free List. It may be desirable that some of these commodities should be temporarily in the Free List, but if it is to be difficult to take them out the committee will hesitate to put them in, and a temporary prejudice may be created merely because hon. Members are not prepared to give a sensible power to the committee, first to examine and, secondly, to recommend to the Government. The Government then acts upon the recommendation of the committee and finally Parliament confirms the Order. I hope the Amendment will be rejected.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVANIt is unnecessary and wearisome on Report stage to repeat the arguments which have been used during the earlier stages of a Bill, but I think that the hon. Member for South-West-Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has addressed a question to the Financial Secretary to which he is entitled to a reply. The question is whether or not an assurance will be given by the Government that during the Recess in the autumn no attempt will be made to issue Orders-in-Council dealing with many of the foodstuffs contained in the Free List. It is most unfortunate that we have never had a chance of discussing the desirability or otherwise of taxing foodstuffs, meat and wheat. All our time has been spent in discussing machinery. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) who is an authority on tariffs, could no doubt hold a most interesting and informative argument as to why wheat and meat should be taxed. We have never heard it. No single Member of the House has enlightened us as to the arguments for the taxation of wheat and meat.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSSurely it would be out of order to enter into any such argument, yet the hon. Member charges 2146 us with not doing something which would be out of order. The opportunity will come when Parliament is asked to con firm an Order.
§ Mr. BEVANThe Lord hath delivered the hon. Member into my hands. That is the case we are making. We say that the Government are obtaining the taxation of wheat and meat by a subterfuge, and that it is a cowardly way and a mean way of achieving this result when they have not the courage to argue the case before the House, Indeed, it is characteristic of Conservative politics for the last 12 years that they have tried to keep the taxation of foodstuffs out of elections entirely because the one experience they had was most unfortunate for the Protectionists. Now they say that we are not discussing the taxation of wheat and meat but a matter of machinery. To such an extent have Conservative Members and Members of the Government undermined the confidence and faith of the people in Parliamentary democracy that we cannot arouse even a tremor of indignation when we suggest that this is a violation of constitutional precedent. We on this side have ourselves taken part in undermining the reputation of the British House of Commons in this matter, but we are not and cannot be the ultimate custodians of Parliamentary democracy. The Conservative party must be its custodians. Now they are setting it aside in order that they may accomplish the taxation of foodstuffs, which would be electorally fatal for them if they asked for a mandate from the people.
The hon. Member for South Croydon says that the ultimate power rests in the hands of Parliament and that we shall have an opportunity of discussing it when Parliament assembles. The charge we make is that the House of Commons may be faced with an accomplished fact. The channels of trade may be diverted, re actions may have taken place in other countries, they may change their fiscal policy in accordance with the Orders in Council which are made, important and fundamental changes, not only an the temper of other countries towards us but in their fiscal policy may be made before the House of Commons has had an opportunity of considering the matter. That is the charge we make, and it is no use for the hon. Member to say that Parliament has the ultimate power. Par- 2147 liament, of course, has the ultimate power over everything, but we are objecting to the proposal to assemble a set of circumstances which will ultimately deter mine the limits within which Parliament will be able to move.
There are more articles on the Free List the taxation of which will have most important reactions upon some of our industries. Take the taxation of wheat. A large proportion of our wheat and meat comes from the Argentine. Have the Government considered the repercussions on the export of British coal of the taxation of wheat and meat? Have they considered what markets for our export coal will be provided if the South American markets are taken away by the taxation of wheat and meat? If the argument holds good from the Government side that these taxes are levers and negotiating instruments then the Argentine ex porter of wheat and meat will adopt the same attitude, and in order to have this instrument and lever with which to negotiate they may set up import barriers against our exports to them. Is the coal trade to be made the Cinderella again of this fight? Is it to be sacrificed in order that you may get a reduction of taxation in the Argentine? We have already seen the most disastrous reactions in Europe. The British export coal trade has suffered grievously at the hands of this fiscal war. Is it to be hit still further? The situation is becoming quite desperate and if things go on South Wales and Durham will be practically ruined. This is not merely a matter of machinery, it affects the well being and livelihood of millions of our citizens, and we are entitled to ask the Government what their policy is.
This Clause also includes pit props. Is it intended to put restrictions upon the importation of Russian timber? The pro vision of cheap raw material for the coal trade is vital to its efficiency. Is it in tended, for the sake of providing Canada with a market which she cannot supply, to put an embargo against Russian timber which has been a boon to our export coal trade? The export of timber from Russia has been of great advantage to the coal exporting districts. Is it in tended to use this as a means of making fiscal war against the Soviet Union. The Conservative party in the pursuit of their rabid Imperialism and extreme anti- 2148 Bolshevik bias may wish to inflict injury on Soviet Russia, but they cannot do it without also inflicting great injury on our own trade. We are entitled to ask the intentions of the Government. The Government say that they have no intentions; that they are perfectly innocent. It is exactly the same thing as saying that they are empty-minded. All they propose to do is to say to these three wise men, "We are leaving this entirely in your hands and whatever you recommend we will adopt." That is what the Government are saying. If the Government do not adopt the recommendations of this Committee they will deal a great blow at its prestige. The Government find them selves in a cleft stick. "They must either accept the recommendations of the Committee or they must say that they are unwise and injudicious, in which case they will deal a great blow at the Committee. I suggest that the Government are not entitled to pledge the House of Commons beforehand on these fundamental matters.
There is one more thing I would like to urge. Everyone expects that by the autumn very important decisions will be reached at Ottawa, decisions of far-reaching effect upon the structure of the commercial life of this country and our relationships with the rest of the world. Our market for meat and wheat and for pit props will have a very important place in the new plan. This House ought to have a chance of reviewing that plan in all its aspects. Its decision ought not to be prejudiced in the slightest way; we ought to be able to consider the decisions at Ottawa in the light of the reactions upon our commercial life in every respect.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)The hon. Member is getting into next week.
§ Mr. BEVANOne of the difficulties of the situation is that this House at pre sent is discussing a Clause which gives to the Treasury the right of recommending to the Advisory Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Clause is taking out of the Free List certain articles which might be made the subject of recommendations by the tariff Advisory Committee. Those articles are wheat and meat, amongst others. Orders might be made in the course of the summer months, and they might be in operation in the 2149 course of the summer months. That might gravely prejudice this House's opportunity of discussing what may be said at Ottawa. That is my proposition. It is one of the difficulties of the situation that we are unable to discuss any of these things in a realistic way, because we are merely discussing this machinery. I ask for a pledge from the Government benches now that in the course of the summer months no steps will be taken to apply import restrictions of any sort whatever upon these important articles, and that we shall have a chance of considering them in the light of whatever may happen at Ottawa.
That is a reasonable proposition. It seems to me that it should be an integral part of Government policy that these matters, which are matters of high policy, should be perfectly free to be discussed when we have the report of the Ottawa Conference. That is an important matter which I urge with every respect, and as to which we have not yet had a reply. How can you come to this House in the autumn and face the House with a plan half of which has already been accomplished? How can the House in the autumn be expected to take a reason able and realistic view of the whole of our commercial life when we shall have been pledged beforehand to many of the things which ought to have been an integral part of that policy? It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say, "Ah, but this is the best of all Governments in the best of all possible worlds." But when the autumn comes and we find that grave decisions have been made and that power has been taken out of this House's hands to alter those decisions in any way, that will raise many protests that this Government, which has not yet distinguished itself by any far-sighted statesmanship, and in order that a piece of family history may be rounded off, has imposed tariffs on foodstuffs and has gravely prejudiced the welfare of the people of this country. It should be obvious that the consequence of having tampered in this stupid and awkward way with our fiscal machinery has already had such disastrous result in un employment and increased misery, that the Government ought to call a halt be fore taking further steps on the road to ruin.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI hope that the Government will not accede to the request of the hon. Member who has just spoken by giving any pledge of the kind that, he has requested. I would make one or two remarks about his speech. Several times in this Parliament the ton. Member has referred to undermining constitutional precedent, and I get a little bit impatient with him about it. I really think that unless we are prepared to undermine constitutional precedent in this country to some extent we shall never get any further at all. We have to alter the method of legislation in this country, and I am all for a bit of undermining constitutional precedent. So is the hon. Member. It is sheer hypocrisy for him to come here and score debating points against the Government by taunting them in this way.
§ Mr. BEVANI have not the slightest objection to scrapping the whole of constitutional machinery in the service of some far-sighted and well-thought-out plan, but no such plan is before us now.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYThe hon. Member reproached the Government. The whole tone of his voice was one of injured innocence. In effect he said, "How can you touch our blessed constitution?" If his argument did not mean that it meant nothing at all. For my part, as I have said, I am rather in favour of a little bit of judicious constitutional undermining. I am also in favour of Government by Order. I think it is not at all a bad plan, in times of emergency such as the present, and one of the best precedents that the present Government has set. I am strongly in favour of facing this House with accomplished facts in this matter. My only regret is that they have not faced us with a few more accomplished facts during the past few months. Again, what hypocrisy for the hon. Member to say, "How can you hold up a democratic Assembly and face it with accomplished facts? The Government ought to do nothing until, point by point and line by line, they have received sanction from this House." Parliament would never have got very far in the last 30 or 40 years if we proceeded by legislation on those lines.
Another point made by the hon. Member was about the taxation of meat and wheat. Quite frankly I say that I am 2151 strongly in favour of the taxation of both meat and wheat, and I regret the fact that there should have been substituted for a plain and straightforward import duty on wheat the very complicated quota system, which I think will prove rather more difficult to work out than is anticipated in some quarters. But that is a digression. With regard to this Free List, it is quite untrue to suggest that if we do put some of the articles which are at present upon the Free List into the zone of import duties, that will hamper and restrict us in any way in negotiating favourable trade agreements with foreign countries. I am convinced that the reverse will be the case, particularly in relation to the coal mining industry. After all, the one asset that we have left in this country, the one asset which retains its full value—it is one of the mo3t valuable assets possessed by any country in the world—is the home market. The point at which that market is most important is where raw materials and food stuffs are concerned. There you have the competition of the whole world to supply what still remains the most valuable single market in the world for the consumption of these raw materials.
Particular reference has been made to the question of pit props coming from Russia. One speaker said that we must have these pit props as cheaply as possible to enable our mining industry to compete successfully with its rivals on the Continent. But has my hon. Friend considered the trade figures with Russia during the last six months, the last year or the last five years? Does he think that those trade figures can be justified from any economic point of view whatever? They are grossly unfavourable to this country. The Russian Government have built up a trade surplus of something like £20,000,000 per annum against this country over the last 10 years. I am one of those who believe in an expansion of Anglo-Russian trade. I have advocated it for years in this House. But I think it ought to be framed upon more or less approximately equal and fair terms. Pit props, I hope, will be taken out of the Free List.
Here let me raise a subject which I have raised before in this House. Some of my constituents are trying their hardest to persuade the Soviet Govern- 2152 ment to save the herring fishing industry in Scotland by the purchase of herrings, and the Soviet Government are holding up the industry because they will not pay any price that the curers in this country can look at. The reason is that the Russians can get a worse and grosser and cheaper article from Norway. I want every possible weapon to be put into the hands of the Government in order to oblige the Soviet Government, in return for concessions in our home market, to purchase more machinery, more herrings and anything else you like, in this country. Only by such methods will you get a healthy and satisfactory Anglo-Russian trade.
§ Mr. A. BEVANWould it not have been much more desirable for this country to have pledged its credit and to have raised its export trade with Russia, than to have lost so much in Germany?
§ Mr. BOOTHBYI am not arguing that our policy has been very wise. I was glad to see that we had extended our export credits to Russia, but I do not see why we should deprive ourselves of the supreme weapon by which alone we can find our way back into the foreign markets of the world. We have a tariff. The point is that we should leave no chinks in the armour that we have put on, and which we have been compelled to put on by events in the world. Above all, we should use the tariff weapon to the best possible advantage for this country. That is what I think this Clause will achieve. With regard to the machinery of government which, I agree, is also raised, the hon. Member said it was of no importance. I hold that the question of the machinery of government in this country is of supreme importance. I believe that the proper procedure more and more in these rather intricate matters, where swift administrative action becomes necessary from time to time, is for this House to approve a principle, to approve a policy in general, for this House to accord to the Government of the day power to act, and when the Government has acted it is for the House to give its approval or sanction to the Government. It is because this Clause carries out that legislative machinery that I heartily support it.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSThe hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has de- 2153 livered a damning indictment of this Clause and of the principle which it contains. A little examination of his own argument will convince him of that fact. He emphasised, first, that this House should decide on principles and, secondly, that the Government should carry out those principles. This Clause fulfils neither purpose. This House has not a word to say on the principle of the taxation of foodstuffs nor has the Government. I sympathise with the hon. Member in his desire for rapidity of action. I hope that we shall be able to take advantage of these opportunities for rapidity of action, when the time comes and I agree that the constitutional party, which is sitting opposite, cannot very well blind them selves to the fact that the action which they are taking here is not entirely in accordance with their history. For us to do these things is different. No one can blame us because we have always recommended that these things should be done.
§ Mr. BOOTHBYBut have never done them.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSPerhaps we have suffered from the same blindness to which reference has been made, but now, fortunately, we are no longer suffering in that respect and it may be that the time will come, and at no very distant date, when these precedents will be cited with some force from the other side of the House. Leaving aside the constitutional point and returning to the Clause, I submit that the strong argument against the Clause is that it relieves the Government and this House of the responsibility of decision. It deals with a matter as to which nobody can say that there was a definite decision by the country. People may argue as to what was said here and what was said there, but, as to a clear decision upon this question, nobody can deny the fact that there was no such decision.
Surely it is the duty of this House if a decision is to be come to on these matters to make that decision. By what right does this House try to shelter itself behind Sir George May and two of his colleagues? The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) said that they would "think twice" upon this question. I do not know which of them he thought would not think at all, because there are three of them. What is their 2154 thought in the way of a decision for the country? The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) says that they only recommend. I thought we had got rid of that fallacy. What is the object of setting up this commission? In order, we are told, to remove tariffs out side the area of politics. They are a judicial tribunal to decide these great issues without bringing them into the political arena. Does the hon. Member for South Croydon suggest that that is the object of setting up the Tariff Com mission, and that it is the policy of the Government to override their decision?
The whole object of the Government is to have a decision made for them by somebody else. That is their avowed policy, and to say that this tariff commission only recommend is to rely upon words which have no meaning. It is perfectly clear what is the policy which lay behind the Import Duties Act and which lies behind this Clause. It is that these matters should be taken away from determination by the Government and the responsibility removed to the shoulders of this semi-judicial body. We object to the Government evading its responsibility in that way. If they think that the taxation of wheat and meat is right, let them do it, but let them take the responsibility and give the House an opportunity of criticising their action before it is done and not within 28 Parliamentary days after it has been done.
I put to the Financial Secretary a specific question which has been asked already but has not yet been answered. Who is to decide the policy of this country as regards the taxation of food stuffs under Clause 7? Is it to be the Government or the tariff commission? I am. sure he will reply to me that if I read the Bill I would know that there was to be a recommendation by the tariff com mission upon which the Treasury would act after consultation with the appropriate Minister. But I want to know whether that appropriate Minister will consider that it is for him to decide upon that recommendation. Supposing the tariff commission do not make any recommendation on wheat and meat, but that the appropriate Minister thinks that there ought to be a tariff before the Ottawa Conference, is the Minister going to decide to refer it to the commission and ask them to put on the tariff? If not, it seems to me that the system of 2155 leaving it to the commission is going to take away from the Government completely the power of decision on the question of policy. If the tariff commission dig in their heels and say, "We do not propose to tax wheat and meat; we will take no instructions from the Government; we are a judicial body," then what are the Government going to do as regards Ottawa? It seems to me they would have to go to Ottawa and say, "We are very sorry; we have decided to turn this question over to a high judicial body of which Sir George May is the chairman. No one can doubt their sense and their integrity and they tell us that we must not tax wheat and meat. We should like to enter into an arangement with you but Sir George May is standing on our tail and we cannot advance an inch." Will that be the position? Will "the heavenly twins" on the Front Bench opposite tell us whether that is to be the position or whether the Government are going to say to Sir George May, "We are very sorry but we must have this tax on wheat and meat or we cannot negotiate at Ottawa"? As I say, I sympathise with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen but surely it is the Government which ought to tax wheat and meat and not the tariff commission. If the hon. Member were in command, if he had got rid of democracy and was making Orders every day, I am sure that he would not wait for Sir George May. Certainly not. But what I have pointed out shows the vice of this Clause, and that is why I say that the hon. Member's argument was a most complete indictment of the principle contained in the Clause.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSThe speeches from the Front Opposition bench and from the minor Opposition on the other side remind me of an elderly couple who do not get on very well together and who are trying to make up their minds whether they want a motor car or not, and, who, if they ever do make up their minds on that point, can never decide whether they ought to use it or not. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has told us how much he dislikes the fact that the Government, after consulting the House of Commons, desire the power to make rapid decisions. It is obviously 2156 necessary for two reasons that the Government should have power to make rapid decisions.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSBut they have not that power under the Clause. The whole point of the Clause is that the Government cannot come to a decision but have to wait for the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSThe point which I am trying to make is that under the Import Duties Act there was a Free List which could not be altered and this Clause provides the machinery to alter that Free List. That enables the Government to make decisions which may be come necessary for instance—I use this purely as an illustration—in the case of the Ottawa Conference or anything of that kind. We have heard again to-day the old statement which has been reiterated in this Parliament that this Clause relieves the House of Commons of the responsibility for decision, and also that there was no decision on this matter at the General Election. I thought that the result of that Election had been decisive enough to make most people sitting above the Gangway anxious to avoid any reference to it but what was the decision at the Election? It was to give the Government machinery to carry out its full policy and that is why it is better that the Government should have power to act on this matter. When they have acted they can come back and talk about it if necessary. We have full powers of discussion and full powers to talk about it and a lot of people in this House are too fond of talking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] On this particular occasion some people appear as more or less reformed characters. I do not wish to see this Parliament merely giving powers for discussion. I do wish to see this Parliament giving Ministers full powers to carry out any orders which may be found desirable in these respects.
Mr. PRICEFollowing on the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and his statement about the General Election it ought to be stated emphatically that there is no Conservative Member who fought at the last Election who can prove that he told the electorate that he was in favour of the taxation of food.
§ Mr. HARTLANDOn a point of Order. May I say that I did so and I can prove it to the hon. Member any time he likes.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member must not interrupt on a point of Order to make a statement of that kind. It is not a point of Order.
Mr. PRICEThe challenge has been made more than once in these Debates. The Prime Minister himself in many speeches during the Election denied that the National Government would have as part of their policy the taxation of food. I have been surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's absence from these Debates When we were discussing the Import Duties Act he denied that the policy of the Government was the taxation of food. He referred to the articles in the list as luxuries and denied that they were foods of the people. The Free List which we are discussing now includes wheat and meat. I do not deny that the Government stated emphatically that they were going to alter the tariff system and introduce a scientific tariff. Our protest is that the Government are not bold enough to bring in a definite Resolution to remove these things from the Free List and to test the feeling of this House and to take the votes on this important matter of hon. Members who, at some time, will have to face the electorate and give an account of their stewardship.
I should like to ask hon. Members who have spoken against this Amendment what would be the position if a free vote of the House were taken on whether wheat and meat should carry an import duty or not? How would hon. Members act in the Division Lobbies and how would they give an account of their stewardship to the electors? There are dozens in this House who dare not face the electorate now and advocate the taxation of wheat and meat. We have only had one real opportunity since the General Election of testing the feeling in an industrial centre and we beat this Government hollow and returned a. right hon. Gentleman to this side. Hon. Members of this House took a deep interest in deciding the articles that were to be placed on the Free List and there may be certain matters connected with the change in our fiscal policy which require examination by experts. But there are no experts in this land who understand 2158 more what a tariff on bread means than we who represent the ordinary working-men and women, whose wages are low, whose conditions are terrible, and who are having great difficulty in keeping body and soul together.
We should like to meet the Government on this issue face to face, if they would be bold enough to bring the matter before this House and test it. We should like to know where the Government stand on this issue. But instead of that they say, "No, we will hand this question over to three men who have no responsibility to the electors and who have never been appointed by the electors of this country." The hon. Member who spoke from below the Gangway may be prepared to alter the traditions of our Government policy and hand over to people not democratically elected the right to deal with matters of high policy of this kind, but there are many of us who are not prepared, without a protest, to allow such matters to be decided by anybody except those who face the electors and are sent here to voice their opinions. I remember that when the Free List was being debated, by a tremendous vote of this House these articles were put on the Free List, less than six months ago.
If anything has happened that has induced the Government to feel that these articles ought to be taken out of the Free List, why not manfully face the House and say so, rather than go by a back-door way and refer the question to three commissioners? We are told that the Government are not going to advise these gentlemen at all, but to leave the matter entirely to them, and the possibilities are that when, at the commencement of July, we go back to the people who have sent us here, with no duties for weeks and weeks, we may return when the House resumes and find that in our absence the judgment of those three men may have enforced taxation on wheat and meat. We have said from these benches that if we were to concede that the Government were entitled to examine industry from the point of view of tariffs, there has never been a. ease made out in this House, nor any attempt made by any Minister, to put a tax on wheat and meat. As a matter of fact, important Ministers during the early Debates on the 2159 Import Duties Bill stood there and sacredly declared, "I will not stand for the taxation of wheat and meat." Where are they now? They ought to have been here defending the right of this House to control this issue. If they are sincere and worthy of the offices which they hold in the Cabinet, they ought to be in favour of this Amendment to prevent anyone from removing these articles from the Free List except the Members of this House alone.
We know that we may be defeated in the Division Lobby, but there will come a day when members of the Conservative party will regret that they are handing over the rights of this House to unappointed representatives outside. You are teaching us a lesson, and we shall probably copy it. There may be a time, there will be a time, when the Conservative party, who are ruling this Government which is termed the National Government, will lose power, and we on these benches will have power, and we shall copy them. [Interruption.] Do not complain if we do so, in quite a different direction, not in the taxation of the food of the poorest people in the land; but never complain if you find that there is a party taking charge of the nation's affairs and handing over constitutional rights willy-nilly, on purpose to save their own faces. In conclusion, I want to make my emphatic protest against articles of food, such as wheat and meat, being handed over to commissioners or anyone else outside this House. We think that these things are too sacred to hand over to anyone but the representatives who are responsible to the electors.
§ Mr. ERNEST EVANSThere are probably few Members of this House who have availed themselves of the many opportunities of hearing the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who would not sympathise with his complaint against those Members who talk too often in this House, but his remarks on this Clause indicated clearly that he had not read it. His great argument in favour of the Clause was that he wanted the Government to have power to act immediately, but under this. Clause the Government have not got that power. The Government can only act upon the recom- 2160 mendation of the Advisory Committee, and I think we are entitled to ask the Government to reply to the question put by the late Solicitor-General. Suppose that the Advisory Committee do not make any recommendation in regard to any of these matters that may be submitted to them, are the Government prepared to face the responsibility of coming to a decision of their own, announcing it to the House, and asking the House to assent to such decision? It is a very important matter, and I should like to know what is the policy of the Government in the event of the Advisory Committee not taking the responsibility of making recommendations.
This Clause raises issues which are even more grave than the question of the taxation of wheat and meat. It is a Clause which raises a constitutional issue of the most vital importance. It is only a few months ago that this House was asked by the Government to pronounce its opinion upon what was called the Free List, and the House came to a decision with as much liberty as any House can have where Government Whips are concerned, but by that decision the House definitely pledged itself that there were certain things which ought to be put on the Free List, which meant that there were certain things which ought to be exempted from the particular duties with which we are now concerned. Yet within a few months the House is asked, not to reverse that decision, not to say, "We were wrong when we decided that certain things should be put on the Free List," but to say, "It will be for some committee to recommend as to whether we were right or wrong at the time." I want to register my emphatic protest against that sort of action.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who, like many others, seems to be fond of using this bench when he wishes to intervene in the Debate—
§ Mr. BOOTHBYHas the hon. Member any prescriptive right to the bench, and does he object to my using it?
§ Mr. EVANSNot at all. I am only too delighted to see the hon. Member, and I hope he will use the seat a little more often and recognise the responsibility attaching to it. But the hon. Member said that he had no objection to undermining the constitution now and again. 2161 I have an objection to undermining the constitution in this respect, because the control of this House over taxation is probably, above anything else, the thing that has enabled the House of Commons to stand and defend the liberties of the common people of this country, and I think that this Clause, by handing over to a committee the power of putting on or taking off the Free List certain important articles, is a complete departure from the whole constitutional history and theory of this Parliament and this country. Not being a Conservative, but merely 8, Liberal, I believe in the constitution and am not prepared to undermine it without grave consideration of what I am undermining, and after listening to the speeches delivered in the House on this Amendment, I think it is about time that somebody made a protest against this procedure. It is contrary to constitutional practice to hand over to any committee, however distinguished its members may be—and I am not making any suggestion against either the character or the ability of its members—the powers delegated to them under this Clause.
Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITEI desire to intervene in the Debate as a result of the speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price), who raised the rather hackneyed issue of the right of those of us who represent industrial areas to support the Government in any action which may involve the taxation of foodstuffs. The hon. Member represents a division not very far away from mine, and it seemed to me that his speech contained two main fallacies. The first is, that he apparently still believes that his party represent in this country those whom he describes as the poorest of the poor. It never was true. They never have secured a majority of votes in this country, and at the last election the poorest of the poor showed exactly what they thought of them and of their record. The second fallacy is this, that the hon. Member's speech contained the thesis at least that he is a Member of a party which is opposed to the taxation of food. I know that the hon. Member, like myself, entered Parliament for the first time at the recent election, but I am quite certain that he has kept himself well informed in the past as to the activities of his party in this House, and he must know full well that they have succeeded 2162 in passing three Budgets containing food taxes of an oppressive character on the people of this country and that while they may have talked of a free breakfast table, they have never achieved it.
Let us once and for all tackle hon. Members opposite on the question of this mandate, this suggestion that the working classes in particular were bamboozled over the question of the taxation of food, that they did not realise that it was an issue at the election, and that it was never put before them. I had the honour of defeating a right hon. Gentleman who was not only a Minister in the recent Socialist Administration, but who was also the recognised head of the Co-operative movement in this country, an expert on the subject of foodstuffs if ever there was one, one who has spent his whole life dealing with the question of foodstuffs and their distribution. May I read to the House what the right hon. Gentleman said in his election address, firmly entrenched as he then was with a majority of nearly 11,000? This is what Mr. A. V. Alexander told his constituents in his election address:
We are entering a General Election in which the national emergency is being exploited to stampede the country into accepting the Tory policy of tariffs, including taxes on food.6.0 p.m.There is therefore no doubt as to the situation of the electorate in my division as the right hon. Gentleman put before them in such clear language that the taxation of food was a definite issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did you say? "] I will inform hon. Members. I said that I stood to support the National Government in taking any steps which they thought fit to restore the prosperity of the country, and when asked, as I frequently was at my meetings during the election, whether I would support a policy of the taxation of food, I said that I should support the Government in any action which they thought fit to take; if they saw fit to impose duties upon foodstuffs, it would be my duty to go into the Lobby and support them. I added, what has proved to be the case, that duties could be placed upon foodstuffs without raising prices to the consumer.
§ Mr. A. BEVANThe hon. Member will remember that the Lord President of the Council told the House the other day that 2163 Lord Snowden had rendered a great service at the last election in assisting in the return of Conservative Members. Lord Snowden said he did not regard the mandate for which the Prime Minister asked as a mandate for food taxes.
Mr. BRAITHWAITEIt is an honour to be interrupted by the future Chancellor of the Exchequer. So far as Lord Snowden's attitude to myself was concerned it happened that an elector wrote to him asking what action he ought to take and how his vote should be cast. The reply was published in the Press of the country. It was not complimentary to myself, but I will tell the hon. Member what it was. It was that in securing the defeat of my opponent they would at least succeed in returning a Member who would not run away when the country was faced with danger. In other words, the advice of Lord Snowden was, "I do not know what the other fellow is like, but you had better get rid of your present Member." I do not wish to detain the House with a tedious recital of the campaign in my division, but I do want to point out the very relevant fact that the issue of the taxation of foodstuffs was raised in the election by the prominence which hon. Members gave to the issue. I want to remind hon. Members also that they no more have a monopoly of the virtues of sympathy and humanity than they have a monopoly of seats in this House.
§ Mr. J. JONESOut of the mouths of babes and sucklings cometh forth wisdom. We have just had one of the younger Members of the House trying to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. What we are trying to do is to say that Parliament shall be the deciding factor in all questions of taxation. I thought that that was recognised as a constitutional principle in the Mother of Parliaments, but evidently it has been forgotten. Pym and Hampden are dead as mummies, and the constitutional struggles of the past over the question of taxation are now being thrown overboard. A triumvirate of irresponsible people, however famous they may be, however expert they may be in paying out funeral benefit and making up mortality tables, are to decide for us when we are absent what kind of taxes shall be levied upon the 2164 people. In this House, the upholders of the Constitution, who have an unprecedented majority, get up and, although they denounce Lenin, Trotsky and the predecessors of the present Government in another country, now say that while Bolshevism is a horrible thing in Russia it is a beautiful thing in England, provided the Tories are behind it.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) when he said that chickens may come home to roost. The policy for which hon. Members are standing to-day may act as a boomerang, and they must not grumble when they are asked to take their gruel. The world does not move along stated lines, and to-day the world is in a state of flux. What are you going to Lausanne and Ottawa for? You are going to Ottawa to follow one policy and to Lausanne to follow another. The two are mutually contradictory, and they cannot be squared under the economic conditions which prevail to-day. You cannot satisfy the agrarians of Australia—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that that has anything to do with this Clause.
§ Mr. JONESI want to point out that we are being asked to hand over a blank cheque on the bank of futurity to three people whom we do not know. I have only seen their pictures in the papers, and, if their personal appearance is anything to go by, I would not trust them as far as I can see. I was sent here by my constituency with a large majority, in spite of the landslide, and I have as much right to form a judgment on how the people I represent shall be taxed as Sir George May. Hon. Members opposite are opponents of revolution, but this is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the history of Great Britain. It is taxation without representation. Taxes are to come into existence before the House has a right to discuss them. I never believed when I read British history that the time would arrive when all the struggles of the past which were implemented by blood and tears would count for nothing, and that at the beginning of the 20th century we would come to the stage when a mere triumvirate of people, over whom we should have no real public control, would have the right to levy taxation on the 2165 people without an opportunity beforehand of Parliamentary discussion. Take advice from these people by all means; get all the expert advice you can. I believe in experts. There are three kinds of liars: Liars, adjectival liars, and experts. I would take advice from all of them, but their advice should not be acted upon without full discussion in Parliament.
Every Member of the House has always had the right to discuss taxation before it was levied, but now we are to get the right only after the taxation has been levied. Imagine the situation when these three Commissioners meet and decide that such and such a tax is necessary, although the House has already decided what shall be on the Free List. After the Advisory Committee has given this decision, will any Government go against it? I cannot see any Government doing so. The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Braithwaite) said that he told his electors that he was prepared to support the National Government. Did he tell them definitely that he was in favour of the taxation of the people's food? It was really a case of "Trust the National Government; open your mouth and shut your eyes, and see what I shall give you." The National Government is composed of Free Traders, Protectionists, nothingarians and people who are looking for jobs,, and their attitude is, "Trust us; you can depend upon it we shall be all right, and you will be all right because we shall be all right." The National Government was a national confidence trick played upon the people. If you want taxes on food, put them before the people and let us have a full discussion on them. We have already decided what items shall be on the Free List, and yet a few months after that decision we are told that the whole question is to go to three people, and that 615 Members of the House, who were elected by the people, are to surrender their rights. The taxation of the people is a constitutional matter. Every party has honoured it since 1377, and it has depended, not on Commissioners or individuals, but on the free expression of the representatives of the people. This is not merely a question of whether meat or wheat shall be taxed; it is a great constitutional issue, and those who support it will live to regret it.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha)My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), in the course of his wide-ranged speech, said that it was both wearisome and unnecessary to repeat criticisms of this Clause. The same adjectives are, of course, appropriate to any reply which is made, and I feel very conscious that the only duty I can discharge to the House is to remind hon. Members once again of the circumstances in which this Clause finds itself in the Bill, and the arguments by which the Clause is justified. Many hon. Members, and two in particular, have spoken of the horrors of taxes upon food. I tell them once again, as I have had to do before, that there is no proposal in this Clause to lay any tax upon food, and that when there is, there will be the proper occasion for them to vent their indignation. They can state their case then, with the actual suggestions of the Government before them—if such suggestions are made—and the Government will be in a position to reply, not speculatively, but in detail and realistically. Therefore, I think I am entitled to ask the House to dismiss any consideration of taxes upon food as if they were being actually proposed. They are not. They may be in future; but it has never yet been the custom of Governments to make public advertisement in advance of their intention to tax any particular commodity, and what Chancellors of the Exchequer have always refrained from doing cannot be expected of me.
May I try to put thus Clause in perspective? There is a Free List in the Import Duties Act. The Advisory Committee may recommend additions to that Free List, but may not recommend subtractions from it. That is not a logical position, but an. anomalous position, and we propose to rectify it, and to give symmetry to the Act. Surely symmetry is desirable on its own merits; and in giving that symmetry we are fulfilling an undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. These bitter indictments which have been made to-day and were made in the course of other discussions on the Finance Bill are belated. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House of Commons during the discussion of the Import Duties Bill that he in- 2167 tended to make this amendment in the law, no exception whatever was taken to it.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSDoes the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would have been in order on that occasion to discuss an Amendment to the Finance Bill when that Amendment had been expressly ruled out of order in the Debate that was ensuing?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHANo, but there was a Third Reading stage and this matter was referred to upon the Third Reading. Besides in the course of a Debate upon the Free List itself, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, giving an explanation to the House of why he had been able to make alterations in that Free List said, "I have been able to grant these concessions now, which I was not originally prepared to grant, upon the understanding that the law will be amended, and that the Advisory Committee will be given the same freedom to recommend subtractions from the list as they now have to recommend additions to it." I know that my hon. and learned Friend who interrupted me will not dispute that, because the actual passages have been read to the House, and if he is still dissatisfied, I can read them again. This was done in pursuance of an understanding that we should make the present law symmetrical.
Then we are challenged upon the ground that we are adopting an unusual procedure. The procedure we now adopt is in complete harmony with the procedure under the Import Duties Act. There is an Advisory Committee; there is a recommendation; there is the power of the Treasury to accept it; there is an Order, if they do accept it; and there is the approval of the House of Commons, after 28 Parliamentary days, in order to give it sanction. If that is a breach of the constitution the proper time at which to take umbrage at it was when the Act was under discussion. What we are doing to-day is in complete harmony with what we did then. We are not proposing any different procedure; the constitutional innovation, if it be an innovation, has already been established. But what is the complaint? I listened to my hon. and learned Friend the ex-Solicitor-General. Is it his complaint that the 2168 Government are afraid of taking responsibility and are sheltering behind a committee, or is it that they are taking too much responsibility?
§ Sir S. CRIPPSI thought I had made it quite plain if the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAIt is because I listened that I am in confusion.
§ Sir S. CRIPPSIf the hon. Gentleman will read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow I think he will see it is perfectly clear. The point I was making in reply to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) was that this House should decide on questions of policy as regards taxation, and that when the House has decided the Government should be able to act.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI am very much obliged. I have had to listen very closely to this Debate, and two criticisms have been made from the benches opposite, I think they were both in the same speech: one that we divested ourselves of a responsibility we should bear, and the other that we are assuming too much responsibility, and I say that those two charges cannot be consistent. To refer to the interruption just made by my hon. and learned Friend. He answered a speech which was delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who said that the Parliamentary habits of previous generations were antiquated and he desired to see a more expeditious procedure adopted by Governments, such a procedure in fact as this Government has adopted. The hon. and learned Gentleman then said, "I am in favour of Governments being able to take strong action."
§ Sir S. CRIPPSCertainly!
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI am glad the Government have the powerful support of my hon. and learned Friend, because we can take strong action. We have instituted avowedly an improvement in the procedure. We act by an Order; we act promptly; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman is in favour of Governments being in a position to take strong action, he ought not to be objecting to this Clause. It is quite true that before we adopted this procedure it had not been used, but during the short time it 2169 has been in operation I think it has given universal satisfaction. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) made premature criticisms of that committee, and said it would have no regard to the reorganisation of an industry and no regard to the consumer. He repeated the latter criticism this afternoon in. referring to taxes on food. He said they might recommend a tax on food without regard to the consumer. The committee has been in existence only a short time, and yet it has undertaken a complete reorganisation of the steel industry. I think that shows that the committee is acting with a due regard to its responsibilities.
§ Mr. ANEURIN BEVANWe cannot allow that statement to go unchallenged. Sir George May and his friends, the members of the Advisory Committee, have no power to impose a reorganisation upon the steel industry, and have not, in fact, undertaken the reorganisation of the steel industry, but have merely offered a bribe to the steel industry that if they will—[Interruption.] This is an important matter. We cannot let such an inaccurate statement be made from the Government Bench. Sir George May has done no such thing. All he has done is invite the steel industry to set up committees to reorganise it, and if it does so he might bribe it with an Order.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI think, in the circumstances, it was hardly fair of my hon. Friend to interrupt me, for he has only said in his own inimitable way what I was trying to say with propriety. He speaks of a bribe offered by the Advisory Committee. I should prefer to say that the Advisory Committee tell the steel industry that if it is to enjoy the benefits of protection it must take steps to put itself in order. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not what you said."] That is what my hon. Friend calls a bribe. I prefer to have it stated in the way I put it. I therefore claim, and I think it is generally acknowledged, that during the time they have been in office the Committee have acted circumspectly and with a due regard for their responsibilities, and the House is entitled to trust them. Apart from vesting this duty in a Committee there was no other way of removing the House of Commons and the Government from the kind of pressure we desired to avoid. Having regard to what had hap- 2170 pened in other countries, we took the course of establishing an Advisory Committee, and we shall listen to them. At the same time, no Chancellor of the Exchequer is inhibited from following the ordinary procedure of recommending any further taxes that he may think desirable for the purposes of revenue, or, indeed, for any other purposes.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSWere that the first speech made by the hon. Gentleman in this House, I could understand not only hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite taking note of it, but also hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on these benches. But we have heard the hon. Member speak in these Debates before. Not long ago he told us about the large number of foreign firms which had established themselves in this country and were operating behind the Protection barrier. We have lived long enough to see what that has amounted to, and how much sincerity and reality there was in the hon. Member's statement on that occasion. I think the hon. Member ought to be reminded of these collossal figures—that there are 123 new firms, and that they have provided work for 2,800 people. Yorkshire will never be able to say an unkind word against this Government now that they have established among them five new firms employing 69 people.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not see that this has much to do with this Clause.
§ 6.30. p.m.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSI should regret it very much if I were to fall foul of your Ruling, and I want to come to the hon. Gentleman's statement on this occasion, when referring to a previous speech. He tells us once more that what the Government have done is merely to bring symmetry to their Customs Duty law. In one breath he tells us the Government have the power to act, and in the next breath that the Government have no power to act, because the committee have to make the recommendation and the Government are not in a position to act until they have received that recommendation. Really, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The complaint of the Opposition has been from beginning to end that the Government have no power to act until the committee have handed in a recommendation. We are justified in saying that on a question so vital to our people and to our industries 2171 it is the Government itself and not these persons who ought to have the responsibility for operating the Customs Duties law. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether, instead of attempting to educate Members sitting on these benches, he will tell us why the President of the Board of Trade is not replying to this Debate. Is it because the President of the Board of Trade stated definitely and specifically in this House that he would not be a party to the taxation of wheat and meat? Is it because the power is taken out of the right hon. Gentleman's hands that he now sends the hon. Gentleman to state the case? Moreover, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that not only have hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway protested with us against this policy from the very first, but that on every occasion when a vote has been taken the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Education have marched into the Lobby with the Opposition? Therefore, the righteous indignation of the hon. Gentleman is not quite so solid as it appears, for the Government themselves are not united on this policy, and if they are not united there is just the chance, we think, for honest politicians to be taking a better course. I do not want to carry the Debate on to any undue length, but I would urge upon the hon. Gentleman that when replying to a Debate such as this he should not attempt always to put the Opposition in a wrong position. From the first we have been protesting against handing over powers to individuals, whoever they may be, to impose taxation either upon the food of the people or upon the raw materials which form a vital part of the industrial life of the country.
We opposed this Resolution in the Customs Duties Bill itself, when the Chancellor introduced his Budget and indicated his intention, and on every available opportunity we have never hesitated to enter a protest against what
§ we conceive to be a constitutional departure which may or may not prove useful to-day or to-morrow. It may be an arguable point as to whether we ought to change the law and our Governmental methods at the present time. I am not one of those who would hold fast to the constitution if an emergency called for some alternative method to be employed, but as an hon. Friend behind me has already said, we must remember that what the Government are doing by handing over power to persons outside this Chamber some other future Government may do also.
§ A further protest I want to make is concerned with the fact that during the Summer Recess so many things may happen over which we shall have no sort of control. Anything that is done will be a fait accompli when Parliament reassembles, and the Government will be in a position to say: "The Committee made a recommendation and we were almost obliged to accept it; an Order was prepared, and it became operative." Hon. Members who came here before the election of the National Government talk about constitutional procedure and about opposing the Government, but the Lord President of the Council, the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would declare that if the Government were defeated it would be regarded as a vote of no confidence. The current of thought leads to the final conclusion that it is the committee who now will be in power, and that it is they alone who can act, since the Government have delegated almost the whole of their power to this committee to make a recommendation which can be acted upon. For those reasons, I am bound to say that I and my colleagues will persist in our present course.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 58.
2175| Division No. 223.] | AYES. | [6.34 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Balniel, Lord | Borodale, Viscount |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Bossom, A. C. |
| Albery, Irving James | Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Boulton, W. W. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Bateman, A. L. | Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. |
| Atkinson, Cyril | Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.) | Boyce, H. Leslie |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Bracken, Brendan |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) | Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton, W.) | Broadbent, Colonel John |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Boothby, Robert John Graham | Brockiebank, C. E. R. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y) | Guy, J. C. Morrison | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Patrick, Colin M. |
| Burnett, John George | Hamilton, Sir George (liford) | Pearson, William G. |
| Butler, Richard Austen | Hanbury, Cecil | Penny, Sir George |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Petherick, M. |
| Campbell, Rear-Adml. G.(Burnley) | Harbord, Arthur | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Hartland, George A. | Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n) |
| Carver, Major William H. | Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n) | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle) | Pike, Cecil F. |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Haslam, sir John (Bolton) | Potter, John |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Heligers, Captain F. F. A. | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Chalmers, John Rutherford | Hepworth, Joseph | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Pybus, Percy John |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) |
| Chapman, sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.) | Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Ramsay, T. B. w. (Western Isles) |
| Chotzner, Alfred James | Hornby, Frank | Ramsden, E. |
| Christie, James Archibald | Horobin, Ian M. | Ratcliffe, Arthur |
| Clayton, Dr. George C. | Horsbrugh, Florence | Ray, Sir William |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey | Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Colville, John | Hurd, Sir Percy | Renwick, Major Gustav A. |
| Conant, R. J. E. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Jamieson, Douglas | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. |
| Cooke, Douglas | Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Robinson, John Roland |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Ker, J, Campbell | Rosbotham, S. T. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Kimball, Lawrence | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Kirkpatrick, William M. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. |
| Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Knox, Sir Alfred | Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Culverwell, Cyril Tom | Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Runge, Norah Cecil |
| Davison, Sir William Henry | Law, Sir Alfred | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Leech, Dr. J. W. | Russell, Hamer Field(Sheffield, B'tside) |
| Denville, Alfred | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Salmon, Major Isidore |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Salt, Edward W. |
| Dickie, John P. | Lewis, Oswald | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert | Liddall, Walter S. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Donner, P. W. | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Drewe, Cedric | Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Llewellin, Major John J. | Scone, Lord |
| Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick | Selley, Harry R. |
| Dunglass. Lord | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Eden, Robert Anthony | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Simmonds, Oliver Edwin |
| Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Elmley, Viscount | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Emmott, Charles E. G. C, | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | McKie, John Hamilton | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | McLean, Major Alan | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Soper, Richard |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Sotheron-Esteourt, Captain T. E. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Fermoy, Lord | Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. |
| Ford, Sir Patrick J. | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Fox, Sir Gilford | Martin, Thomas B. | Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Stones, James |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Storey, Samuel |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Milne, Charles | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Gledhill, Gilbert | Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. |
| Gluckstein Louis Halle | Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Goff, Sir Park | Moreing, Adrian C. | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Goldie, Noel B. | Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.) | Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.) |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Morrison, William Shepherd | Templeton, William P. |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Muirhead, Major A. J. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | Munro, Patrick | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Graves, Marjorie | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Touche, Gordon Cosmo |
| Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) | North, Captain Edward T. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Nunn, William | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Grimston, R. V. | O'Connor, Terence James | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Ormiston, Thomas | Ward, Lt.-Cot. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour- | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Wells, Sydney Richard | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | Young, Bt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Weymouth, Viscount | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl | |
| Whiteside, Borras Noel H. | Wise, Alfred R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) | Withers, Sir John James | Mr. Womersley and Major George Davies. |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Grundy, Thomas W. | Milner, Major James |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) | Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan) |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Harris, Sir Percy | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Briant, Frank | Hicks, Ernest George | Price, Gabriel |
| Cape, Thomas | Hirst, George Henry | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Holdsworth, Herbert | Thorne, William James |
| Cove, William G. | Janner, Barnett | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | John, William | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Curry, A. C. | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | White, Henry Graham |
| Daggar, George | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kirkwood, David | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross) | Lawson, John James | Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly) |
| Edwards, Charles | Leonard, William | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Logan, David Gilbert | Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Lunn, William | |
| George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) | McKeag, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Mr. Graves and Mr. Cordon |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Macdonald |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot |
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and,' in line 10, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.