CLAUSE 6.—(Power to remove goods from Schedule I of 22 Geo. 5, c. 8.)

HC Deb 24 May 1932 vol 266 cc197-248

Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Before we part with this Clause hon. Members ought to have a clearer understanding of the grave possibilities involved and the constitutional departure that we are making. Last evening this question was discussed at some length, but a large number of hon. Members who are here now had not the privilege of listening to the Debate. We wish, therefore, to emphasize again our opposition to the policy enunciated in this Clause. We regard it as most extraordinary and as a constitutional departure for which a National Government ought not to be responsible. There are grave possibilities in the House of Commons delegating its power to other persons. Whether it be a question of imported meat or wheat being taxed or one of the items now in the Free List being taxed, the House of Commons ought in. the last resort to be the power that determines whether import duties should be imposed.

3.30 p.m.

May I remind hon. Members of what happened in the last day or two during the Committee and Report stages of the Import Duties Act? Every hon. Member will recall that although the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) had for years demanded Protection as a be-all and end-all, as the solution for all our industrial troubles, he sought to exclude soya beans from the import duty because he realised that to impose a duty upon a cattle food would be placing a further burden upon farmers. In the same way the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) saw the danger of imposing a duty upon precious and semi-precious stones, and appealed to the Chancellor to exclude them, because they were used by some traders in Birmingham for the production of articles either to beautify ladies or for utility purposes. If it be true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth said, that to impose a, duty on soya beans would increase the price of them to the farmers, then a duty would have the same effect in increasing the price of any other commodity. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) told us on the last day of the Report stage—I am sure the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) will recollect this, because he sat beside the Noble Lord at the time—that he had information to show that unless lead and zinc were included in the Free List—

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

I was not sitting beside the Noble Lord. I was having dinner at the time.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I am awfully sorry the hon. Member was not present, because I think it would have been an education for him as to the dangers of Protection. However, the Noble Lord did indicate that even the threat of a duty on zinc and lead had brought about an increase of 7 per cent. in the price, and so that as both those metals are a raw material of important industries in this country such an increase of price would be deadly to those industries. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), who has always been a loyal devotee of what he calls Protection, who followed the Noble Lord, also saw the danger of imposing a duty upon lead and zinc. All these things lead to the conclusion that while certain industries may be assisted by duties there are other industries which find a duty upon their raw materials having a deadly effect.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in one of his extraordinarily agile speeches, tried last night to place the Opposition on the horns of a dilemma. He said: "The Opposition have to make up their mind whether they are going to support a system whereby we shall have cheap meat, which will result in the agricultural labourers in this country having a very small wage, or whether they will agree to a duty upon imported meat, increasing the price of it, so that the agricultural labourer can obtain a decent wage." That really is not the case. First of all, we regard Clause 6 as a departure from constitutional practice. If it is true that the moment has arisen when, in the national interest, and in the interest of agriculture and of agricultural labourers, it becomes necessary to impose a duty upon imported meat, then let the House of Commons impose the duty, and not delegate their power to three persons who may, conceivably, inflict untold harm upon millions of people, at a time when the House is not in session. We are not accepting the dilemma suggested by the hon. Gentleman. During the Whitsuntide holiday I had the experience of passing through a good deal of agricultural country, and no one can deny that depression has descended upon agriculture in many places, but I am also reminded, every time I arrive at my home, that there are tens of thousands of mine workers who never know where the next meal is coming from. Fewer miners are at work, and those who are employed are working a fewer number of days, and their wages have almost reached vanishing point. In some parts of South Yorkshire men, women and children are turned out of their houses because they are unable to pay present-day rents, and I shall need a lot of persuading before I can agree to three persons, no matter how intelligent or how capable they may be, having the power to impose further burdens upon those wretched creatures, who scarcely know where the next meal is to come from.

I agree that the National Government have the power to do just as they will. We are willing to concede to a National Government the power to do what they think is right at the moment, but we are equally unwilling to allow a committee of three, with no responsibility to the House of Commons, no responsibility to the electorate, and no responsibility to observe our constitutional procedure, to determine what is to be the standard of life for vast numbers of people who would work regularly if they had the opportunity, but who, owing to causes over which they have no control, are at this moment living under terrifying conditions. We are hostile to duties being placed upon wheat or meat at all, and we are hostile to duties being placed upon raw materials which are vital to our in- dustries without the House of Commons having the opportunity of dealing with the question; and therefore we protest against this Clause being included in the Bill; and we are hopeful that all the Members of the Liberal party, whether they are attached to the Liberal National party or to the free Liberal party, and whether they form part of the Cabinet or not, will join with us in the Lobby in a protest against what we regard as a very undesirable and unconstitutional departure.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I have listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and in particular to his account of what happened during the Committee stage of the Import Duties Act. I hope he will take the trouble to re-read those Debates, and then I think he will come to the conclusion that his memory has been a little at fault. He made a reference to soya beans. Soya beans were not put on the Free List primarily because of agricultural interests in this country. He implied that some of us supported soya beans being transferred to the Free List because we were afraid the cost of cattle cake would be raised. But that was not the reason. It happens that the soya bean produces a lot of oil and a lot of cake, and there is a very large re-export trade in that cake, and it might well be that we could not persuade foreign consumers to go on buying that cake. It also happens that monkey nuts or ground nuts—they have many titles; we know them as monkey nuts when were are school boys and when we grow up we call them ground nuts— furnish an oil very similar to that of the soya bean and a cake that is equally good for cattle feeding, and therefore they could just as well feed their cattle on ground nut cake as on soya bean cake. There was, therefore, a risk of some interruption in a very important export trade in soya bean oil and soya bean cake, which in favourable years rises to a total of £1,000,000. For that reason some of us thought that soya beans should be on the Free List.

I have risen to say this because I did not wish our motives to be misunderstood. If at the time we were discussing the Import Duties Act there had been a Clause allowing drawbacks which would have made it possible for those in the soya bean industry to obtain a drawback in respect of re-exports of soya bean oil or soya bean cake, the attitude some of us would have taken with regard to soya beans would have been different. That happened because the Import Duties Act did not contain that very important Amendment which is contained in Clause 8 of this Bill. The hon. Member for Don Valley said that we should not delegate power to a Committee that might inflict injuries on the country while the House is not sitting. May I point out to the hon. Member that under the terms of the Import Duties Act which we are amending the Advisory Committee can do nothing of that kind, and under this Clause they have to take into account not only the interests of the producers but of the consumers as well. They have to investigate all the circumstances, and, even assuming that they do indulge in the indiscretions which the hon. Member for Don Valley fears, it is only a very limited period before the House meets again, and the indiscretions of the Advisory Committee can then be brought to an end.

I support this Clause because it will enable the Advisory Committee to consider the transfer to the Dutiable List of articles which are now on the Free List and which may be there for all time. They may be commodities not produced in any great quantity in the United Kingdom or the British Empire. There are other commodities produced in more adequate quantities in the United Kingdom and the Empire, and therefore it is a matter of business whether they should or should not remain on the Free List. An instance of that is furnished in the case of news print. A specific pledge was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Clause would be introduced into the Finance Bill in order that news print manufacturers might have an opportunity of submitting their case to an exhaustive examination. This Clause is carrying out that specific pledge.

I am anxious that the Advisory Committee shall, with perfect freedom, have the opportunity of transferring temporarily any articles which are at present dutiable to the Free List on the ground that the existing circumstances are such that it is not desirable that those articles shall be made dutiable for the time being, recognising that later on it may be desirable to make them dutiable. The Treasury have power, under the Import Duties Act, to transfer articles to the Free List, and then they are deemed to be in the Schedule of the Import Duties Act and cannot be transferred back. Obviously, it will make the whole thing more flexible if an article can be transferred from the Free List after examination. If the Advisory Committee has that power, it gives them the opportunity of transferring articles to the Free List. The Advisory Committee might hesitate about saying that a thing ought to be on the Free List because it might be of the opinion, in regard to a certain article that, after a period has elapsed, the production of that articie will have so much increased that the manufacturers might be able to supply the whole of the home market at a reasonable price, and in those circumstances the Advisory Committee might decide to indulge in the risk of maintaining a duty which otherwise might not be justified.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

We do not object to the National Government doing what the hon. Member has just stated, but we object to this particular power being delegated to a committee of three persons. If the House of Commons wishes to add or withdraw from the Free List any articles, the House should have that power, and it ought not to be delegated to a committee.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The hon. Member for Don Valley may object to the Advisory Committee on constitutional grounds or on practical grounds, but I am very much more concerned with the practical consideration of employment for our own people rather than the abstract consideration which the hon. Member has put forward. I was discussing a purely practical consideration. I know many commodities which are dutiable, and I have received communications, in common with other hon. Members, urging that it is not desirable that certain commodities should be dutiable. Some manufacturers have applied to the Advisory Committee, and they have probably said: "Here is an article which is not made in adequate quantities in this country, but we have reason to believe that it will made in adequate quantities in three or four years' time." Are we to take away from that industry the advantage of a tariff because of a temporary situation like that? In that case, you put the Committee in a position in which in order to do a temporary good they do a permanent evil. This Clause gives the Advisory Committee perfect flexibility, and I am amazed that Free Traders, who have criticised tariffs on the ground that they may lead to lobbying, should oppose it.

We want all these cases examined on merit alone. This House, rightly or wrongly, has taken up the position that this country is to be a Protectionist country, and we have to make our decisions on principle. The function of committees is to examine technical points, and therefore it is right to refer these questions to a committee in order to find out where the balance of advantage lies. If we do not insert in the Import Duties Act the Clause which we are now discussing what will happen? Members of this House will be lobbied on, the ground that there are certain things not dutiable which ought to be made dutiable. If hon. Members desire to remove from politics the one unsatisfactory effect of tariffs it can only be done by giving the Advisory Committee power to examine the circumstances of every commodity. I believe that the situation will require very careful consideration in the future. The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a Financial Resolution dealing with silk which will appear as a new Clause in this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has asked the Advisory Committee, as an act of grace, though they are under no statutory obligation, to examine the position with regard to the Silk Duties. I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot do that at the moment owing to revenue considerations, but I hope the time will come when the Advisory Committee will examine the circumstances of every commodity. I do not blame the Government for having kept from the Advisory Committee certain commodities which have an important revenue aspect, but, if we want protection which will not corrupt our public life, then we ought to give the Advisory Committee full power to examine every commodity, and every power to determine whether an article ought to be on the Free List or whether it ought to be taken off. I am amazed that Free Traders are objecting to this Clause which will do so much to enable the Advisory Committee to deal fairly with tariffs.

Mr. TINKER

I have not been able to follow quite clearly some of the arguments of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but the fundamental issue that we are combating on this Clause is the placing of this matter in the hands of three persons. Last night we discussed several proposed Amendments to the Clause, but, owing to the lateness of the hour, there was not so good an attendance in the Chamber as there might have been on an important matter like this. I am glad that we are now able to discuss the Clause at an early hour, because the issue is so tremendous that I want Members of the House to be alive to what they are doing. Hon. Members opposite, who belong to a big party, may from time to time not pay very close attention to the business of the House, but may be inclined to leave much of the work to those who do pay close attention to it, knowing all the time that they cannot get into difficulties because of the strength of the party's voting power. I would ask hon. Members to read the marginal note to Clause 6. Power to remove goods from Schedule I of 22 Geo. 5, c. 8. That gives power to three commissioners to remove goods from the Free List if they think proper—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. Of course it is a recommendation to the Government, and, if the Government believe in it, they will carry it into effect; but it will be the Government of the day, and not the House of Commons. The work of the House of Commons, however, can only be effective when the full light of Debate is thrown upon whatever the Government want to do. In a few years' time, hon. Members may regret what they are trying to do this afternoon, and for that reason I want the House of Commons to direct their attention to what they are doing. Last night the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), who was quite candid in regard to his agreement with this proposal, said: Wheat and meat are in a Schedule of free imports into this country. This Clause of the Finance Bill proposes to make it possible for the Advisory Committee to take those two articles out of that Free List." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1932; col. 161, Vol. 266.] It follows, from the arguments which have already been advanced, that, if the Advisory Committee recommended, and the Government of the day agreed, then, without any Debate here, those articles can be taken out of the Free List, When we are passing from Free Trade to tariffs, and when hon. Members in most of their speeches said they were not in agreement with the taxation of the food of the people, are they going to allow, under the cover of a Government Order, these articles to be taken out of the Free List without debate in the House of Commons? If so, I claim that the fact ought to be brought to the notice of the constituents who sent them here. We who defended our position in the country want to be able to point out to the House where they are going wrong if they attempt to take these articles out of the Free List, and that is why we are arguing against this fundamental constitutional change. It may be said that we are not strict constitutionalists, but, speaking for myself, I am a great believer in Parliamentary government, and it will be a sad time for the country if we neglect the opportunity of making out as strong a case as we can. That is why I do not want to see any attempt to belittle the powers of the House.

Let us assume—and it is within the bounds of possibility—that in four or five years' time we may get a Labour Government. Suppose that in that event we say we will set up an Advisory Committee, consisting of three members of the Miners' Federation, to decide whether the mines should be nationalised or not—[Interruption.] The Government will decide. Suppose that, while we are on holiday during a Recess, or away at an Ottawa Conference, or something like that, the Government bring in auch a proposal and the mines are nationalised without any voice being raised in the House of Commons. I remember its being said some time ago, when we were discussing these matters here, that our case could be torn up by force of argument. What better place is there in which to show our weakness than the Floor of the House of Commons? What is now going to be done will lead up to what we may do when we come into power. Assume that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) does not get in at the next election—I know that he will, but let us assume for the moment that he does not—and that we get into power and say that we will nationalise the Bank of England, and will put Maxton and certain of his people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] No; he is not a Member then; he is free from party taint, and unbiased. Assume that we put him there to decide whether the Bank of England shall be nationalised or not.

Hon. Members say that there can be no prejudice in the minds of big people— that they are far above prejudice; but let me tell them that, however honest a man may be in his opinion, he is bound to have a prejudiced outlook. His environment and upbringing give him a certain amount of prejudice. I claim to be as fair a man as anyone, but, when I examine myself from time to time, I can see a line of prejudice running through my decisions, because of my environment and bringing up. We are told that these powers will be put into the hands of an unbiased Committee who will weigh up everything properly and listen to all the arguments, but I would point out that when we come into office we shall have the right to do the same. I do not want that power to be vested in anyone; I want free and full discussion, on the Floor of the House of Commons, of everything that may happen. I believe in the good will of Parliamentary government, and for that reason, and because of the great fundamental issue which underlies this Clause, I take the strongest possible exception to the House of Commons passing it.

4.0 p.m.

Major NATHAN

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the Treasury Order under the Import Duties Act, he stated to the House that that Order was the natural, logical, and expected sequence of the Import Duties Act. I scarcely think that even the right hon. Gentleman would contend that Clause 6 of the present Finance Bill was either the natural or the logical or the expected sequence of the Import Duties Act. It might well be said that the House might have expected to see such a Clause in the Bill, having regard to the speeches made in the House by tine Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in which he indicated his intention when the time came to introduce such a Clause. But the mere ipse dixit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what his future intentions may be in no way binds the House in exercising its judgment as to what provisions at shall or shall not insert in an Act of Parliament, and there never was a more deliberate act of the Legislature than that by which the First Schedule of the Import Duties Act was constituted. I would recall to the minds of hon. Members what actually took place. In introducing the Financial Resolution upon which the Import Duties Bill was based, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the Free List would be a short and small list, but a little later, when, after the passing of the Financial Resolution, the Bill was actually presented to the House, the list had been considerably extended, and extended on the initiative of, and presumably after due consideration by, His Majesty's Government. Later still, in the course of the Debate in Committee of this House, not only did the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself suggest additions to the Free List which appear in the Act, but he accepted a number of Amendments moved by hon. Members sitting on the back benches. It was the deliberate act of the Government by which this Free List was constituted. It was the deliberate act of this Parliament whereby this Free List became an effective part of the Act. What is suggested? Here is an Act of Parliament passed as recently as 29th February of the present year, and now, only a few weeks later, it is proposed to alter it in some of its most vital provisions. For what can be more vital than to give to the Government the power which this Act, as it stands, denies to the Government, namely, the power, upon the recommendation of a committee, it is true, but the power to impose taxes upon wheat in grain, upon raw cotton, upon hides and skins, upon rubber and upon all the other variety of goods set out in the Schedule? From our experience of the Government in issuing the recent Treasury Order upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, he would be a bold man who would say that the Government would do other than show themselves the obedient, docile and obsequious servant of the Advisory Committee. Although it may be the hand of the Government whereby the Order is made, it is the voice and the discretion of the Advisory Committee which, in fact and in truth, determine whether or not it shall be made. It is, of course, true that the ultimate and executive responsibility rests upon His Majesty's Government.

If this Committee had accepted yesterday the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that no Order under this Clause should be effective until it had first been approved by the Commons House of Parliament, then, I think, some of the objections, at least, to the Clause as at appears in the Bill would have been removed. But the Government have refused all Amendments. They have shown that it is their intention to meet the House of Commons with an accomplished fact when any recommendation comes to be discussed dealing with the Free List. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that, as regards certain items on the Free List, the Government have already taken action alternative to including these articles on the Dutiable List. As regards wheat, for instance, the Government have introduced their Wheat Quota Bill which is already in statutory form. As regards meat, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself challenged a Division of supporters of the Government who were desirous that meat should be put upon the Dutiable List, and the right hon. Gentleman put on his Whips and took his followers into the Lobby for the very purpose of resisting a tax on meat, though it is true the Chancellor indicated in the Debate that he was prepared at a later date to make it possible to remove meat from the Free List. There, again, I say the act of the House speaks louder than any words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are certain items, like tea, which are to be dealt with on an entirely different basis by procedure outside the Import Duties Act altogether, and, indeed, we have seen that by the inclusion of duties upon tea in the Finance Bill now before the Committee.

It has already been stressed, and I shall not stress it again; I merely mention that wheat and meat were the subjects of a decisive pledge made in the country, and repeated more than once in this House by a leading Member of the Government, the President of the Board of Trade, when he said that he would be no supporter of a tax upon meat or wheat. He is now showing that he is willing to consider such a tax, But a. difficulty arises out of the proposal now before the Committee to which, I think, far too little attention has yet been paid. Indeed, I need go no further than quote, what I have often heard quoted with approval by the Lord President of the Council, the phrase of the late Lord Mel-chett, that uncertainty made business impossible. He used rather different words at the time, and they have often been differently quoted, but that was the purport of the words quoted with approval by the Lord President of the Council, now the acting Prime Minister. Yet this Clause imports yet another element of uncertainty into British commercial enterprise. How can boot manufacturers order their hides; how can motor tyre manufacturers consider the giving of orders for rubber; how can manufacturers in Lancashire consider how they shall deal with cotton if, at any moment, without warning, an Order is published without notice and becomes operative the moment of its passing? How can they base their orders or conduct their business with any kind of confidence, certainty or security if they know that they may be put to the greatest difficulty and hardship, and, as has happened more than once, of ruin as a result of duties suddenly imposed? There is nothing more harassing in the conduct of business to the individual merchant or individual producer, or to merchants and producers collectively, than the element of uncertainty—uncertainty which, by this Clause, will be imported into the everyday conduct of business by the action of the Government themselves. For all those reasons, I propose to vote against this Clause.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I would like to offer a word or two of opposition to this Clause, but I would hardly have risen had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). But before I deal with the observations he made, may I say that I was very interested in the volcanic oration delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade last evening. I thought he went out of his way a little to criticise unduly my hon. Friend behind me, because he had really delivered a very forceful and intelligent speech, and I did not think the answer of the hon. Gentleman was good enough in reply to that speech. It was not up to standard even for a Liberal Minister who has turned Tory.

This is a very important Clause, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to reply—he does it without any vitriol, if I may say so—will he be good enough to inform the Committee what is actually the relationship between the Government Department and the Advisory Committee? Does the Advisory Committee come to the Treasury and ask the Treasury, "What would you like to have included in the Free List and what would you like to have removed from that list"? Does it do that? If it does not. do that, does the Treasury go to the committee and say, "Look here, this is not to be taken as official; but, unofficially, we want an argument when we go to Ottawa, and we would like you—this is strictly unofficial—to bear in mind that we shall argue there about meat and wheat, and consequently we should like a recommendation from you on those items. We do not suggest what the recommendation should be, but we would like a recommendation." I have sat on advisory committees and on consultative committees belonging to Government Departments, too. I have an idea, therefore, how they operate. While this House hardly ever gets an official declaration of what the Government want, all its advisory committees must have a shrewd idea of what the Government Department expects them to do. I should imagine that this Advisory Committee will not be unlike any other advisory committee. I should imagine that it will never issue a recommendation to the Government unless it is satisfied that its recommendation will be accepted. The three gentlemen on the Advisory Committee would take it as an insult right away if their recommendations were not accepted by the Government and Parliament. Consequently, the proposition is reduced to this point, that the Advisory Committee, in fact, is part and parcel of the Government and merely recommends the policy which the Government desire it to suggest.

Let me pass to another aspect. We are afraid of these advisory committees because of the experience of the past. I have been in this House for some years, and I have seen many advisory committees and bodies established with extra-Parliamentary powers. I am glad to see the Postmaster-General here. I was here when we gave the British Broadcasting Corporation all the authority it possesses, and I venture to challenge any Member of this House who was here then —and this advisory committee falls nearly into the same category—that no Member of any party in this House, as far as I remember, ever dreamt then that we were parting for good with the whole of our authority over the British Broadcasting Corporation. If anyone wants to raise an issue of any kind in regard to that corporation to-day we are ruled out of order. I do not say that the work of this Advisory Committee falls exactly into the same category, but if the present Government get their way they will hand to the Advisory Committee all the power which Parliament now possesses over these tariff issues.

May I mention another point? I remember, too, the Electricity Control Board being set up. We have had difficulties on the Floor of this House in even criticising the work of that board, because Parliament has washed its hands completely, so we are told, of the work performed by that board. Then there is the case of the Betting Control Board. There are Members who with myself were on the Committee upstairs when we dealt with the Betting Control Board and which we were then informed would be subject to the will of Parliament. True, the Advisory Committee mentioned in this Clause will be subject now to the will of Parliament, but as time goes on I am very much afraid that it will follow the lines of the Betting Control Board. We protest against the work of Parliament being dealt with through outside bodies. The Betting Control Board has on its central authority members nominated by Government Departments. It issues an annual report by way of a Blue Book, but when we want to raise an issue on the operations of that board, we are told that we are out of order. This Government, above all, has developed that tendency. It has done so in relation to the Wheat Commission. We protest against these actions of the Government.

Let me say a word with regard to transferring articles from the Free List to the other list, and vice versa. It is said that the Government are very anxious to pass this Clause because it will mean more employment. The work of the Advisory Committee has to take account of the fact that there is unemployment in a given industry and to increase employment right away by arranging these lists. That is the argument of the hon. Member for South Croydon. I have been trying to find out how much its operations have already increased employment. I have tried, for instance, to get from the Parliamentary Secretary the places where the foreign factories are, and I have not yet got them.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha)

The hon. Gentleman can only say that if he did not listen or did not read the very complete list that I gave of the geographical situation of these factories.

Mr. DAVIES

I have heard that story before. Will the hon. Gentleman stand up here and tell me in which towns and villages these new factories are built and operating in Lancashire?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

First of all, I should be immediately ruled out of order, because it has nothing whatever to do with the subject which we are discussing, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that I have already supplied these full particulars to the House of Commons, and immediately upon the conclusion of this Debate I will send him a copy. I will also undertake to give the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity a further list.

Mr. DAVIES

It is not sufficient for my purpose to say that there are five new factories in Lancashire, because Lancashire is a very big county. I live in Lancashire and I should like to know the names of the towns and villages and the streets where these factories are situated. If they were actually there, we should have had that detailed information long ago. I have searched in vain for these 50 phantom foreign factories. I have heard of one Belgian chocolate firm which has come to this country. It is employing young girls in the main, and I hope the Minister of Labour will in due course inquire into the conditions of work in that factory. The hon. Gentleman is trying to give a hint to the Chair that I am out of order, but I am dealing with the work of the Advisory Committee in Clause 6, and I am replying to the argument employed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). I do not like this Clause at all, because in my view it is a back door trick. If the Government wanted to do this, they should have done it long ago in a straightforward manner. They want to go to the electorate and say: "We did not include wheat and meat for tariff purposes. All we did was to leave the issue to the Advisory Committee." That argument may wash in some parts of the country but not in others, and probably it will not go down in Devonport. Let me come to the Free List itself. The bon. Gentleman was very volcanic last evening. I almost thought he was of Celtic origin. He said: My hon. Friend said that there may be a case for the taxation of meat and wheat, but we have not heard it. That case has been presented by my hon. Friend. But when the Government desire to present a case, if the occasion should arise for the taxation of wheat and meat, they will come hero to this Box and advance their arguments."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1932; cols. 155–6, Vol. 266.] What we are doing apparently by passing this Clause is to give power to the Advisory Committee to recommend to the Government that wheat and meat should be taxed. Will the hon. Gentleman stand up at that Box and say why wheat and meat should be taxed, because they will be taxed, otherwise why give the Advisory Committee power to recommend it? Were it not for the desire of the Government to tax these two commodities, they would not give such power to the Advisory Committee. The hon. Gentleman may be better educated than we are, but it does not follow that we understand less the tricks of the Government. He was very critical last evening of my hon. Friend behind me about some book that he had written. All the books that I have written are in Welsh, so he cannot criticise me. But he cannot throw it at me that I have ever argued in favour of tariffs under any condition whatever. I am a Free Trader because I am an inter- nationalist. I cannot understand for the life of me how men can reconcile the building of tariff walls with support of the League of Nations.

The CHAIRMAN rose—

Mr. DAVIES

I will come back from Geneva, and I will return to this list, because it is very interesting. Why does not the hon. Gentleman inform us that the Advisory Committee can recommend transferring from the Free List every one of the items in it? Let me see what the Free List is. Is the committee to recommend anything with regard to gold and silver bullion? France and America have most of that, I should imagine, and I suppose, whatever recommendation the Advisory Committee may make, the gold and silver will not come here, anyhow. Are live quadruped animals to be removed from the Free List? We have recently had some discussion about a German circus coming here. Is the Advisory Committee to take note of live quadruped animals in relation to the German circus? That is a proper question to ask in the Mother of Parliaments. Then there is raw cotton. I take it the Advisory Committee would never recommend that raw cotton should not always be free to be imported from America and Egypt, but they may remove even that from the Free List. These gentlemen who are picked for this special job are nearly all Londoners. Lancashire is to them almost a foreign country.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot)

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise, that Sir Sydney-Chapman was a professor of economics at the Manchester University?

Mr. DAVIES

I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew better than that. To say that a man who has been for a few years a professor of economics at Manchester is a Lancashire man passes my comprehension. I have lived in Manchester for 25 years, but that does not make me an Englishman. The right hon. Gentleman has lived in England for years, but that does not make him an Englishman, no matter how he tries. Let me come back to the Free List once again. The Parliamentary Secretary last evening said further: That is not the case that is being advanced from this side to-night, and it is not fair, it is not an illustration of political probity, to paint for the electorate the picture that has been painted to-night."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1932; col. 156, Vol. 266.] What picture did he himself paint to the electors? He did not tell the electorate at the last election that the food of the people would be taxed, and hon. Members opposite will find out in due course that the people cannot be diddled like that. They cannot be told at the election that their food will not be taxed and then in a few months the very man who made statements of that kind pass legislation to tax food in this manner. I must protest vehemently against the transfer of this Parliamentary power to a committee of any kind. Hon. Members will have noticed in the last 10 or 15 years the general tendency of Governments to transfer large powers to outside bodies. I believe in political democracy and everything that comes with it. Because I want Parliament to retain the power to arrive at decisions of its own free will, I shall oppose the Clause and we on this side will vole against it in the Lobby to-night.

4.30 p.m.

Major ELLIOT

I hope it will be possible for the Committee to come to an early decision on this Clause as we have had the issues very thoroughly thrashed out for two days. The point is not one of very great importance. It is only a point of procedure. The Clause does not tax any article whatever. The Import Duties Act specifically states that any Order made by the Treasury after a recommendation by the Committee must be confirmed by this House. If ever the Stuart Kings had said, "Any of our actions must be confirmed by an affirmative poll of the House of Commons or it will become null and void in 28 days," the great Parliamentary hero of the civil war would have said, "Nunc dimittis." It is exaggerating the position entirely to complain that this procedure is derogating from the power of the House of Commons. The authority of the House of Commons remains unchanged by this. The only question is: Should the House of Commons control every detail of the new policy upon which it is embarking? We contend that it is neither necessary nor desirable for the House of Commons to retain control of every detail. First of all, because owing to the accumulation of small administrative acts which the House would have to carry through, the Debate upon each of those acts would be a graver inroad upon the powers of the House of Commons than anything proposed under this Bill, and, secondly, because we hold that it is desirable that inquiries should take place into the advisability or otherwise of a duty which we think can best be carried out under the aegis of a body such as the Advisory Committee. The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) suggested that there was something secret about the procedure. Tea was on the Free List, yet a tax is to be imposed on tea with the assent, and by the vote, of the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green. This article has been removed from the Free List. How was it removed from the Free List? It was removed without any preliminary inquiry such as he suggests, and without notice such as he suggests. No notice at all was given, and the Resolution was brought into the House and became effective there and then. It had to be so, because when we are dealing with Customs tariffs, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade explained, it is impossible to allow the lapse of many days during the whole of which forestalling will take place. Customs procedure must go along the road which other countries have adopted for Customs procedure, and it is that procedure which we desire to secure in this case. The procedure of inquiry which is laid down here is the necessary procedure before any recommendation can be made.

That is what leads me to the second point. Why not proceed by means of the Finance Bill? That was the argument brought forward by hon. Members opposite. Surely, especially when you are in the initial stages of setting up a new experiment, which no one can deny the country and the House of Commons have sanctioned by very large majorities, it is desirable to allow flexibility, and this is procedure which will allow much more flexibility than would be possible in the long and complex procedure of the Finance Bill. The taxation of wheat and meat does not arise on this Clause. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said, if and when the Government desire to make a case for such action they will have to come here and stand at this Box and make out their ease, and have it either confirmed or rejected by Resolution of the House. That will be the time when it will be reasonable for discussion to take place, and for arguments for and against to be thrashed out and decided upon by the House.

Mr. PRICE

Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that before the House may have an opportunity of discussing an Order such an Order may already be in operation?

Major ELLIOT

Surely an Order of a grave and far-reaching character would not be embarked upon by any Government unless they thought that they had the support of the House of Commons behind them. The same sort of thing takes place when Budget Resolutions are introduced. They are operative from the moment they are introduced, but, of course, it is quite possible that they may subsequently be reversed by the House of Commons. In such a case, the reversal of a, decision would be taken as the gravest possible censure upon the Government, and the Government would almost be compelled to resign. If the procedure of the House of Commons can allow for the imposition of a tax which often runs for weeks, and indeed for months, before it is finally sanctioned by the vote of the House of Commons, surely it is not unreasonable in this case that we should take a power which is not likely to be unreasonably or rashly exercised to put such recommendations provisionally into effect.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that anybody other than the House of Commons has power to pass a Budget Resolution?

Major ELLIOT

No, indeed not. Nobody other than the House of Commons has the power to pass a Resolution, nor has the Advisory Committee power to pass a Resolution.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Treasury has the power to make an Order without any reference to the House of Commons whatever, and that it can remain in force for 28 days before the House sees it.

Major ELLIOT

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is hunting a mare's nest. The Treasury, which is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has power to make such an Order, and has power to introduce such a Resolution. It has not power to pass such a Resolution in either case.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to confuse the Committee. An Order made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has immediate force. Customs duties can immediately be collected upon it. This House need not know of it. It need not come before the House until the expiration of 28 Parliamentary days. No Financial Resolution for the purposes of the Budget can have any force until it has passed through this House.

Major ELLIOT

The hon. and learned Member is, I think, a little inaccurate in his suggestion. A Financial Resolution can and does have its effect immediately.—[Interruption.] It has to have its Committee stage and its Report stage. As everybody knows, the Budget Resolutions have effect the moment they are introduced, and they do not have their second stage finally validating them, the Report stage, until days afterwards.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The House can immediately negative a Financial Resolution, if it does not wish to accept it, directly it is laid on the Table and before it comes into force. It may allow it to go through and then debate it on the subsequent stages, but it has power to negative it at once.

Major ELLIOT

The House has the power to negative it at once under what I was explaining to the Committee, namely, the procedure of the Finance Bill. I was pointing out to the Committee that the procedure of the Finance Bill is appropriate to the annual finances of the year. It is not, I was contending, appropriate to all the initial stages of bringing in experiments such as we are trying, but in both of those cases there is the authority of the House, in the one ease of that day, and in the other case of not more than 28 Parliamentary days. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member really is straining a point, a ridiculous point, in suggesting that the Government would bring in some far-reaching change—because it is a far-reaching change of which he has complained—which could only last for 28 days whereupon it would be overthrown by the House of Commons.

Sir PERCY HARRIS

He means Parliamentary days.

Major ELLIOT

The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green does not do himself full justice. We know that he can advance and continue Parliamentary debate with dignity, but to suggest that it would satisfy the Government to bring in some far-reaching change to be valid only for 28 Parliamentary days—

Sir P. HARRIS

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite well that the order can come into operation when the House is in recess.

Major ELLIOT

Really the hon. Baronet does himself greater and greater injustice every time. I am making a broad, general contention. [Interruption.] Let us take it even at the worst— from July to November. Does he suggest that any Government would bring in some great change—

Sir P. HARRIS

We hope not.

Major ELLIOT

Let me reassure the hon. Member. I am sure that he will be reassured that no Government would desire to bring in between July and November a change which might be reversed. No Government would think of doing such a thing.

Sir P. HARRIS

This Government might.

Major ELLIOT

I do not wish to follow that argument further. I have made a broad, general contention by which I stand. The first effort of the Government would be to make reasonably sure that they would have obtained Parliamentary sanction for the affirmative Resolution which by statute they would need to lay on the Table of the House and get passed within 28 days of Parlia- ment meeting again. In those circumstances, I do not think that the powers of the House of Commons are being interfered with. A further point brought up by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) last night was that such an order of removal from the Free List might be smuggled in with a great number of other orders. Let me assure him that the Government have no such intention. I hope he will take the assurance from me that if we desired to bring in any order removing anything from the Free List we should do it by means of Resolution which would be considered by the House of Commons.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared to put that into the Bill?

Major ELLIOT

I see no necessity whatever for putting it into the Bill, but I ask the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol whether I am likely to give a pledge which I am likely to shirk.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I accept, of course, everything the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, and always will, but he may have a successor.

Major ELLIOT

I can go no further than myself. I am speaking for myself and also for the Government in this matter. Although the Government might pass, and I might have a successor, the House would have other things to think about than whether in fact some small point of Parliamentary procedure was being literally fulfilled or not. Have we been unjust to the House of Commons in spirit? I think that it is clear that we have not been unjust to the House of Commons. That accusation was made oddly enough last night by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). I went to some trouble to secure a copy of that most excellent book on the subject. It is an exposition of the emergency policy put forward by Sir Oswald Mosley and 16 other Labour Members of Parliament. It was drafted by Aneurin Bevan, M.P., and three others. It runs in very close parallel to some of the proposals which we have brought forward. [Interruption.] Surely, the hon. Member likes to claim paternity for that policy.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN indicated dissent.

Major ELLIOT

The hon. Member is hard to satisfy. He drafts it, he prints it and circulates it at considerable expense, he puts his name on the outside of it, and when I suggest that we are willing to give him some credit for this great revolutionary thought that has taken place in recent months he hurries to disclaim it. Why is he so afraid of his association with his hon. Friend the ex-Member for Smethwick? It seems to me unfair to desert the hon. Baronet in his adversity. The hon. Member associated himself so willingly with him in the days of his prosperity. The paragraphs of the "Machine of Government" are applicable not merely in the situation in which we then were, but they are applicable in other conditions as well. The hon. Member claimed last night that we were making inroads upon democratic control and the practice of democracy. Let me quote his own statement from the "Machine of Government." On page 46 of his own programme are the following words: This is in fact the only way in which the reality of democracy can be saved."? Therefore, it seems to me that it does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member to reproach us for our steps on this occasion. Let me make an appeal to the Committee. We have still far to go. We have many issues of great importance to debate, and I hope that, after the very full discussion we have had to-day and last night, it will be possible for the Committee now to come to a decision.

Mr. BEVAN

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has done me some slight disservice. He suggests that it is not quite fair on my part to desert my Noble Friend in his present adversity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not noble!"] I beg pardon, my hon. Friend who was once a Member of this House. I have been accused of deserting my hon. Friend in circumstances of adversity. I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that my hon. Friend's adversity started when he deserted me. He was quite prosperous until then, but afterwards his adversity came. The central feature of this Debate is that the Front Bench cannot agree upon its defence. Last night the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade justified the procedure that is being taken on the ground that it was necessitated by national emergency. This afternoon the Financial Secretary has been attempting for half-an-hour to prove that no important changes of Parliamentary procedure have been brought about. Precisely which case are they putting forward? Are they justifying their present policy on the ground that national necessities require that exceptional measures should be taken, or are they stating that those measures are not exceptional? We have had the two points of view put with great ability last night and this afternoon.

The contention that we advance is that we are not only discussing machinery but actually discussing food taxes. The right hon. Gentleman was not fair to himself. He obscured the real character of the Debate when he argued that we are only discussing machinery. Is it not clear that, if the Government are given power to recommend to the Advisory Committee that articles be taken off the Free List and if the Advisory Committee recommends certain taxation, the Government will immediately proceed to tax those articles? Is that not so? It has already been made clear in the Debate that the Government would never ask for these powers unless they wanted food taxes. Consequently, we are, in fact, discussing the taxation of food, but we are asked to discuss it in circumstances in which the subject cannot be adequately considered. I was, by the way, astounded by the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). The Advisory Committee has been appointed because it is not subject to Parliamentary nepotism, because it will not be subject to the log-rolling of the House of Commons. In other words, democracy is not to be protected from my class but from the class of the right hon. Gentleman. It is to be protected from the persons who use the House of Commons for the purpose of getting advantages for their own peculiar interests.

The Advisory Committee has been appointed in order that Parliament may be exempted from the horrible spectacle of hon. Members getting up, as was the case in the first two months of this Parliament, and saying: "Please give me higher prices for my manufactured articles." The committee has been set up to exempt us from that odious spectacle. It is a case not of rolling a log but of rolling a forest. It is not a case of asking that extra taxation should be imposed upon one article here or another article there, but that taxation should be imposed in a lump. In that case it will not be nepotism, it will not be corruption. If we ask for the taxation of everything in a block it will not be corruption, but if we ask Parliament to tax each article in turn, it is corruption. The whole purpose of the machinery is to try-to get taxation upon imports into this country in a manner which causes the least political embarrassment to the Government. Whatever the Advisory Committee recommends the Government will adopt. We are now being asked to tax food, because if the Advisory Committee recommends the taxation of food the Government must adopt the recommendation. It cannot reject it. [HON. MEM-BEES:" Option!"] Option!

The Advisory Committee was appointed because it is an impartial, impersonal, dispassionate body. It has power to recommend taxation upon foodstuffs. That matter has been referred to it because of its constitution, in order to get rid of political complications. If the Government refuse to carry out the recommendations of this judicious body it will be bringing the matter back into the sphere of log rolling and corruption; into the very sphere from which the Government have attempted to remove these matters. It will mean that the judge is free to give the verdict you ask him to give, but you are not to accept the judge's verdict. To-day, we are not merely being asked to discuss the machinery of taxation but fiscal policy itself; the taxation of foodstuff.

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take up one position or the other. Is he defending the position because it is democratic? His speech to-day was a remarkable piece of duplicity. He knows that there is all the difference in the world between legislation by Order in Council and legislation in the ordinary manner. What would happen if taxation was going to be imposed in the ordinary way and in the normal Finance Bill? Each separate proposal to tax each separate article would have to be brought in in the form of a separate Resolution. Each Resolution would be subject to amend- ment in the House of Commons, and when the Resolutions had been carried they would be embodied in the Finance Bill, which would have to go through the same procedure. For three or four months the public would be educated in the actual nature of the doings of Parliament. It is of the essence of democracy that that should be so. Is there any person in this House who is a student of history and who has regard for the events that are happening in the world to-day who will say that democracy is the only way and the permanent way in which things are going to be changed in this country. The issue before us in this nation is whether the changes in our social structure that must take place are going to be accomplished by peaceful Parliamentary measures or in any other way. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on this point. I am not ultimately philosophically tied to Parliamentary methods. I want to give them a fair chance, but Parliamentary methods will not be able to survive this sort of chicanery.

The right hon. Gentleman argued that this House has received a mandate from the country to do the things that the Government are doing to-day. He knows that on the one occasion when the country was asked whether it was prepared to send a Parliamentary majority here to tax food it turned that party out. At the last election it was asked no such thing, and it is improper, it is flying in the face of political reality for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he and his friends have a mandate to carry out what they are proposing to carry out.

Mr. HANNON

The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the National Government got a free hand. A free hand, if it means anything, means that they can take all the measures that are appropriate.

Mr. BEVAN

The hon. Member says that the Government have a. free hand to carry out whatever proposals they deem to be in the interests of the country. Yes, with certain important modifications and reservations. The Lord Privy Seal said over the wireless that the Prime Minister's message to the nation and the appeal of the National Government could not in any circumstances be construed as giving a mandate for Protection. Did he not say that? Is that not true? The whole implication of the election was that in no circumstances would the policy of the National Government reduce the purchasing power of the pound. That was the whole case for the election. It was to save the value of the pound. That was the whole purpose of it. The purpose of Protection is to reduce the purchasing power of the working-class pound. [HON. MEMBEES: "No!"] Of course it is. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary said that there has been no rise in the cost of living. He made that point last night, but no one knows better than he that it is the failure of the price level to rise quick enough that is causing him and his friends such intense embarrassment. Unless the price level does rise before long he knows that his Government will come to a speedy end. He claimed credit for the Government for the very thing that the Government is trying to avoid.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not go on with this argument unless he can relate it to the Clause we are now discussing.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN

I should have thought that an argument addressed to the question of the Clause standing part was appropriate. I am dealing with the speech delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on an Amendment to the Clause to exclude wheat and meat, which are left to the Advisory Committee. Surely I am entitled to argue that it is the intention of the Government to secure an increase in the price of wheat and meat. The Parliamentary Secretary really must not treat the House of Commons in the way he did. He must act more upon the assumption that we know what is in the mind of the Government sometimes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has deplored the fact that the price level continues to fall; but if the price level does go up then it is only the wholesale price level which will go up. How the wholesale price level is to go up with advantage unless the retail price level follows no one has yet attempted to explain. If the wholesale price level goes up and the retail price level does not follow then the increase in the wholesale price level will be at the expense of the distributive trades, and that means that at the moment they are making excessive profits. The Government has the machinery to deal with that.

If this fiscal revolution is to be brought about we want the widest possible opportunities for Parliamentary discussion. We do not want it to be done in a clandestine manner. I suggest that the purpose of this machinery is not to try and get import duties on food without log-rolling and corruption but that its real purpose is to prevent debate in this House. If we had three or four months debate in this House on amendments which could be put down to one duty after another the embarrassment of the Government would be acute. We might have a repetition of the scene which was witnessed the other night between the President of the Board of Trade and the Home Secretary. We might indeed elicit a few observations from the silent sage in the other place. All these things would cause the Government intense political embarrassment. The purpose of this machinery is not to ask Parliament to set aside its cumbrous method of doing things because they must be done quickly but to save the Government embarrassment. The suggestion we make is that if society is going to be saved, if economic life is to be reconstructed, it can be reconstructed effectively only if Parliament willingly and after proper consultation of the people surrenders temporarily some of its methods of legislation. It is not in the service of a policy of that kind that this machinery is suggested but in order to save the Government political embarrassment, to fill up the chinks in the National Government front and prevent the country realising the real character of the Government it has selected.

I was reading a newspaper this morning, a Conservative newspaper—[An HON. MEMBER: The "Sunday Express!"]. The "Sunday Express" is the John the Baptist of the Conservative party. What the "Sunday Express" says to-day the Conservative party has to say the following day

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must please come back to the subject under discussion.

Mr. BEVAN

The point I was making is that certain Conservative newspapers have been chiding hon. Members on this side because we do not fasten public attention upon the very matter which we are now discussing. They say that the National Government are asking the House of Commons to do an unprecedented thing; that they are asking that the power for initiating taxation upon foodstuffs shall be taken from the House of Commons and given to an outside body. They say that this is an unprecedented departure in the history of the British House of Commons and are surprised that the House of Commons has not considered all the implications of this departure. We are now attempting to point out some of the implications. One of them is this. There is arising in this country, as in other countries, a deep feeling that democratic and Parliamentary institutions are not good vehicles for the expression of progressive views. That feeling is growing in the country. Nothing will contribute more to an extension of that feeling than the sort of procedure we are passing to-day.

At no stage of these discussions, and this is the vital point, will the House of Commons be able to discuss food taxes. The actual content is obscured behind the form; the actual nature of the taxation is concealed behind the machinery. The Financial Secretary has told us that we are not discussing food taxes but machinery. The Advisory Committee meets, the House of Commons goes into recess. The Advisory Committee imposes taxes on foodstuffs. The House of Commons meets and the Order is placed before us for our confirmation. We cannot discuss food taxes nor can we move Amendments to the Order. We have to reject it or accept it, holus bolus. Will the Government defend the food taxes? What they will say will be that this is the machinery which Parliament has devised for this purpose and that to turn down the recommendations of the Advisory Committee would be to impute the honesty, the integrity and the intelligence of the Committee which has recommended the taxes. That will be the defence of the Front Bench. Therefore, at no single point and at no stage will the House of Commons have an opportunity of adequately discussing food taxation. This is an exploitation of machinery by the Government to carry out a policy which is deeply disliked and repugnant to the mass of the people of the country. It is the fate of machinery that whenever it gets out of touch with realities it is destroyed. The Government believe that by this device, by this clandestine method, they will be able to sneak a fiscal revolution and escape the consequences. They will never do so, because ultimately the people will find them out. We want to open the eyes of the people to the situation and we ask the House of Commons to reject the Clause.

Mr. PICKERING

Some hon. Members seem to regard this Clause as a somewhat trivial matter, but I cannot look upon it in that light. It seems to me that the Clause gives those who care for democracy cause for much apprehension. It may be the swan song of democracy. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said that these powers should be given to the Advisory Committee because it would prevent all sorts of lobbying and corruption. I agree that we do not want lobbying and corruption, but it seems to me it is much the same thing as a man who has a watch dog to keep away thieves. He finds that the watch dog is rather troublesome, he barks at the slightest sound, he cannot stand it, it makes his life rather miserable. So he decides that the only thing to do is to get rid of the watch dog; then the thieves will be able to break in. Our present Parliamentary system is no doubt very troublesome when you come to consider tariffs, therefore do away with Parliament—that is what it comes to—and Parliamentary control. This is the one country which at the present time can be regarded as a democratic country. In every other part of the world democracy has been despised. Many people would like to see something of the kind happen in this country. "We do not want Parliament," they say. "It is a mere talking shop. We want things done." That was said in Italy and is being said in Germany, and in Japan too.

This Clause restricts to a very great extent the right of free discussion in Parliament and the right of the people over taxation. The people should know exactly what is being attempted. It seems to me that the Clause is vital. Strangely enough, it is associated with the necessities of the people's life, with their meat and wheat, their food. The Advisory Committee is to have power over the people's food. What we have to ask ourselves is: Shall that power be exercised by a democratic assembly, that is by this House, or by a Mussolini, a tribunal, this triumvirate? In a matter so vital we ought to remember that by surrendering this power we are possibly involving this country in far more serious trouble than has ever been imagined. I still utterly oppose the policy of Protection. I do not see how we can prevent bribery and corruption under Protection, but I prefer even bribery and corruption to tyranny.

Mr. MANDER

This Clause is of fundamental importance, and the policy embodied in it is in direct opposition to the views of many Liberals inside and outside the Government. In addition, it is opposed to the views of many Members of this House, of all three parties, who, at the last election, gave a most binding pledge that they would not support anything in the nature of taxation of food. It is true that no food taxes are to be imposed by the Measure that we are discussing, but the Bill does make it very much easier for food taxes to be imposed. The position of the Advisory Committee is a very important one indeed. We are told that Members of Parliament must not go near it. One quite appreciates the reason for that. Members of Parliament are to be kept away. Presumably Members of the Government are kept away, although I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone so far as to meet the three Members of the Advisory Committee, and no doubt an exchange of views took place as to how they regarded the question of putting on tariffs in different ways.

My complaint is that there has been no guidance given to this Committee of Three. They have not been told on what lines they are to proceed, whether by high Protection or low Protection or moderate Protection. There has been no rule laid down for them to follow. The Government ought to have stated quite clearly to the Advisory Committee what are the views of the majority in this House. It is not my view, but the majority in this House have a certain view, and the Advisory Committee ought to have been told that they were to carry out their duties along these lines. There is nothing to prevent the Advisory Committee to-morrow morning making up their minds, in the light of what they think is right and wise, or making up their minds when this Bill becomes law, that it is desirable forthwith to put heavy duties on meat and wheat. There is no reason at all why they should not do it on their own account. It is true that before the proposal can become law the Treasury would have to agree. But what a weapon we are putting into the hands of those Members of this House, I believe only a minority in this House, who desire to see these duties put on, if they are able to say that although the Government are against it the Advisory Committee have recommended it! It will be very difficult indeed for the Government of the day to resist a proposal which comes forward in that way.

I hold that the House of Commons is entitled, during these Debates, to have a statement from the Government as to the exact object of moving this Clause. Is it because they want to have their hands free for Ottawa? It may be that they are right and wise in desiring that. If that is their policy, we ought to be told clearly, but no information of any kind has so far been given to us. Is it the policy of the Government that they want to be free at Ottawa to bargain for duties on meat find wheat in exchange for access to the markets of the Dominions of our manufactured article? That probably is so. But the Government ought to tell us frankly. Personally I do not think that they are going to get much out of Ottawa on those lines; I do not believe that the Dominions are going to allow us any reasonable amount of access, underneath their tariff barriers, for competing in industrial affairs. I do not think that Ottawa is going to lead to any great success along those lines as a result of anything that we are doing to-day.

There is a more serious aspect of this matter. It seems to me, first of all, that if a policy of the kind I have just alluded to were carried out, and if you had an agreement at Ottawa on the lines of building up the British Empire as an independent economic unit against the rest of the world, it would be a very bad day's work for the peace and the industry of the world.

The CHAIRMAN

I would remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing Clause 6.

Mr. MANDER

I appreciate the fact that I was stretching the rule rather far, but I was alluding to what seemed to me to be the inevitable outcome of the passing of this Clause. I will pass on. The real importance of what we are discussing is this: As a result of passing this Clause and making possible the development that will be possible, you may get a break-up of the present Government, and in addition a dissolution of Parliament. It has to be remembered that the prerogative of advising a Dissolution is not that of the Cabinet, but of the Prime Minister. I would ask hon. Members to appreciate that they are not necessarily here for four years, but that as a result of the powers that they are putting into the hands of the Government and the Advisory Committee under this Clause they might get a break-up of the Government and a premature dissolution of Parliament. I do not suppose there are many people in this House or in the country who desire to see a development of that kind. [interruption.] I am sure hon. Members opposite do not desire it.

The CHAIRMAN

The connection between the advisability or otherwise of a General Election, and this Clause, is too remote.

Mr. MANDER

Then I will leave that point. Let me come to what is raised in Sub-section (2) of this Clause. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he can give any information regarding the words: The Treasury may, on the recommendation of the said Committee, and after consultation with the appropriate Department. What is the precise object of introducing the words "on the recommendation of the said Committee"? Is there not a danger that that might prevent us, supposing that the Government were successful, as I hope they will be, in carrying through a bi-lateral or multilateral treaty with other countries for a reduction of tariffs, which is the declared policy of the Government$—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

On a point of Order. Surely no discussion of Imperial Preference is permissible here? The Advisory Committee can only take into account production in the United Kingdom, and not in the Empire, in making Orders.

The CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Clause that is under discussion.

Mr. MANDER

I was making no reference whatever to Imperial Preference. I was asking whether there was not a danger in the words quoted that we might have some difficulty in carrying out successful bargaining for a multi-lateral reduction of tariffs with other countries. It might be necessary to go to the Advisory Committee and to ask for their permission, or to get a recommendation from them before a reduction of tariffs in such circumstances could take place. I ask the Minister to be good enough to consider that point and to give the Committee some assurance that these words will not interfere in any way with an event of that kind. Would the right hon. Gentleman also tell us what addition to the staff of the Customs and Excise Department is likely as a result of the passing of this Clause? The Government have already appointed nearly 1,300 people to the Customs and Excise Department. Will this Clause mean the appointment of many more? I would like to hear him say, though I do not expect it, that the Government have decided not to proceed with the Clause, that they have decided to bang, bolt and bar the door—to use the historic words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in 1906—on the taxation of the food of the people of this country, and that the Dominions are to be told at Ottawa that upon those lines there is nothing doing.

Mr. PRICE

I oppose as strenuously as I can the passing of this Clause. I would draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to the discussions which took place last November on the Import Duties Act. We were told by the Prime Minister, when we were proclaiming that that was the thin end of the wedge of food taxation, that no such purpose was intended by the Bill, and that the Government had no intention of taxing food. If that is the true position why give the Commissioners an opportunity of putting a tax on meat and wheat? Nothing has been said from the Government Benches to give the slightest proof that during the General Election any Members opposite advocated the taxation of foodstuffs. We fear that in giving this authority to the Advisory Committee taxes may be put both on meat and wheat before this House has an opportunity of considering the matter. Moreover, there is a very important general principle involved regarding Parliamentary procedure. Surely this House has the right to an opportunity for discussing matters of such importance before the Advisory Committee has the power or the privilege of taxing the people's food.

There has been no time in the history of Britain when distress, low wages, and unemployment were greater. We cannot accept the view that the country's financial position at the moment is such that there is any need to raise revenue by the taxation of the people's staple food. In the last Bill that we passed we dealt with luxuries. The Government claimed that they had no intention of going any further. I do not know what the Prime Minister thinks. It has been stated that he may call for the dissolution of Parliament, owing to the possibility of food taxation being adopted in his absence. I imagine that he will feel some surprise, after the statement that he made not only during the General Election but in this House during the passing of the Abnormal Importations Act. We were then led to believe that that would be the last inch that the Government would take in the direction of taxing food.

5.30 p.m.

We have been told that the members of the Advisory Committee are impartial. Who are they? One of them is deeply interested in financial and industrial affairs, and many of the statements that he has made, both political and industrial, have given no indication that he is any more impartial than Members of this House. I am not so certain that log-rolling is not already taking place in many instances. The danger of it is there, just as if this House had to deal with the matter. Constituencies have sent their Members here to express themselves on vital matters of this description, but those Members are to be robbed of that privilege. There is the possibility of food taxation, to an even greater extent than at present, being imposed on the poorest people without the House of Commons having a say in the matter. One hon. Member opposite said that he and his colleagues were sent here with a free hand. That may be true but they were not sent here with free feet to kick the people—and that is what it means if this power is to be put into the hands of the Advisory Committee. We have no confidence that the Advisory Committee will carry out the wishes of the democracy of this country and we strenuously oppose this Clause, first on the ground that it takes away from Parliament a privilege and a right which Parliament has long enjoyed, and, secondly, because we are totally against the taxation of food.

Mr. BAILEY

I should like to make some comments on certain of the observations which have been made by hon. Members opposite in the course of this discussion. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) suggested that this Clause represented an effort on the part of the Government to set up rather abstruse machinery and, in that way, to prevent the people seeing the real issue and realising that food taxes were being introduced. He said that that course would stifle discussion on the introduction of food taxes. Personally I wish it would but it dons not seem to have done so this afternoon and I see no reason why it should do so on future occasions. No question seems to come up for discussion without the subject of food taxes being introduced.

The hon. Member suggested that we were sneaking this proposal through because we had not a mandate from the people for it. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. During the election the Liberal rag in my constituency, which is an industrial constituency, told us that the election was being fought on the issue of the breakfast-table of the people. The "Daily Herald" published that statement every day of the election and the "Manchester Guardian" represented by a distinguished gentleman opposite did the same. How can the Opposition come forward now, having been beaten and disgraced at the election and say that the issue of the election was nothing of the sort? [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you say about it?"] I said exactly the same as I am saying to-day. I told the people that I "off my own bat" was not going to say either that I would vote for food taxes or vote against them; that I was going to leave a free hand to the Government, which I believe to be wiser than myself on this matter and if I may say so without discourtesy, wiser than the hon. Mem- ber who interrupts me. I said I was going to leave a free hand to the Government to deal with the matter.

Mr. CAPE

Was that the impression which was left on the minds of the electors.

Mr. BAILEY

I left no impression on their minds that I was not in any circumstances going to vote for food taxes and there was no such impression on the mind of the hon. Member or else his newspaper was telling lies. However, I beg the pardon of the Committee for this digression. I am becoming almost as irrelevant as the Members of the Opposition. We hear from hon. Members opposite that this proposal is an effort to ruin and stifle democracy. The argument of the Opposition is that by this Clause, we are taking away from Parliament the power to discuss in detail—and probably with considerable irrelevance on the part of certain Members—every one of the hundred and one little points which must crop up in connection with the introduction of a new fiscal policy. But are we doing so? Is not the one thing which ruined democracy in Italy—since Italy has been mentioned—the fact that people there realised that democracy was being rendered nugatory by the endless discussions which took place in public assemblies? Since the Opposition cannot stifle the Government's policy by fair means, their object apparently is to stifle it by perpetual and irrelevant discussion so that at the end of four years they may be in a position to say to the Government, "You have done nothing because we talked so long that you could not do anything."

Mr. LAWSON

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member in order in making those statements?

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Member is straying rather far from the subject of discussion.

Mr. BAILEY

I am sorry, Sir Dennis. I will try to keep in order. The argument which I was trying to drive home, perhaps irrelevantly, was that this Clause is necessary for the sake of democracy in order that we may have some expedition in carrying on the business of the country. We cannot afford in present circumstances to discuss here every single point in a policy which has been, in advance, agreed to by the House of Commons and any such step as this, in regard to the enforcement of that policy in detail, cannot be regarded as a derogation of the rights of Parliament. Is it any derogation, for instance, of the powers of the directors of a business, if they do not discuss at special board meetings every detail of an agreed policy unless such matters are specially raised? Is not that exactly the position in regard to this Measure?

The Government policy is clear. Innumerable points of detail must arise. The Government view is, "We are certain what the opinion of Members will be on these details. They will support us, and if they do not, it is open to the Opposition to raise these matters for discussion in Parliament in any way they think fit." We have had all this dispute about the 28 Parliamentary days but what is to prevent the Opposition from tabling a Motion of Censure or raising a matter on the Motion for Adjournment at a date earlier than the expiration of the 28 days? This Clause is a real effort on the part of the Government to introduce a policy which will expedite the method of dealing with matters of great urgency and we ought to give them every encouragement in carrying out that policy. If speed is necessary in these times of crisis we ought not to rest content with slow methods of procedure because our whole policy may be ruined while we are discussing minor details.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Had it not been for the intervention of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) I should not have addressed the Committee on this Clause but the hon. Member seems to have failed entirely to appreciate the issue before the Committee. He has described this as a minor matter of detail in connection with some policy upon which the House of Commons has already agreed. I should like to ask him when the House of Commons agreed to the taxation of raw cotton for Lancashire or raw wool for the Bradford industries?

Mr. BAILEY

I may have unintentionally expressed myself in such a way as to be misunderstood, but I did not say that the House was discussing a minor matter of policy. What I said was that it was discussing the setting up of machinery by which minor matters of detail could be dealt with.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I fail to appreciate the hon. Member's answer to the question which I have put to him. When did the House of Commons decide that it was advisable to put a tax upon raw cotton or raw wool for the Lancashire and Bradford trades? Apparently the hon. Member is unable to answer. That is one of the many problems which the Committee is now discussing and the hon. Member does not seem yet to have appreciated that that is the point of this discussion. This is probably the most important Clause which the Committee will have to discuss on this Bill and I want to deal with some remarks of the Financial Secretary whose address to the Committee I am afraid I unduly interrupted, although I was not able by those interruptions to make my point quite clear. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told the Committee that he saw no difference between the procedure here proposed and the ordinary Financial Resolutions introduced in connection with a Budget, But the two procedures are as far apart as the poles.

This Clause introduces an entirely new and revolutionary procedure. It may be that it is an excellent thing, but it is idle to try to get away with the idea that in this Clause we are doing nothing move than Parliament has done in connection with previous Budgets. If the Government had a clear mandate to do these things there might be a great deal to be said for this method. Let me take an analogous case. Suppose that a Labour Government were returned with a clear mandate to nationalise industries. It would be Very convenient in order to decide which industries were to be nationalised and how they were to be nationalised, to turn the whole matter over to a committee of three and remove it from inopportune discussion in the House of Commons which would waste time no doubt, owing to the vast number of vested interests which would be trying to oppose nationalisation. That would be a sound proposition if there was a definite and clear mandate; but it is entirely different when there is no clear mandate and when the issue, as in the case of food taxation, has never been clearly and definitely decided.

In the case of a subject of such importance and magnitude, this is a most unfortunate method of procedure. I do not think that the Financial Secretary yet realises which of two positions he wants to take up. This Advisory Committee is either a judicial body or it is not. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has never told us which view he takes. We have always understood that the Advisory Committee is suggested as a judicial body, that it is proposed to remove this tariff plan, this great scientific experiment out of the ruck of politics, that it is not to be vitiated by logrolling in the House of Commons. If that be so, then the members of the Advisory Committee are acting as judges. Their decision is final. You ask for their decision and if they give it you must carry it out. Otherwise, you will be altering, for some political reason, a judgment given in a judicial manner. If, on the other hand, you say that this is a matter of politics and is not a matter to be considered judicially, then I ask are the Government going to give political instructions to the Advisory Committee? Otherwise, that Committee is going to ruin the Government's political policy.

The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) last night said this proposal would be an excellent thing for the Ottawa Conference; that the Advisory Committee could remove these articles from the Free List and that it would give an excellent opportunity for bargaining. Why suppose that the Advisory Committee are going to remove these articles from the Free List unless they are told to do so? Supposing they do not. Supposing they say that these things are to remain on the free list, where is the opportunity for bargaining? There is none. You cannot bargain as to wheat and meat because the Advisory Committee have decided that there is not to be a tax on those articles in any event, so that unless some political pressure is to be brought to bear on the Advisory Committee for the purpose of getting them to decide to take these articles off the Free List before the Ottawa Conference, the Government are tying their hands as far as that Conference is concerned by putting this Clause into the Finance Bill.

I do not believe that the Government yet realise the position in which they are putting themselves. We, just like everybody else, having a system of tariffs and having the Ottawa Conference, wish it to succeed, but it seems stupid and idle for the Government to bind their hands unless they are going to give instructions to the Advisory Committee. If that is going to be the case, then indeed we are becoming alarmed as to the judicial nature of this body which the Government have set up. We believe that the revolution which is being brought about in this vital matter, which has never yet been decided by the House and never will be decided by the House now, is one which those who are now sitting opposite may live one day to regret.

Mr. JANNER

I rise to oppose this Clause, and I would not have done so but for the fact that, although we have had a number of speeches which have endeavoured to explain the reasons for the inclusion of the Clause, I am still at a loss to understand how any Member can consistently hold that this matter can be accepted by the Committee after the specious promises which were given in every direction at the time of the General Election with regard to food taxes. I am bound to say that when I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade saying that it was not reasonable to suggest that the Government would promulgate an order if it did not represent the will of the House of Commons, I felt myself at a loss to understand why he was afraid to bring any proposal relating to this Free List before the House of Commons if the House would be so ready to accept the exclusion of that item from the Free List. If it is true that the Government are prepared to consider the desires of the House and of the country, it is clear that if they brought each item before the House itself, and the House was satisfied, they would be doing that which was proper in the circumstances.

Then he went on to say, "I think we have here the most watertight and scientific system that the brain and the good will of man can devise." All that I can say is that if we have reduced ourselves to such a state that the brain and good will of the whole of the electors of this country have to be "cabin'd, cribb'd and confin'd" within the narrow space of three heads, no matter how deep their knowledge or how complete their information may be, I am not satisfied that that is the most scientific method of arriving at the solution for which we are looking. How is it possible to conceive that, after the deep scientific investigation which took place on the items which have been included in the Free List, after all the brains have been so exercised in order to arrive at a conclusion, the Government themselves, having accepted these provisions, can now turn round and say that, in spite of their scientific inquiry as to what ought and what ought not to be taxed, they are prepared to forgo the conclusions at which they themselves had arrived and leave in the hands of three gentlemen the decision as to whether the Government were right or not?

I can imagine the three members of that Advisory Committee sitting down, burning the midnight oil, with their Bunsen burners and with all the other scientific appliances at their disposal, arriving at some scientific conclusion whereby they can satisfy the Government that their conclusions are correct scientifically. But were we sent here in order to allow three other people to conduct a scientific inquiry? Was it not for the Members of the House themselves to investigate the various proposals with regard to the imposition of tariffs, to satisfy themselves that a scientific inquiry had taken place, and, after having so satisfied themselves, to say to their consciences and to their electors, "We are now prepared to agree to the imposition of such and such a tariff"? How can it be said that we can delegate this right of inquiry from ourselves to any committee at all? There is an entire difference between the suggestion that the Advisory Committee should impose certain tariffs and that it should be entitled to remove articles from the Free List, because that list has been arranged after scientific inquiry, we assume, on the part of the Board of Trade, who have therefore satisfied themselves that the Free List should not be interfered with.

I know that this Clause will be passed. It is unfortunate; but it is necessary that before it is passed we should at least let the Committee understand that there is a goodly portion of this House which is not prepared to accept the Clause without lodging its protest in as strong a form as possible. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that if the House reversed a recommendation of a Budget Resolution, grievous results would ensue. I agree, and that is the danger of this Clause, because if the House reverses what has been accepted by the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, it will mean a most serious implication upon the Government, and Members who form the major portion of the Government will think very carefully, even though their ideas may be entirely different from those held by the Cabinet, on the question of removals from the Free List, before they venture to upset what the Treasury have sanctioned. It is because of that, it is because of the fact that it places all the Members of the House in a most invidious position, that I protest emphatically against the delegation of this particular right to a committee.

It is not the right to impose a tariff in the ordinary way; it is the right to remove from the Free List something which has been considered as of vital importance to be included and is indeed of vital interest to every Member of this House, for what Member of this House is not concerned in his own constituency with the question of food? It is no good saying that it is not a question of putting a tax on food. You may as well say that if you give a person the right to remove any article from the Free List, it is not putting a tax on that article. It is utter nonsense to say that it is not imposing a tax. Of course it is. It means that if the Advisory Committee decide that certain goods must be taken out of the Free List, a tax will be put upon them, and among those items—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says that that is not necessary. Then why remove the article from the Free List? If there is going to be a recommendation to remove it, it means that it will no longer be free from taxation, and when it is taken from the Free List, it will obviously have a tax placed upon it.

In these circumstances, I ask hon. Members to remember what they said at the General Election and to consider very deeply, before they allow this Clause to go through, whether they are content to let the power of taxation pass out of their hands. I do not say that the Advisory Committee will act in any way which is, in their own opinion, injudicious, or that the Government themselves would act in a manner which is unreliable in their own judgment, but this is a matter in which the taxation of the food of the people is seriously at issue, and it is not a matter for the Government alone to decide. It is a matter which we, as scientific inquirers or as a jury, are entitled to have placed before us in a proper manner. We should listen to the arguments pro and con, carefully weigh them up, investigate them in the light of scientific research, as we understand it, and come to our own conclusions.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR

Does the hon. Member suggest that the Advisory Committee are not competent to decide whether or not any article of food should be taxed, whereas they are competent to decide whether or not a manufactured article should be taxed?

Mr. JANNER

My answer is that in the first place unfortunately we have not the power any longer to stop them in the other direction. It would be out of order for me to say now why I disagree with the Advisory Committee deciding on the issue of manufactured articles. I know of scientists and economists, the chief economists in this world, who are Free Traders out and out, and I am pre pared to say the same of them as my bon. Friend would say of his three members who constitute the Advisory Committee. I have the names of a dozen professors in my mind who, in my opinion, are scientific experts on the question of tariffs and Free Trade, and I am prepared to accept their opinion as against that of any other three people in the world on that proposition. But when it comes to a question of the House of Commons, which has the right to investigate these matters, I repeat that we must act in the capacity of a body of persons before whom arguments pro and con can be placed, so that we ourselves can make that inquiry after having heard the experts on all sides.

My hon. Friend knows very well that if he brings a book into a court of law and quotes from it what a scientist or any other person has said, the first question that is asked of him is, "Is that person in court, and shall we have the power to cross-examine him?" We are exactly in the same position. Where are our experts going to be? Who will have the right to cross-examine them? We are not entitled to accept their written opinion in a judicial inquiry according to the law of this country, until they are dead, and I am not prepared to wait until they are dead in order to satisfy myself as to whether their opinion is right or wrong. I would prefer to have these experts in a judicial manner before us and to have the opportunity of examining them; and, having examined them, if I were satisfied that they are right, I should be prepared to say, openly and honestly, that I believed their view to be correct and to agree to their proposals. But until that is done, I say that we are not doing our duty to the electors or to ourselves, and we certainly ought not to allow this Clause to be accepted as part of the Finance Bill.

It has been said that this is not an important matter. I wish to reiterate what has already been stated in this Committee that it is one of the most important matters with which we have had to deal. It is a matter touching the vital interests of the people, and in these circumstances I would beg of those who are concerned with the promotion of the Bill that they should reconsider their decision. They have enough already. They themselves have said that this Free List is vital. How do they come then to pit the advice of three individuals against their own ingenuity, against their own scientific inquiry, against the wonderful results at which they have arrived after years and years of earnest consideration? I say that in these circumstances they are letting themselves down and that they should accept the suggestion which we have put forward.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT

The Committee will gather that this is a matter in which we of the Liberal party hold very strong views. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) dealt with the position of food taxes from the point of view of the Conservative party, and said that in his constituency he did not give any impression as to whether he would vote for or against food taxes if he were returned to Parliament.

Mr. BAILEY

I did not say quite that. What I said was that I should vote for food taxes if the Government decided that food taxes were necessary, and that I should not vote for them if the Government decided otherwise. That was not giving no impression of how I would vote; It was not saying that I would not vote for food taxes. It was saying that under definite and specific circumstances I would vote for food taxes and that those definite circumstances might arise. There is therefore nothing lacking in clarity in my position. Only my hon. Friend and those like him confuse the issue.

Mr. FOOT

I cannot help feeling that the issue on this matter must have been very confused in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency at the last election. I am in a much more fortunate position than my hon. Friend, because in my constituency there can have been no possible doubt as to how I was going to vote on the question of food taxes, especially on the question of the taxation of wheat and meat. I take a slightly different view on this matter from that advanced from the Opposition benches. We have heard a number of attacks on the Advisory Committee as such. I agree that if we are to have this unfortunate tariff policy, we must have some sort of advisory committee as a safeguard. We must have some committee to prevent the country, in the words of the Lord President of the Council, becoming a paradise for profiteers. Some safeguard is always necessary in a Protectionist system against log-rolling and political pressure for financial ends, and it would be a lamentable thing in this country if the free hand were merely an excuse for the itching palm. There is, however, a big difference between a mere advisory committee and the giving of powers such as these to any committee. It is one thing to set up a tariff for a certain range of articles and to say that the question of that tariff shall be determined by a body of impartial and judicially-minded experts. It is quite another thing to leave in the hands of that committee the major and vital decisions on a matter of first-class policy. That is what is being done by this Clause.

We are asked by an hon. Member whether we think that the Advisory Committee is incompetent. We do not accuse the committee of incompetence in the least, but we say that it makes all the difference if we allow the committee to deal not only with the question of the tariffs but with the range of the tariff policy. This Clause means that the committee will be the arbiters of policy as well as the advisers on the incidence of the tariff. That is a very big step; it is as big a step as we have seen in recent years in the way of delegated powers. In fiscal matters the Advisory Committee will be a sort of mayor of the palace, while this House will be reduced to the position of the Merovingian kings; it is the mayor of the palace who makes all the vital decisions. For that reason, we of the Liberal party, the traditional defenders of the rights of this House, the party which has always stood out against food

taxes, make our protest. We know all about the confirmation by this House of the Orders made by the Treasury, but the effective decisions will be taken, not by this House, but by three men in some back room. This controversy has been going on for a quarter of a century; it is the controversy in which all our greatest political leaders were engaged, and we say that the final pronouncement on the taxation of wheat and meat should not be made merely by three men, however competent, skilled or impartial, but only by the high court of Parliament.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 341; Noes, 61.

Division No. 194.]	AYES.	[6.6 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cattle Stewart, Earl	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Flint, Abraham John
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Fox, Sir Gifford
Albery, Irving James	Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Fraser, Captain Ian
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)	Chalmers, John Rutherford	Fuller, Captain A. G.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)	Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Ganzoni, Sir John
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Chotzner, Alfred James	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Apsley, Lord	Christie, James Archibald	Gibson, diaries Granville
Astbury, Lieut.Com. Frederick Wolfe	Clarke, Frank	Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Clarry, Reginald George	Glirnour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Atkinson, Cyril	Clayton, Dr. George C.	Glossop, C. W. H.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Goldie, Noel B.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Colfox, Major William Philip	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Colville, John	Gower, Sir Robert
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Conant, R. J. E.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Balniel, Lord	Cook, Thomas A.	Granville, Edgar
Banks, Sir Rsginald Mitchell	Cooke, Douglas	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Courtauld, Major John Sewell	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Grimston, R. V.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Cranborne, Viscount	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel	Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)	Guy, J. C. Morrison
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Hales, Harold K.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Davison, Sir William Henry	Hammersley, Samuel S.
Boothby, Robert John Graham	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hanley, Dennis A.
Borodale, Viscount	Denville, Alfred	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bossom, A, C.	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Hartland, George A.
Boulton, W. W.	Dickle, John P.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Bowater, Cot. Sir T. Vansittart	Doran, Edward	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Drewe, Cedric	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Duckworth, George A. V.	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Duggan, Hubert John	Hepworth, Joseph
Brockiebank, C. E. R.	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, M.)	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)	Dunglass, Lord	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Eady, George H.	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Hore-Beilsha, Leslie
Browne, Captain A. C.	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Hornby, Frank
Buchan, John	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Horsbrugh, Florence
Burghley, Lord	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Howard, Tom Forrest
Burnett, John George	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Falle Sir Bertram G.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Fermoy, Lord	Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. (Montr'se)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Morrison, William Shepherd	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Moss, Captain H. J.	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.	Munro, Patrick	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Jamieson, Douglas	Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.	Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Jennings, Roland	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Smithers, Waldron
Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Newton Sir Douglas George C.	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Soper, Richard
Ker, J. Campbell	Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.	North, Captain Edward T.	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Kirkpatrick, William M.	Nunn, William	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	O'Connor, Terence James	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Knight, Holford	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Knox, Sir Alfred	Ormiston, Thomas	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Stevenson, James
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Palmer, Francis Noel	Stones, James
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Patrick, Colin M.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Law, Sir Alfred	Pearson, William G.	Strauss, Edward A.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Peat, Charles U.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Leckie J. A.	Penny, Sir George	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lees-Jones John	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Petherick, M.	Summersby, Charles H.
Lewis Oswald	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Sutcliffe, Harold
Liddall, Walter S.	Peto, Geoffrey K. (Wverh'pt'n, Bliston)	Tate, Mavis Constance
Lindsay Noel Ker	Potter, John	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Templeton, William P.
Liewellin, Major John J.	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd, Gr'n)	Pybus, Percy John	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)	Thompson, Luke
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
MacAndrow, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Ray, Sir William	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Read, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
McCorquodale, M. S.	Reid, Capt. A Cunningham-	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Reld, William Allan (Derby)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.	Remer, John R.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Ksnyon
McKie. John Hamilton	Rentoul Sir Gervals S.	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
McLean, Major Alan	Renwick, Major Gustav A.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander	Rhys, Hon, Charles Arthur U.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Magnay, Thomas	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Maitland, Adam	Robinson, John Roland	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Ropner, Colonel L.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Rosbotham, S. T.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Martin, Thomas B.	Ross, Ronald D.	Weymouth, Viscount
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Runge, Norah Cecil	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon S.)
Meller, Richard James	Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Salmon, Major Isidore	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Milne, Charles	Salt, Edward W.	Withers, Sir John James
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Mitcheson, G. G.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres	Savery, Samuel Servington	Wragg, Herbert
Moreing, Adrian C.	Scone, Lord	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Morgan, Robert H.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)	Mr. Womersley and Lord Erskine.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Maxton, James
Batey, Joseph	Harris, Sir Percy	Nathan, Major H. L.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Hirst, George Henry	Parkinson, John Allen
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Pickering, Ernest H.
Buchanan, George	Hopkinson, Austin	Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas	Janner, Barnett	Rathbone, Eleanor
Cove, William G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Rea, Walter Russell
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Daggar, George	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Thorne, William James
Edwards, Charles	Lawson, John James	Tinker, John Joseph
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Leonard, William	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Lunn, William	Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	McEntee, Valentine L,	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	McKeag, William	Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, Thomas W.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.