HC Deb 21 March 1933 vol 276 cc254-77

6.41 p.m.


I beg to move, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved. The House is familiar with the procedure under the Import Duties Act, 1932, and doubtless has studied the Command Paper which contains the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee with regard to these various subjects. This is rather a miscellaneous Order dealing with a number of topics. It may rightly be described as an adjustment Order. One advantage of having a committee such as the Import Duties Advisory Committee is that from time to time adjust- ments can readily be made, and the House will see the nature of the adjustments as I briefly call attention to the main topics. The first subject dealt with is carpets, and the Committee's recommendations are clearly set out. There is already a duty on carpets, and the committee say that they have watched the course of imports and employment, and it appears that the cheaper grade of carpet is still coming into this country in very substantial quantities from European countries. They are of the opinion that the British carpet industry requires encouragement and they recommend, therefore, that assistance should be given by means of a specific duty. The particulars of imports are available, and there can be no hardship because carpets are a subject upon which there is a drawback scheme in existence. If a duty is paid on the importation of a carpet and it is subsequently desired to re-export the carpet, provision is made by the Order of 1st September, 1932, the Import Duties Drawback (No. 1) Order, for the drawback to be procured.


The hon. Member mentioned that the committee had kept its eye on the progress of employment in the industry. Has he any figures to indicate whether there has been a drop in employment?


I will see whether the figures deal with the actual number of persons employed. The figures of the imports show that there has been an increase, and the fact that a large number of foreign carpets of the cheaper quality have been imported rather tends to show that the demand for the home-made carpet has been less. I do not know, but I will make inquiries as to the actual number of persons employed. The next topic dealt with is blocks of amorphous carbon for lining electric furnaces, the carbon rod which goes down through the furnace to make the contact. The carbon blocks are used in the making of aluminium, and have been exempted from key industry duty because they are imported from Germany, but the effect of exempting them from key industry duty is automatically to render them subject to quite a considerable duty under the Import Duties Act. So there is a reduction of duty suggested by the committee —an adjustment again.

There is another entirely different class of articles, dried apples, dried peaches, dried pears and dried nectarines. Again the Advisory Committee recommended a reduction. There are two points here; first, that there should be a specific duty instead of an ad valorem duty. Apparently the trade find it a convenience to have dried apples and peaches and pears and nectarines treated in a similar way to other imported dried fruits, and consequently the Committee in this ease recommend that there be a reduction and that there be a specific duty. Of these particular dried fruits 75 per cent come from the United States of America. The remainder come from Dominion sources, and of course are not subject to these duties. We then pass to the small item of dates, where again there is a reduction. The dates come from France and from Iraq. At present they are subject to a 25 per cent. duty, and inasmuch as dates, although treated, are substantially only treated by the sun in being dried, it is felt that they ought to be subject only to 10 per cent. So there is a suggestion of a reduction in that form.

There are two more subjects, manufactures of flax and hemp, and then the whole category of wire. In the case of manufactures of flax and hemp this is an adjustment. Instead of linen as described in the Order it ought to be flax. So the Advisory Committee think that the word "flax" would be more correct than the word "linen" and they take the opportunity of an Order of this kind to correct a mistake.

We now come to that part of the Order which, perhaps, interests the House most, relating to iron and steel wire nails and iron and steel wire netting. There is quite a family of imports connected with iron and steel. The Advisory Committee are very frank about their recommendations, which will be found on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the White Paper. They say that they have received numerous recommendations with regard to the inadequacy of the duty and that there has been a vast deterioration of the British wire industry. The reasons are set out; the drop in the tonnage is set out too; and the Committee come to the conclusion that the duties at present applicable to these products are inadequate to meet abnormal conditions. The House has already passed legislation dealing with abnormal importations, and is entirely converted to the idea that an abnormal set of circumstances merits abnormal treatment. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, watching the progress of the iron and steel wire industry, have come to the conclusion, as the result of the evidence and of the inquiries they have made, that the duties at present imposed are inadequate to meet abnormal conditions. They point out that it is quite useless reorganising the iron and steel industry if an integral part, the iron and steel wire industry, is left out. That depends now on foreign sources. So there must be an encouragement of the British iron and steel wire industry.

The recommendation in this case again is that there should be a specific duty. The House will appreciate that at a time of tumbling prices an ad valorem duty is a clumsy and awkward method of calculation. It is necessary to revise it every time there is a fluctuation, in order that the percentage may be calculated. It is far easier, in dealing with such subjects, that there should be a specific duty of so much per ton weight and then the whole world knows what the duty is. Consequently the Advisory Committee recommend that there should be a specific duty for wire nails. At present it is 20 per cent. They recommend that the duty should now be £3 a ton. I have got an exact calculation of what that involves, and it is roughly 25 per cent. For galvanised wire netting they recommend that the rate of specific duty should be £8 a ton. That is increasing the 20 per cent. ad valorem to 30 per cent. I want the House to note the comparatively small increase and not to be alarmed by figures like £3 and £8 a ton. In point of fact the 20 per cent. is increased to 25 per cent. in the one case, and to 30 per cent. in the other. The average value of all wire netting in 1931 was approximately £20 a ton. It may therefore be said that this miscellaneous Order reduces the duty in two cases, on dates and carbon electrodes; it converts an ad valorem to a specific duty with very little change of incidence in the case of certain dried fruits; and it imposes new or additional duties in the case of hemp, carpets, wire, wire nails and wire netting.

6.53 p.m.


I am sure that the House will be grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this Order. I do not think he has added very much to the explanation that we have in the White Paper, but he has thrown a very bright light on the mind of the really up-to-date Liberal. It is interesting to have that light shine on that particular section of what we might call the amorphous bloc of the present Government. In the explanation of the first part of this Order we had a delightful statement. We are to have taxes put on carpets, and we are told there is no hardship because there is a drawback for re-export. There is no consideration of the consumer at all. The really up-to-date Liberal has left the consumer far behind. No one on the Government Benches has learned his Tariff lesson better than the Parliamentary Secretary.

The 20 per cent. duty on carpets has not proved insufficient. As a matter of fact the manufacturers have done quite nicely. What has happened is that the British manufacturer now thinks that he would like to go out and capture the trade for a different type of carpet altogether. That is the cheaper carpet made for the workers. In the ordinary heyday of individualism anyone going into a comparatively new business would have taken some risks, but to-day manufacturers must have full protection and full profits in the earlier stages; they must have full shelter while they build up their business. Therefore we are to have on handmade cheap carpets a duty of 4s. 6d. a square yard, and 9d. on other kinds. I am informed by those in the trade that the effect will be to keep the foreign carpets out altogether. At the present time the quality of the hand-made carpets made at home is not equal to that of the foreign. It is quite clear that the whole of this burden is to be placed on the poorest people. It is interesting how this Government decides at every possible point to raise the cost of living of the poorest people. We have no information whatever given to us about the organisation of the carpet industry, but according to my information from a leading carpet shop this 20 per cent. duty has produced no advance in quality and no increase in quantity in the home-made carpets. This is simply one of those cases of "Ask and you shall be given," and obviously there is no interest whatever in the consumer.

We come to another item, dried apples, dried peaches, dried pears and dried nectarines. Again we have heard nothing about the consumer. But this thing has to be done because it is a convenience to the trade. That is always the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. He is interested only in the manufacturer and the convenience of the trade, und he never thinks of the consumer. Then we come to a proposal which shows that even that great pundit, the chairman of this Advisory Committee, and his colleagues, can err. They made a mistake with regard to dates. They put on an additional duty because they thought that dates were subject to an artificial process. I am glad that that duty has come off now, but 12 months is a long time for the Committee to take in order to find the mistakes. The next item, the tax on hemp, does not concern me. There is a rather important item—iron And steel wire. Here, again, we have one of those interesting statements. We are told that the trade has fallen, and that the imports have increased. It is admitted that great deal of the problem is due to world conditions, but we are now told that in this, as in so many other things, we are not going to overtake it by increased consumption, but by keeping out foreign supplies. Our people intend to do a foreign trade as well as A home trade, and, as they get this stuff off the market here, they intend to invade the export market. They will be no better off.

The future of the wire industry is said to be closely bound up with the iron and steel industry. The position is exactly the same as under the Agricultural Marketing Bill. They are given the jam before they are given the pill. It is interesting to notice that one thing to be taxed is wire-netting, which is used by the farmer who is at the last gasp. The farmer is not going to get a year or so for recovery under the Agricultural Marketing Bill before being charged more for his wire-netting. It is the same with nails. Everything is to be done preceding the reconstruction of the industry. We see quantities of little papers on import duties. They are very familiar. We get taxes like this about once a fortnight, and they Are generally a mix-up of things. We see quite clearly that each trade comes along and brings before this committee its hard cases, not due to any specific causes, but due to the general world conditions as stated on page 8. You get contraction of the world market, and it is thought that you are going to increase consumption by raising prices to the home consumer. We have the same thing over and over again from Conservative and Liberal Protectionists.


And Labour Protectionists.


I do not recognise any one sitting on that side of the House as being Labour. They always increase the price of these commodities. They are not going to increase the purchasing power of the people, and yet they expect more to be consumed. The policy brought out in yesterday's Debate is brought out again in this White Paper—all these little petty taxes. Their only effect can be to hamper trade and raise the cost of living for the poorest. They will not do anything to improve trade or industry in this country. We therefore oppose this Order.

7.4 p.m.


I want to ask one or two questions of the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned, in particular, apples, peaches, pears and nectarines. He said that this was a lowering of the duty. I want to know in what particular way is it a lowering of the duty. This specific duty is to make producers sure of a certain amount of duty. It is a mere matter of calculation that cannot be justified for all time. The specific duty, as a percentage of cost, will be decided by the lowering or heightening of the price of the goods. Is not this to give a sure, definite duty for all time 4 The second question relates to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement re wire products that since the duties were put on imports have increased. It is rather interesting to note that, on page 8 of this White Paper, the only figures refer to the Census of Production figures and trade returns for 1924 and 1930. They do not relate at all to the time since the duty was imposed. The Parliamentary Secretary will see that a paragraph on that page says quite definitely that this is a result of a simultaneous decline of exports and imports of every class of wire product. According to the evidence of manufacturers and merchants the shrinkage—not the extension of imports—has not been accompanied by improvement in the position of the home producer. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would give an explanation.

7.8 p.m.


I want to refer only to one part of the Order—the question of Import Duties on carpets. Contrary to the somewhat imaginary statements—he will forgive me for using that expression—which have been made by the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) as to unemployment in the carpet trade and the effect of the duties, he may be interested to know that at the time the 50 per cent. duty was placed on carpets, at the beginning of last year, there was a revival of employment, and that the total of those unemployed fell rapidly. The position of imports also was very interesting. During the period January to April, 1932, when the 50 per cent. duty was in operation, the imports were almost entirely drawn from four countries, India, Persia, China and Russia. In April, 1932, taking that one month alone, 164,000 square yards were imported from all countries, but only 10,800 square yards of this total came from countries other than the four I have mentioned.

In May, 1932, on the other hand, when the 50 per cent, duty had been reduced to 20 per cent., the imports from the other countries rose from 10,800 square yards to 68,000 square yards. That increase came immediately upon the drop from a duty of 50 per cent, to one of 20 per cent. Those 68,000 square yards were out of 208,000 square yards imported. That shows at once exactly what happened when the duty was reduced. To carry the story forward—the imports from these other countries continued to increase until in July the figure of 114,000 square yards was reached out of total imports of 251,000 square yards, and the maximum was reached in September when the imports from the "other" countries were 306,000 square yards. This will show what was the result in the first place of what has been described to-night as a "prohibitive" duty, that is, an almost complete stoppage of imports with a 50 per cent. duty and a steady increase after the duties were reduced.

I do not rise however to oppose this recommendation. I do not think the carpet trade desire that that should be done. They felt very disappointed indeed when the duty was reduced to as low as 20 per cent. They thought it was too big a reduction, and the figures I have given show quite clearly that they were right, and what the effect upon employment was. They felt at that time, and most people who follow the figures carefully will feel, that the reduction should not have been made so drastically to 20 per cent, at once. I want to give one other set of figures which is interesting. In January, 1932, when the 50 per cent. duty was in operation the total number of square yards imported from "other" countries—that is, again excluding the four I have mentioned, namely, India, Persia, China and Russia—was only 17,000 square yards out of a total of 176,000 square yards. Compare that figure with that for January of this year which was 95,000 square yards out of a total of 246,000. There are two points in the Order made by the Import Advisory Committee which, I think, are important. There is the question of the 9d. per square yard duty. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse asked why that duty should be imposed. The point is really met if the House will allow me to read a quotation from one of the most prominent carpet manufacturers in this country: There is, however, one valuable effect it may have, that is, to prevent the fraud which has been undoubtedly taking place in the declared value of carpets. Even in February of this year the declared value of Brussels and Wiltons for duty was 2s. 11d. per square yard and anybody in the trade knows that such a figure is utterly absurd. It is simply a way to evade payment of the proper duty. Values have been declared which are far below the real figures. That is the reason the committee decided in this way. I am bound to say, although I do not in any way oppose this change, that it is the view of those most expert in the trade that although the 9d. will have an excellent effect in preventing fraud, and avoiding values being declared which are ridiculous in the Customs returns, it is not likely to be of great use to the carpet trade in this country, or greatly to encourage the manufacture of cheap carpets and prevent the importation from countries where standards of labour are so low.

To maintain the standard of life in this country the trade require a larger duty. I do not carry the matter further than that. Even although the proposals are welcome from the point of view I have expressed, the opinion of the carpet trade is still that if this country wants the cheapest kind of carpets manufactured here—and they can well be manufactured here and sold at prices as low as, or even below, the prices at which similar imported carpets are offered—a larger duty will be required. As to the statement of the hon. Member for Limehouse regarding the position of this consumer, that is easy to answer. Since duties were first imposed, the employment in the carpet trade has improved very considerably. As far as prices to the consumer are concerned, I would challenge the hon. Gentleman to show me any grade of carpet in ordinary demand which is dearer than it was before the duties were put on. The duties have been of value both to the consumer and to the worker.


Has the hon. Member any figures to back up the statement that there has been an increase in employment or rather a decrease in unemployment in the carpet-making industry? I visited his constituency recently, and, while my visit had nothing to do with the carpet industry directly, I naturally got to know something about it. There is a big carpet factory in my own Division, and therefore I am interested in the subject, and I would like to have some definite evidence that employment in the industry has improved.


I am well aware that the hon. Member did me the honour to visit Kidderminster recently, and, as he said, his visit was not directly concerned with the subject of carpets. But I hope he found there as intelligent, as generous and, shall I say, as enthusiastic a welcome as I find when I speak at Kidderminster. I am told, in fact, that the hon. Member was welcomed with open arms by an audience seven-eighths of whom were staunch Conservatives and who were delighted to hear him. If the hon. Member by his ques- tion means have I at this moment exact figures, my answer is "No." I did not come here prepared with the figures because I thought it was generally known by those in the trade—and he and I are, as he says, possibly the only Members who represent constituencies where carpets are made to any extent—that there had been a considerable improvement in employment. I go further and say that, speaking generally, there is very little unemployment to-day in the carpet trade and what little there is, is in the cheap grade of carpets for which it may be necessary, as I have said, if we want to maintain the standards of the working people in that trade, to have an even larger duty than at present. Speaking generally, I think I can make the definite statement that there has been a marked improvement in employment in the industry. It is probably one of the more fortunate, if not the most fortunate of the industries in this country in the matter of employment at the present time, and that is due largely to the action of the Government in putting on duties. Although I welcome this 9d. duty from the point of view of evading possible fraud, I think it will be found that even a larger duty will be required if we are to go to the last limit of making in our own factories the carpets which our people here want.

7.18 p.m.


Very naturally the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) stands for carpets. This is going to be apparently a characteristic of the House of Commons in the future that people will represent industries rather than geographical constituencies. That is the inevitable and natural corollary of the new system of tariffs.


I hope the hon. Member does not wish to give the House a wrong impression. Although the division which I have the honour to represent is called Kidderminster it does not consist only of the town of Kidderminster, because I have some 200 square miles of agricultural land in my constituency and many other important industries.


I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has very varied interests and that his energies are by no means confined to the question of carpets. I admit also that the subject of carpets leaves me largely unmoved. I do not suggest that they are luxuries but they are the kind of articles with which one can dispense if necessary. At the same time, there is something rather mean about this specific duty. It is an attempt to get hold of the cheaper end of the trade. There is a low duty on the expensive article and a high duty on the cheaper article. I happen to represent a constituency where carpets are looked upon as a luxury. The ordinary working-class over-crowded tenant may have an occasional rug at the fireplace but for the most part—and this is of interest to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace)—they are content with linoleum and oilcloth floor coverings. It is only occasionally, when they are offered by a costermonger or in the street market, that the housewife has the opportunity of getting some of these wicked and evil, one might almost say naughty foreign goods from the East or from the Continent. It is bad policy and a wrong principle to apply a much higher rate to the cheaper goods, than is applied to the more expensive luxury articles like Persian rugs and famous French carpets.

I turn to another part of this interesting document. It is difficult to follow the ramifications of this committee, but I wish to draw attention to a matter which affects my own constituency. Bethnal Green is a district where furniture is manufactured. It is not 'expensive furniture; not the stuff which is to be seen in Maples', but furniture of a lower quality. For some reason, this Committee are distressed by the cheapness of furniture springs and they are out to raise the price and to put a special duty on what constitutes one of the raw materials of a very important industry. That industry is going through a difficult period. Owing to the bad times factories are closing down and there is unemployment and bankruptcy in that industry. People are making old furniture serve for a longer time; some, indeed, are more inclined to sell up their old sticks than to buy new furniture.

Now the Government come along with a proposal to tax the wire springs used in this industry. The timber used is already subject to an extra tax and there is general complaint in the furniture trade, not only on the manufacturing side, but in the wholesale and retail distribu- tive side as well. We had the example of Waring and Gillow's the other day, and there has been another case since to show the state of affairs in that trade. It is all a matter of the sensitiveness of this trade to the present slump. Furniture is the sort of thing that people do without, and, when prices are high and wages low, furniture making is the first industry to feel the reaction.

I am not satisfied that these duties can be justified. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us what is the decision of the Government on these duties, in their relation to the forthcoming World Economic Conference. Supposing that in the course of the bargaining, Germany and Czechoslovakia and other countries—I believe a lot of these cheap carpets come from Central Europe—are prepared to make concessions to us, are we bound by the decision of this committee or can we lower the duty? I would like to ask the hon. Member for Kidderminster, if foreign countries were prepared to make real concessions and to go a long way towards freeing trade and letting our goods in at a lower rate of duty, would he be satisfied to abandon the specific duties now being imposed? In the same way, in regard to wire nails and wire springs and so on, will the Government have a, free hand to go behind this committee and reduce these duties in return for concessions from foreign countries in the matter of duties on cotton goods and so forth? Will they be able to withdraw these duties, or will they have to go before the committee again, or, alternatively, will they feel themselves bound by the decision of the House to-night in passing these duties?

7.26 p.m.


The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) raised what I think is an important issue. I have no doubt that he hoped to amuse the House by his reference to the present fiscal views of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and I do not propose to deal with that matter because my hon. Friend is perfectly well able to look after himself. But I think the House should observe that we are adjusting ourselves and our economic views to the obvious economic needs of the present situation, whereas the hon. Member for Limehouse and the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) appeared to have learned nothing whatever, even from a survey of the direful industrial situation in which the country finds itself. These hon. Members are still speaking in that voice that breathed over the Free Trade Eden in the closing days of the 19th century. They appear to have learned nothing; their policy still is to leave your markets wide open, to welcome stuff from foreign countries, to bring in cheap goods until your own people have no work and are not able to buy even the cheap goods when they do come here.

The hon. Member for Limehouse dealt with the question of drawn wire, wire nails and wire netting. He overlooked the important fact that these three things are manufactured articles. If I want to make wire I have to buy the steel billet, subject it to a process of rolling and re-rolling and annealing, and put quite a lot of work into it. When I have made the wire, I can make either nails or netting. What has been the position so far, under our fiscal arrangements, of the manufacturer making any one of these three articles? On the billet imported into this country which is the raw material of his industry, he had to pay 33⅓ per cent., whereas, the finished article which he was making and selling in competition with Belgium and other countries, was protected only to the extent of 20 per cent. This Order is simply a matter of elementary justice to the manufacturers and the workmen who have been engaged in the production of these articles and the House would be doing not only an injustice to those occupations but an injustice to itself if it did not commend the Order most heartily.

7.28 p.m.


I do not want to make use of this opportunity, like the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) for a general diatribe on the question of Free Trade and Protection. I think it is wrong for a man to use the House of Commons for the purpose of riding his own hobby.


What about Socialism?


I propose to deal on this occasion with the subject matter of this Order. Thank God I am neither a doctrinaire Free Trader nor a doctrinaire Tariff Reformer. I certainly am not a worshipper of Sir George May, the Chairman of the Committee which makes these recommendations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who appointed him?"] I admit that I was a supporter of the Labour Government which pulled him out of the obscurity of commerce into the bright sunlight of politics, but my hon. Friend will surely admit that never for one moment did I assist that process in any way. I rise to deal with a matter of specific interest to my constituency, namely, the carpet industry. In my constituency we have a large and efficient carpet factory, run by a firm that has been in the business for many, many years. I know that the belief held by the supporters of the Government, that tariffs in general were going to improve the employment conditions in this country, has not been borne out by the facts. The unemployment figures in general have gone up since the imposition of tariffs, but we are constantly informed that in a specific industry the employment figures have improved. I think the House of Commons, when it is being asked to approve the application of a particular industry either for the first imposition of a tariff or for the variation of a tariff already imposed, ought to be provided with something more than vague generalities as to the employment position.


Is the hon. Member aware of the increase of employment in the particular carpet industry in his own constituency?


I am not here to give the Government information about their policy. I know the position in my own constituency very well, but I am asking—


Without asking or giving the Government any information, the hon. Member is surely well aware of the figures of the tremendous drop in the imports of carpets? These carpets that are not imported have been supplied and must have been made by someone, and that means employment in this country.


I listened with the very greatest attention to the speech made by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), and I noted the care with which he referred to the documents in his possession, which I assumed to be authoritative documents, but I heard no word fall from his lips that indicated that one additional person had come into employment in the carpet industry. He spoke in general terms, and he produced figures to deal with the changes that had taken place in the imports, but not one figure did he give, nor did the Minister, to show what changes had taken place in the employment part of the industry throughout the country.

I want the Minister to convey this to the Imports Advisory Committee, and to its distinguished chairman, that at least one Member of the House of Commons wants some precise facts put before him. We were always told that tariffs in this country were to be worked scientifically. I do not pose as being a scientist, but I know enough of some of the exact sciences to know that you cannot be scientific unless you have definite data, and we are asked here, on absolutely no data whatever, to vary to a very considerable degree the import duty that is presently offered to the carpet industry. If hon. Members will note the recommendation for an increase, it is for the purpose of persuading certain people, who might put down new plant to shut out carpets coming into this country, before the plant is there in this country to produce new carpets of a, similar kind. They want their market guaranteed even before they make a start with the establishment of a factory. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Well, I will read the recommendation: Recently, however, British manufacturers have been endeavouring to secure a greater share of the home market in certain of the cheaper grades of carpeting, which are still imported in substantial quantities from European countries. We think that this development, which to some extent calls for capital expenditure in laying down suitable specialised machinery.


Read the next words, "merits encouragement." There is nothing in that to show that it has not started.


It is not there anyhow. It is not in print, and I did not hear about it on my flying visit to Kidderminster.


You would not.


The recommendation goes on: It appears to us that with some further assistance British manufacturers should be able to produce these cheap grades at competitive prices. I am not opposing this Motion. I hope that I have watched the whole process of the operation of import duties in this country with as open and as scientific a mind as the Government allege that they have had in applying them, but I submit that the House of Commons, before granting to this particular industry greater protection than it has got now, ought to have some evidence that the employment position in the industry has definitely improved; and up to date we have not had that evidence.

7.37 p.m.


I think I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) the very information for which he is asking. Certainly, as far as the county of Midlothian is concerned, where we make carpets of all kinds, the example of the duties that we have there relating to carpets is one of the easiest in which to give him the returns for which he asks. The duty that was first imposed, that is to say, the duty on the higher and the medium grades of carpet, has worked admirably so far as the experience of the factories with which I am concerned goes to show. I was over those factories before the last election, when they were on short time, and I have been over them from time to time from then until a few weeks ago, and I was given the following figures by one of the persons in charge of the factory in Bonnyrigg. He said: "In the first place, the wages in our key department, including rises in salary and the extra hands employed, represent an increase of 150 per cent." He also said: "The employment throughout these factories has increased by 50 per cent., and in fact, since the time the first duty came on, there has not been a carpet worker unemployed on the registers of Bonnyrigg."


Can the hon. and gallant Member give me plain, straightforward figures rather than percentages?

Captain RAMSAY

I cannot tell the hon. Member the exact numbers of men, but I will get the figures for my hon. Friend and give them to him.


Is there an Employment Exchange in Bonnyrigg?

Captain RAMSAY

Yes, subsidiary to the one at Loanhead. This brings us to the point of the duty in contemplation here, that is to say, the duty on the lowest grade carpets. It was found that, although the duties on the medium and high grade carpets worked admirably, with the results that I have already given to my hon. Friend, the duty on the lowest grade carpet was not working. The very cheap carpets continued to come into this country in increasing quantities after the 50 per cent. duty had been lowered to 20 per cent., and I was among those who made continual representations to the Government in order to try to get the duty on this particular grade of carpet raised. Therefore, having regard to the outstanding success of the other duties, I for one beg to congratulate the Government on the excellent provision that they are putting forward here, and to say that those for whom I am concerned in the carpet trade welcome this Motion and will be duly grateful, and that they consider that it will not be long before the results will be in evidence.

7.41 p.m.


I should like to add a few words to what has been said by the last speaker on the subject of the carpet industry. In Dundee—and I think the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) will agree with me—the carpet. industry has been saved by these duties. I think that everybody who has studied the difficulties of the jute trade will agree when I say that the only part of the trade that has really had substantial help is the carpet part. I have been into the different places to find out for myself how exactly it has helped the carpet industry. In some factories the industry has been revived, and it was found, even in Dundee, that with all the people who had been working in the carpet industry and who had been unemployed not sufficient could be found, and we had to go outside Dundee, to different parts of Scotland and even to Kidderminster, to find workers who could teach the generation that was growing up how these carpets could be made. I think this is an important matter. We want to keep the trade in this country, and we want to enlarge it and to give a chance to our own people to make this type of cheap carpet that has been made only on the. Continent of late.

I know that in the city of Dundee there is this enormous amount of unemployment, and it may not seem to have been much affected, but it is absolutely clear, and can be proved, that that branch of the trade that is interested in the carpet industry has enormously improved, and many people have been brought back to work. We are affected not only by the actual making of carpets in Dundee, but by the supply of yarn for places elsewhere. If the industry in Dundee is not to be protected, it must die, and you will put more people unemployed on the streets. Our only hope is in some measure of protection, some idea of putting up a breakwater against this flood of cheap European carpets that are coming in, unless you are content to drive our people into unemployment. I do not believe that of late the duty has been big enough really to work, but now we have a chance of a bigger duty, and I only wish we could have gone further still and been given greater protection. I am certain that if we had that greater protection, we should have got back hundreds into the trade. We are glad, at any rate, for the extent of protection that we have got, and I do not think anyone connected with the industry can possibly disagree with the fact that this is a step in the right direction.

7.44 p.m.


I can only speak again with the leave of the House, but perhaps, having regard to the turn which the discussion has taken, I may be allowed to reply. I think the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) for having called attention to the employment side of tariff proposals. I am inclined to agree that they stand or fall by that test, and we are glad to give to the House the figures which I regret I had not available when I first spoke. The difficulty is that statistics are usually not available to compare like with like. The situation in the carpet trade at a given moment will usually only be found in statistics at the end of the calendar year, or some other selected period. Since 1931 we have had the Abnormal Importations Act, proceeding with one rate of duty that had then to be altered by the Import Duties Act, so that it is a little difficult to find an exact parallel.

I will first of all give the diminution in unemployment. That is not the question asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, but it has a bearing on the general position. In October, 1931, taking the entire carpet trade—that is to say, the carpet section of the textile trade and also that part of the carpet trade which deals with jute, which is separately classified—the percentage of workers unemployed was 17.2. In December, 1932, which is the nearest month that I could get from the information accessible, the percentage of unemployment was 8.3. I do not want to leave the matter, however, on the negative side of unemployment. I want to deal with the figures of employment. Here I can only give the wool carpet section of the textile trade. I have not the figures available for the jute section of the carpet trade. The total number employed in the carpet section of the wool textile industry, as shown by the Ministry of Labour Gazette would appear to show an increase, between August, 1931, and January, 1933, of something like 10 per cent. It is desirable that on future occasions when these Orders are introduced, specific figures should be given in regard to employment and unemployment, and as far as it rests with me that will be done.

The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) asked a question in regard to the World Economic Conference. As far as I know, there has been only one instance of a duty recommended by the Import Duties Advisory Committee which carried with it any period of time. That was the iron and steel recommendation, which had a two years' period of time. As far as I know, the whole of the Orders are subject to the provisions of the Import Duties Act, 1932, under which the Treasury may by Order direct that a duty cease to apply. I may tell the hon. Baronet at once that if, as a result of the World Economic Conference, it is possible to arrange a mutual reduction in tariffs, if it is possible in bargaining with other countries to find that the adjustment of a tariff to a lower kind would meet with some corresponding advantage from any foreign country, there is nothing to prevent His Majesty's Government from adopting that policy. It is the aim and the declared policy of the Government to use these tariff proposals in that way, with a view to increasing trade.

We had a valuable and well-informed speech from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) dealing with carpets. The only other question that I have to answer was that put by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Holdsworth) who asked why we called the duty in regard to dried fruits a reduction, and why I suggested that imports of wire netting had increased when they had decreased. I claim that the proposal in regard to dried fruits is a reduction. The hon. Member asks: "Why?" Is it not really to be a specific duty, and is it not trying to make that specific duty permanent as compared with an ad valorem duty, which will vary with the price?


I did not ask "why." I asked if it was lower. I was asking for information.


I had no intention of broadening my "why." I appreciated that the hon. Member was asking for information, and my information is this: If goods are subject to an additional duty of 15 per cent. and you are proposing to take that duty off, then the first part of the operation is a reduction. These goods are for the moment subject, to a 25 per cent. Duty—10 per cent. plus 15 per cent. The first recommendation of the Committee is that we should take off the 15 per cent. Call it a substitution if you like, a substitution after subtraction. Having done that, it is proposed to put on a specific duty, but in point of fact that specific duty does not amount to more than the whole of the 25 per cent. Therefore, I think it is right to describe it as a reduction. You may describe it as a reduction or as a substitution if you like. In regard to the importation of wire netting, to which the hon. Member for Bradford, South, referred, if I said that the imports of wire netting had increased, then it was a great mistake, because they have considerably fallen. I have the figures here. The lion. Member is right. The imports of wire netting have substantially fallen. hope that with this explanation the House will be good enough to give us the Motion.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 251; Noes, 47.

Division No. 92.] AYES. [5.55 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Beit, Sir Alfred L. Browne, Captain A. C.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Bornays, Robert Buchan, John
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Albery, Irving James Blindell, James Burnett, John George
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Bossom, A. C. Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Anetruther-Gray, W. J. Boulton, W. W. Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Aske, Sir Robert William Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Atholl, Duchess of Bracken, Brendan Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Brass, Captain Sir William Castlereagh, Viscount
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Briant, Frank Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M, Broadbant, Colonel John Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh,S.)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Brocklebank, C. E. R. Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Christie, James Archibald
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Brown, Ernest (Leith) Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Clarry, Reginald George Hurd, Sir Percy Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Clayton, Dr. George C. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Remer, John R.
Colfox, Major William Philip Jamieson, Douglas Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Jesson, Major Thomas E. Ropner, Colonel L.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Conant, R. J. E. Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Ross, Ronald D.
Cook, Thomas A. Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cooke, Douglas Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Cooper, A. Dull Ker, J. Campbell Runge, Norah Cecil
Copeland, Ida Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Kerr, Hamilton W. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Kimball, Lawrence Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Cranborne, Viscount Kirkpatrick, William M. Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H. Knox, Sir Alfred Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Crocke, J. Smedley Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Salt, Edward W.
Cross, R. H. Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Crossley, A. C. Latham, Sir Herbert Paul Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Law, Sir Alfred Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Dalkeith, Earl of Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Savery, Samuel Servington
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Leckie, J. A. Scone, Lord
Davison, Sir William Henry Leech, Dr. J. W. Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Dawson, Sir Philip Lees-Jones, John Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Denville, Alfred Levy, Thomas Skelton, Archibald Noel
Dickie, John P. Lindsay, Noel Ker Slater, John
Donner, P. W. Llewellin, Major John J. Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Drewe, Cedric Loder, Captain J, de Vera Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Dunglass, Lord Lymington, Viscount Somerset, Thomas
Eden, Robert Anthony MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Somervell, Donald Bradley
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. McConnell, Sir Joseph Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Soper, Richard
Elmley, Viscount McKie, John Hamilton Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Maitland, Adam Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Everard, W. Lindsay Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Fermoy, Lord Marsden, Commander Arthur Spens, William Patrick
Forestier-walker, Sir Leolin Martin, Thomas B. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Fox. Sir Glfford Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Fuller, Captain A. G. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Stevenson, James
Ganzoni, Sir John Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Storey, Samuel
Gibson, Charles Granville Milne, Charles Strauss, Edward A.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale Strickland, Captain W. F.
Glossop, C. W. H. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Gower, Sir Robert Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Summersby, Charles H.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Morrison, William Shephard Sutcliffe, Harold
Granville, Edgar Muirhead, Major A. J. Tate, Mavis Constance
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Munro, Patrick Templeton, William P.
Graves, Marjorie Nail, Sir Joseph Thompson, Luke
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wlck-on-T.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.) Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Grimston, R. V. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Normand, Wilfrid Guild Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Gunston, Captain D. W. Owen, Major Goronwy Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Guy, J. C. Morrison Palmer, Francis Noel Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Patrick, Colin M. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hales, Harold K. Peake, Captain Osbert Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Hammersley, Samuel S. Pearson, William G. Wayland, Sir William A.
Hanbury, Cecil Peat, Charles U. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Hanley, Dennis A. Peters, Dr. Sidney John Wells, Sydney Richard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Petherick, M. Weymouth, Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) White, Henry Graham
Hartland, George A. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Pickering, Ernest H. Whyte, Jardine Beil
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Pownall, Sir Assheton Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Pybus, Percy John Wills, Wilfrid D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Holdsworth, Herbert Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Womersley, Walter James
Hopkinson, Austin Ramsden, Sir Eugene Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie Rankin, Robert
Hornby, Frank Rawson, Sir Cooper TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Horobin, Ian M. Rea, Walter Russell Major George Davies and Lord Erskine.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Reid, David D. (County Down)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Attlee, Clement Richard Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Daggar, George
Banfield, John William Buchanan, George Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Dobbie, William Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Price, Gabriel
Edwards, Charles Kirkwood, David Thorne, William James
Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan) Leonard, William Tinker, John Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Logan, David Gilbert Wallhead, Richard C.
Grundy, Thomas W. Lunn, William Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) McEntee, Valentine L. Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Hicks, Ernest George Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Hirst, George Henry Milner, Major James
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Parkinson, John Allen TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 93.] AYES. [7.52 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gower, Sir Robert Peat, Charles U.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Penny, Sir George
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M. Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Percy, Lord Eustace
Albery, Irving James Greene, William P. C. Petherick, M.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Grimston, R. V. Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Apsley, Lord Gritten, W. G. Howard Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Aske, Sir Robert William Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Gunston, Captain D. W. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Guy, J. C. Morrison Ray, sir William
Atholl, Duchess of Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Atkinson, Cyril Hales, Harold K. Reid, David D. (County Down)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Remer, John R.
Ballour, George (Hampstead) Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hartland, George A. Robinson, John Roland
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Ropner, Colonel L.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Rosbotnam, Sir Samuel
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Ross, Ronald D.
Borodale, Viscount Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Bossom, A. C. Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Boulton, W. W. Hornby, Frank Runge, Norah Cecil
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Horobin, Ian M. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Horsbrugh, Florence Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Broadbent, Colonel John Howard, Tom Forrest Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hume, Sir George Hopwood Salt, Edward W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Jamieson, Douglas Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Jennings, Roland Savory, Samuel Servington
Browne, Captain A. C. Jesson, Major Thomas E. Scone, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Ker, J. Campbell Selley, Harry R.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Burnett, John George Kerr, Hamilton W. Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Kirkpatrick, William M. Skelton, Archibald Noel
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Slater, John
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Law, Sir Alfred Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Castlereagh, Viscount Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Leckie, J. A. Somerset, Thomas
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Leech, Dr. J. W. Somervell, Donald Bradley
Clarry, Reginald George Lees-Jones, John Soper, Richard
Clayton, Dr. George C. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D. Lannox-Boyd, A. T. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Colfox, Major William Philip Levy, Thomas Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Lindsay, Noel Ker Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Conant, R. J. E. Llewellin, Major John J, Spens, William Patrick
Cook, Thomas A. Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Stevenson, James
Cooke, Douglas Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Copeland, Ida Lyons, Abraham Montagu Strauss, Edward A.
Cowan, D. M. MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Cranborne, Viscount McConnell, Sir Joseph Sueter, Bear-Admiral Murray F.
Crooke, J. Smedley MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Summersby, Charles H,
Crossley, A. C. McKie, John Hamilton Sutcliffe, Harold
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Tate, Mavis Constance
Dalkeith, Earl of Macmillan, Maurice Harold Templeton, William P.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Thompson, Luke
Davies, Maj. Geo. P. (Somerset, Yeovil) Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Denman, Hon. R D. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Thorp, Linton Theodore
Denville, Alfred Marsden, Commander Arthur Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Dickie, John P. Martin, Thomas B. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Donner, P. W. Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Drewe, Cedric Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Duckworth, George A. V. Merriman, Sir F. Boyd Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Duggan, Hubert John Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Milne, Charles Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Dunglass, Lord Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Morrison, William Shepherd Wells, Sydney Richard
Elmley, Viscount Muirhead, Major A. J. Weymouth, Viscount
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Munro, Patrick Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Nail, Sir Joseph Whyte, Jardine Bell
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Newton, Sir Douglas George C. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Ford, Sir Patrick J. Normand, Wilfrid Guild Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin North, Captain Edward T. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Fuller, Captain A. G. Nunn, William Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ganzoni, Sir John O'Donovan, Dr. William James Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Gillett, Sir George Matterman Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Glossop, C. W. H. Palmer, Francis Noel TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Peake, Captain Osbert Mr. Blindell and Mr. Womersley.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Pearson, William G.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, south) Grundy, Thomas W. Owen, Major Goronwy
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Parkinson, John Allen
Banfield, John William Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Price, Gabriel
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Harris, Sir Percy Rea, Walter Russell
Briant, Frank Hirst, George Henry Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Holdsworth, Herbert Rothschild, James A. de
Cape, Thomas Jenkins, Sir William Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Wallhead, Richard C.
Daggar, George Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Leonard, William Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Edwards, Charles Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Milner, Major James TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Mr. Groves and Mr. C. Macdonald.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1933, dated the twenty-second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-second day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be approved.