§ 9.18 p.m.
§ Dr. BURGINI beg to move, "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 17) Order, 1933, dated the twenty—eighth day of July, 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—eighth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, be approved."
I feel I must ask the indulgence of the House for appearing before them so many times with Orders tins evening. I am rising to move the adoption of the Additional Import Duties Order No. 17, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I propose at the same time to consider Order No. 18 and 19; as to which the following Motions appear on the Order Paper:
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 18) Order, 1933, dated the thirtieth y of August, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House om the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, be approved.That the Additional Import Duties (No. 19) Order, 1933, dated the twelfth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, made by the Treasury under the 1042 Import Duties Act, 1832, a copy of which was presented to this House on the seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, be approved.I will make a short explanatory general statement, and then deal in reply with any particular questions which may be raised. All these Orders represent recommendations made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Upon those recommendations the Treasury have made the necessary Orders imposing the duties. The last occasion on which the House was asked to approve a duty was on 26th July, when Order No. 15 came before it. Order No. 16 did not impose a Customs Duty, and therefore did not require the approval of the House. It was to bring scales and other weighing machines haying bearings of agate under the same duty as weighing machines generally.The three Orders we have to consider to-night cover 17 different classes of goods, and I think it is a matter of gratification to the House as a whole that we are able to embark upon the discussion of the subject a little after 9 o'clock instead of much later in the evening. The 17 chesses of goods are not connected with one another, and consequently if one were to go into details it would necessitate a very long explanation, but I think I can classify them in some way. Order No. 17 deals with glue and gelatine, No. 19 with certain kinds of dead poultry, and the whole of the remaining 15 articles are dealt with under No. 18. The 15 articles under No. 18 are: oats, oat products and pearl barley, split 1043 peas, canned pilchards, fruit pectin, lactose, plants in flower, rose trees, bleached cotton linters, dressed leather, forged or cast rolls, aluminium sulphate alluminium oxide and confectionery. I think the House will find that some of those substances are more appetising than others. Hon. Members opposite have been good enough to intimate to me those topics in which they are more particularly interested, and 1 will devote more attention to them.
Glue and gelatine have been the subject of questions from time to time chiefly because of imports from abroad at prices which were wholly unremunerative to makers in those countries and made it very difficult for our home industry to compete with them. The glue is of various kinds and one kind, from osseine, is of particular interest. It is made from dried bones treated with hydrochloric acid. The advantage of this Order is that wherever one can make a useful substance by utilising large quantities of a by-product of another industry one achieves a double purpose, and the surplus stocks of hydrochloric acid in this country have presented a problem for some years. The development of the manufacture of glue and gelatine from osseine is important, and in the opinion of the Government the imposition of a duty of 10s. 6d, per cwt., or 25 per cent, of the value, whichever is the greater, ion that class of goods, is a particularly happy recommendation which should have beneficial effects on the industry. The glue comes from Belgium, Russia, Germany, France and Holland and is used for a very large variety of trades in this country. It is not expected that any hardship will be occasioned to the consumer by the imposition of these duties.
Another group of subjects which have frequently engaged the attention of the House are oats, oat products and pearl barley. The House will recollect that these commodities have come into this country in very large quantities, with consequential effect upon the industries of Scotland. The recommendations which are made by the Committee relating to oats, oat products and pearl barley will, I think, be very strongly welcomed by this House. The question may be raised why this Order, made a considerable time ago, was not put into force earlier.
1044 The Report from the Import Duties Advisory Committee was dated 22nd June, and it was not until 30th August that it was possible for the Order to be made. The reason was that certain discussions were taking place with Canada in order to see that the imposition of the duty would not immediately be nullified by increased exports from Canada.
Another item on which the House might be interested to have a little information is the question of forged or cast rolls of steel and so on, which the Committee recommend should have a further duty. The Order relating to these rolls is really a reclassification: "forged or cast rolls of iron or steel for rolling-mills." The reason for this order is that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, who made the recommendations, are not the tribunal who decide the interpretation of their Orders. The interpretation of the Orders made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee is made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and it may be that the definition in the first place has proved, in the opinion of the Customs, not to be quite apt to achieve the whole purpose that was desired. In the case of forged and cast mill-rolls it was held by the Customs Department that those were parts of machinery, and therefore were more properly treated as such than under "castings and forgings." The ground of that ruling was that paragraph (2) of the Second Schedule exempts from the various descriptions of iron and steel products dealt with, goods specially referred to in the First Schedule.
The effect of that provision was to exclude from Schedule II "parts of machinery," which are a class or description of goods in the First Schedule. The Advisory Committee thought it would be better to have a more appropriate classification for Import Duty purposes, and the provisions of this Order are made to make good that change through the interpretation placed by the Customs upon a previous Order. The amount of the duty depends upon the value of the steel per ton. If the value does not exceed £24 per ton, the additional duty is 23½ per cent. If the value exceeds £24 and does not exceed £40, it is such a rate of duty as will, with the general ad valorem duty, amount to £8 per ton 1045 or 20 per cent., whichever is the greater. If the value exceeds £40, the additional duty will be 15 per cent. I give the duty in each case apart from the general ad valorem duty of 10 per cent.; that, I think, is the recognised procedure. There are a great many other subjects, but I do not think that I need go through the details until questions are raised by the Committee, when I shall be happy to give the figures of the imports for which I have the statistics, and particulars of the countries they come from and the uses to which they are put.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked me to say a word about confectionery. This may seem rather a mysterious subject to be included in this Order. We are dealing with that awkward class of goods called a "composite article." Confectionery consisting of several materials, some of which are subject to budgetary duties, creates a very intricate position, but you may have a sweetstuff which contains sugar, cocoa or spirits, which are all already, by reason of their being matters 'included in the Budget, subject to duty in so far as they consist of these ingredients. Confectionery which consists solely of ingredients all of which are subject to other duties under other Acts are excluded from the Import Duties Committee altogether. Composite goods, however, which contain other ingredients besides those subject to budgetary duties fall within the scope of the Import Duties Committee, and this recommendation is to subject such composite goods in confectionery to the 10 per cent ad valorem duty in addition to budgetary duties. That is rather a mouthful, but I hope that I have made the point clear.
The other subject covered by the Order to which hon. Members opposite asked me to devote a word of explanation was the provision that dead poultry—fowls, ducks and geese, but not turkeys or guinea-fowl—should have such a rate of duty as would, with a general ad valorem duty, amount to 3d. a lb. That is an additional duty on dead poultry. Poultry producer here hold a very substantial proportion, of our market, but imports from abroad exercise an effect on prices in this narrow market wholly out of proportion to the volume of the import. That is especially the case where the foreign supplies, as is often true of dead poultry, are sent on 1046 consignment to be sold at what they will fetch. The dislocation of prices in the home market caused by quite a small shipment of dead poultry on consignment is extraordinary. Therefore imports in those circumstances, in the opinion of the Committee, constitute an obstacle to further extension of the home industry and a menace to its existing position. The Committee, therefore, recommends this duty. In certain months of the year it has been the custom to rely upon foreign birds, but the Committee has received encouraging assurances that the supply of home birds will be sufficient, and in order, again, to keep some sort of check and control on the matter the Committee recommend that this duty should in the first instance, be imposed merely for a year in order to subject the industry to the whip and spur of the necessity for reorganisation. The matter will therefore be reviewed at the end of 12 months. It will probably meet the convenience of the House that I should ask that the three Orders be approved without further explanation, but I am ready and willing, with a very full brief, to answer questions that hon. Members in any part of the House may desire to advance.
§ 9.34 p.m.
§ Mr. D. GRENFELLThe House will admit that it would be convenient to follow the hon. Member's suggestion that the three Orders should be discussed together. Although we felt, as the Parliamentary Secretary went along with his very lucid and confident explanations, that his term "mouthfuls" was justified, we were quite willing to do our best to swallow them, especially when he offered us sugar and confectionery as items towards the end of the list. It is really quite simple to discuss these recommendations, because the principles applying to each case are the same. Although the articles vary considerably in their character and in their relation to industry and the general cost of living and their effect upon our national economy, the principles so closely resemble one another that we can discuss them together.
There are a good number of questions on which we were pleased to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to give us information. He will recognise that there are so many subjects covered by these Orders that it is impossible for any one person to be able 1047 to deal with the whole list. I am very much intrigued by this question of glue and size. It sounds sticky, which is very proper, coming from the quarter whence it does. I did not know that so much importance was attached to this industry. We all knew that there was a glue industry, and that glue is mainly made from bone. It is one of the industries based upon bone. There are, I understand, a variety of ways of taking the fat from bone and making glue, gelatine and other supplies which are derived from the destruction of bone. The hon. Gentleman told us that the new term was "ossein," which is just a new-fashioned term for the word "bone" which we all know so well.
We would like to know why this industry requires special protection. Bone is obtainable as a raw material in this country as cheaply and abundantly as anywhere else, as far as I know. Hydrochloric acid, and the benzine used in the special benzine process resorted to in the destruction of bone, as raw material in the manufacture of glue, are as easily obtainable in this country as in any country in the world. I do not think that it is satisfactory, when we have a surplus of hydrochloric acid, that we should raise Artificially the price of the bone in order to use the hydrochloric acid which we have in abundance. If there is an abundance of it in this country, why should that surplus not be used to lessen the cost of the glue, size or gelatine? That ought to be the argument for the removal of any artificial protection, rather than for the erection of protection in this matter. If the Minister had been able to say that we had been put to exceptional difficulties because of the lack of suitable raw materials, that would have been an argument for raising the price in order to enable us to compete, but when he said that we not only have an ample supply of these raw materials, but a surplus, and then said that, in the face of the surplus of hydrochloric acid and the abundance of benzine and bone, we still cannot compete with the foreigner and want to raise the price in this country to enable us to compete, it was not very convincing.
We are afraid that in this connection, as in all these matters where Protection is asked 'for, it is possible for inefficient 1048 industries to be bolstered up by tariffs. Some of the figures cause one to think a great deal, and to suspect very strongly the standard of efficiency maintained in our industries. I really have nothing much to say on Order No. 17, except that I am still not satisfied, and that I shall expect the Minister to tell us what is the volume of business done in this industry, the special reason why glue and size cannot be manufactured in this country, and the explanation why, with raw materials of production so abundant, we cannot compete with other countries in the production of glue, size and gelatinous substances.
When we come to Order No. 18, we find, as the Minister said, that it deals with oats, barley, oat products and barley products, and, he said, oats in grain. Additional duties are to be put upon all kinds of oat products. I have looked up the figures of imports, and I do not find it borne out there that foreign oats are coming in at such a low price. There has been very little variation in the price of foreign oats in the last two years. I take the figures from' the reports upon trade and navigation, which show that in the first 10 months of 1031 the total quantity of oats in grain imported into this country was 7,843,232 cwt. and that, in the 10 months of 1S33, the quantity had been reduced to 4,385,591 cwt. At the same time, the comparative values fell almost in exactly the same proportion. I have made a calculation to check the figures, and I find that the value of each cwt. of oats in 1931 was 4s. Id. and, in 1933, 4s. 5d. They are not being imported at a cheaper rate, according to that.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSWill the hon. Member give the figures for 1932?
§ Mr. GRENFELLThey come in between. I am giving the two years, and I find that the price is slightly higher this year. The volume of imports is down to very nearly one-half in those two years, and there is no special ground in the figures for the imposition of additional duties upon oats. One would like to know why it is now proposed to raise the price of an article of food which is of very great value in this country. The action will result in the raising of the price of that article of food, which is not only useful to human beings, but to 1049 Scotsmen, for the making of porridge. Oats have been a good thing for the Scottish farmer, but the Scotsman who lives in London will find, when he has his porridge for breakfast, that it is dearer.
§ Mr. JOHN WALLACEMay I ask if the hon. Member is aware that, at the present time, oats produced in Scotland are being sold below the cost of production?
§ Mr. GRENFELLReally, we have heard that so often. I have been in the mines, and I never knew coal to be produced at a profit. It is a case that is made out by those people who want Protection. If you raise the price of oats, you will' do very serious damage to the prospects of people engaged in other branches of the industry.
In regard to split peas, why cannot we produce them in this country at a competitive price against any other country in the world? It is difficult to find an explanation of our failure to produce split peas in competition with any part of Europe or of the world. Then, as regards pilchards, I think a definition is required. What is a pilchard? I believe that it is very much the same sort of fish as a herring and a sardine. You may have your choice, if you like, because it is the same fish.
Then we have fruit pectin. Why do the Government meddle with these small things, and bring in these finicky little proposals in order to protect them? What is fruit pectin? Is everybody aware that:
Pectin is a gelatinous substance used chiefly in the manufacture of jam to improve the setting quality. Until a few years ago pulped apple preserved with sulphur dioxide"—it does not sound very nice—" was imported for this purpose, but recently this has given way to a large extent to concentrated pectin.I do not know why there should be an additional duty on a substance of this kind; it seems to me that it ought to be prevented altogether from coming in. Why cannot we make our jams from British fruit, instead of using a camouflaging substance, the composition of which nobody knows, and the mere sight of which I fear from the description given on paper. There is also lactose; but the hon. Gentleman has covered the 1050 list. With regard to iron and steel, I would ask him to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths), who is connected with the steel industry and knows a good deal about those factors which play an important part in the cost of production of steel, to put a few questions on that subject.With regard to Order No. 19, which deals with dead poultry, excluding turkeys and guinea-fowls, I do not know why guinea-fowls should be left out, but one can quite understand the charitable feelings of a Government that does not want to put an additional tax on turkeys for Christmas. If it be the intention to allow turkeys to come in for the festive season without additional duty, we shall count that in favour of the Government, but we find that it is the intention now to raise the duty to 3d. per lb. on all imported poultry coming into this country. Let it be known that a large number of people in this country only get the chance of buying poultry when they can get a bit of cheap poultry, because they are unable to pay the higher prices which are still demanded for home-produced poultry. This is an attack on the standard of living of people who, when they get poultry at all, can only buy imported poultry. The Minister knows quite well, and I think there is an admission in the report of the Committee, that we shall still continue to require to import foreign poultry. If we do not produce sufficient poultry for our purposes at home, it will still be necessary to import it, and, if an import duty is put on foreign poultry, that duty will have to be paid by the poorer people in the country. We have criticised the general character of the scheme and put forward our opposition to the Bill under which these Orders are issued time and again. We find the issues raised so disappointingly paltry that we must again register our opposition, and we shall divide against each of these Orders when the opportunity occurs.
§ Mr. LOGANMay I ask a question of my hon. Friend who has just spoken? When he was referring to oats, and said that oats were not only good for human beings but also for Scotsmen, what did he mean?
§ 9.60 p.m.
§ Lord SCONEThe hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) asked why we 1051 should have these Orders brought in at the present time, and he expressed in-credulity when he was informed that oats were being sold at a price below the cost of production, while at the end of his remarks he said that all this seemed to him to be very paltry. It so happens that what is involved here is the livelihood, wages and employment of a large number of agricultural workers, and, although the livelihood, wages and employment of a large number of agricultural workers may seem of little moment to the hon. Member for Gower, I think that, if it were a question of the livelihood, wages and employment of a large number of miners, he would take a very different view of the situation. The fact remains that in the oat-growing areas, and especially in Scotland, we have seen during the last few years a steady reduction in the profits of the farmer, until in most cases he is running at a loss, and we have seen great reductions in the wages of the farm worker, which at the present time are barely sufficient to maintain him and his family. It has long been our boast in Scotland that we paid better wages to our agricultural workers than were paid in England, and to some extent that is still true, but, if we are going to have imports of oats and other things continually flooding our market at the present rate, we shall have very great difficulty in the future in paying wages sufficient to keep body and soul together, and, moreover, a very large number of our people will lose their employment; indeed many have done so already.
Although it is true that there has been a very large reduction in the imports of oats into this country, amounting roughly to some 950,000 cwt. for the first nine months of this year, the price of oats still remains lamentably low, and the price of foreign oats is still on the whole lower than that of home-grown oats. We who are intimately concerned with the production of oats feel, not that this duty is too much, but that it is really wholly inadequate. In fact, although I fear I may be trespassing beyond the bounds of order in saving this, many of us feel that a tariff is not really the way in which to deal with the subject. Further than that I do not think I should be entitled to go. We welcome this small protection for 1052 what it is worth, but we would urge the Government to investigate the whole position in regard to oats and see if they cannot by some better method help to raise the price from the uneconomic level of to-day. The price per quarter of 3 cwt. to-day is something like 13s. to 14s., and nothing less than £l a quarter can be regarded as adequate.
At the same time we are glad of the small assistance of the duty which is now being provided, and also of the slight help that will be given by the increased duty on pearl barley and pot barley, and the very considerable assistance of the new duty on poultry; but I cannot but express my regret, which I know is shared by all those who are engaged in the production of turkeys, that turkeys have been excluded from the Order. More and more turkeys are being bred in this country, and I have received representations from all over the country—both Scotland and England—to the effect that, were turkeys included within the scope of the Order, it would be a boon to the turkey industry that would be of the greatest benefit to agriculture generally. We welcome this Order for the short distance that it goes, but we hope that in the future the Government will see their way, at least as far as oats are concerned, to introduce, new and even more drastic restrictions on imports.
§ 9.54 p.m.
§ Mr. RONALD ROSSI am glad to follow the Noble Lord who has just spoken, because I can speak in the same sense in which he has spoken. There is, however, one point on which I desire to correct him. He seems, naturally, to consider the question of oats as being an almost exclusively Scottish question, but it is nothing of the kind; it affects the farmers in Northern Ireland just as keenly as the farmers of Scotland. There is no other cereal which it is profitable to grow on the land that we have in Ireland, and it is notorious that farming without a cereal is impossible. We are driven to the cultivation of oats almost exclusively, because we have no alternative. This Order, which I welcome as fas as it goes, is, no doubt, of somewhat limited assistance, but the present position of the oat grower, whether in Scotland, in Northern Ireland, in England or elsewhere, is almost desperate. The 1053 price has fallen by very nearly 50 per cent, since 1928. I agree that there has been a large decrease, as stated by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) in the quantity of oats imported. But it is little satisfaction to a man who is working laboriously, trying to make a livelihood, probably on rather bad land, to hear that the volume of imported oats has decreased if the price is still too low to give him any profit on his labour.
Therefore, if one can draw any inference from the facts as regards the oats industry, it would be that a duty such as we have at present, even with this addition, would not be sufficient. In this country we can produce as many oats as can be required. The industry is facing a falling market. With the increase of motor traffic the oat producer finds his market decreasing in proportion and, therefore, particular attention should be devoted to the assistance of those members of the agricultural industry who produce oats. In Northern Ireland we are only producing a fraction of what we could produce. There are some 280,000 acres under oats. In the war period we had 455,000 acres. It is clear from that that there is a profitable field in agriculture open even to those farmers who, like us, have land unsuitable for other cereals. In order for it to be profitable steps must be taken by the Government to enable the producer to sell his oats at a reasonable profit, and, although I see the Scottish Office well and ably represented on the Government Bench, I rather wish that very overworked person who is doing so much for us, the Minister of Agriculture, had found it possible to be present, although I know his many duties make it very difficult for him to be here, much as he would like to be.
We are proud to say that in Northern Ireland we have a more intense population of fowls and poultry than any other part of the United Kingdom, so I certainly welcome the Poultry Order as far as it goes, but there are exceptions. Turkeys in particular are excluded. I have searched through the Trade and Navigation Accounts, and I am unable to find any figure dealing with turkeys. The volume of imported dead poultry is not a very large proportion of what we have, which is predominantly home produced, but still in 10 months imported dead poultry to the value of over £1,000,000 1054 came into the country. It would not be satisfactory to take the figures for the first 10 months as notoriously the turkey is a seasonable creature and only makes his appearance at the time of good cheer in the neighbourhood of Christmas.
But why has the turkey been excluded from this Order? The turkey is the rich man's bird. Hon. Members on the Labour benches would not claim that their proletarian supporters are fed to any very serious extent on turkeys, and it seems most extraordinary that the turkey should not take his place with other deceased fowls in the Order. Why is there this discrimination against this noble bird? I am particularly interested as there are many turkeys in my constituency. I say that frankly. It is very difficult to find out what the position is, but it is well known that the price of turkeys at present does not seem to be going to be a particularly good one and I should have thought there would have to be some very definite, special reason to induce the Government to exclude them. While I welcome the Order as far as it goes, it is no time for my hon. Friend to sit back and feel confident that all has been done that could be done. There is still much more.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. MALLALIEUI propose to confine my remarks to Order No. 18, making new arrangements for taxes upon some 13 different commodities, of which no fewer than seven are articles of food. I think it will be to the interest of the House to examine the reason given in some of these cases by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Take, for instance, the recommended duty upon milk products and pearl barley. The Committee states:
Representations have been made to us that the whole industry engaged in the preparation of the various products of oats and barley is severely handicapped by the low prices at which foreign products are being offered in this country.In the case of oats they say:Owing inter alia to the low' prices at which imported oats have been obtainable.In the case of canned pilchards they refer to a decline in the industry due in part to one thing, but in addition, they say, to the introduction in the home market of foreign canned pilchards at prices with which it is difficult or impossible for 1055 British herring curers to compete. It is plain, from those reasons, stated quite frankly, that the object of the Committee, and, therefore, of the Government in adopting the Committee's recommendations, is to raise the price of these foodstuffs. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. I shall be interested to hear if there is any intention to bring these duties into force without raising prices. I have heard it said again and again by Conservative Members that that is the very object with which the duties are imposed. If that is the case, why is the last paragraph in the recommendations with regard to oat products and pearl barley as follows:Certain by-products of the oats and barley milling industry, such as oats or barley husks, dust and husk meal, are largely used in the manufacture of feeding stuffs for animals and we have, therefore, excluded them from our recommendations.The obvious inference is that the Government is perfectly prepared to put taxes upon the food of human beings but not upon the food of animals.The only other point to which I wish to refer is one that was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) on a former occasion. Here are 13 new taxes, or arrangements for taxes, being considered in one Order. There is only the choice, therefore, if Members disapprove, say, of one of them but approve of the other 12, to reject the 12 if they are to reject the one. It is an absolute mockery of parliamentary government for such procedure to come from this Government in view of the lip service that they pay to parliamentary institutions to introduce these 13 new taxes in one Order all to be debated, considered and decided at one fell swoop.
§ Mr. H, WILLIAMSWill the hon. Gentleman tell me which of these Orders he desires to be passed?
§ Mr. MALLALIEUNone in this case. I put a hypothetical case "If any Member of this House desired." These Orders are all bad, but I think that the system upon which this particular batch of Orders was introduced was even worse than any one of the individual Orders.
§ 10.6 p.m.
§ Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYI feel that it is only right that a Member who repre- 1056 sents a seat in the north-east of Scotland such as I do which is very largely interested, particularly in the growing of oats, should attempt to lay the point of view of his constituents before the House of Commons on an occasion of this sort. I call the attention of the House to one of the chief difficulties with which we are faced at the moment—the economic position of the oat in the agricultural organisation of the north-east of Scotland. Put briefly, the oat in that part of the world plays the same part as wheat does in certain areas of England. That is to say, you cannot cultivate the land properly without growing cereals, and oats and barley are the only cereals which can be farmed for that purpose. The alternative to growing oats is that you must let your land go down to grass, which will mean a further increase in unemployment because it will mean fewer farm servants, and also that less land will be available for the more higher forms of agriculture. Therefore, it is desirable that the growing of oats should be encouraged in the north-east of Scotland, but the farmers find themselves faced with the position that, if they are to keep their land in a proper course of rotation, they are, in many cases, compelled to grow more oats than they can consume themselves on their farms. The result is that they have to sell a considerable proportion off their farms, and that proportion has become to be looked upon as a valuable contribution to the cash crop of the farm. The extent to which this is valuable was brought out in a memorandum issued by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture from which I will make a short quotation:
To a substantial extent the oat crop is consumed upon the farm on which it is grown, and the price is not of much consequence as regards this part. But over large areas in Scotland the greater part of the crop is sold and, in fact, forms the main 'cash crop.' This is particularly true of the north-east and north of Scotland … which produce more than half of the total Scottish crop.Therefore, the House will realise that in that part of Scotland from which I have the honour to come, the oat crop is a matter of very real and considerable importance. What is the position at the present moment? Again, I will quote from the same document. The average production cost, according to the Lovat Committee, was approximately 22s. a quarter. The average price at the pre- 1057 sent moment, as the hon. Member for Perth (Lord Scone) has explained, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 13s. 6d. It is lower in the North-East than it is in other parts of Scotland. The result is that there is an appreciable and heavy loss on every quarter of oats sold off the farm in the North-East of Scotland at the present moment. Again, to quote from the report of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture:According to the most recent calculation, 43 per cent, of the oat crop is sold off farms. At an average production of six quarters per acre, this proportion of the present crop on the Scottish oat area of 854,000 acres amount to 2,200,000 quarters, and taking the loss at 6s. 6d. per quarter, it will amount to £715,000. The greater part of this loss will fall upon the counties above mentioned.The greater part of the £715,000 loss has to be borne by those counties in the North-East of Scotland. I do not think that that is a position upon which this House can afford to look with equanimity —certainly the Members for North-Eastern Scotland cannot. There is no doubt about the feelings of the farmers in that part of the world, and, after all, I am here to put the farmers' point of view, and not the individual point of view of a Member of Parliament. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member opposite who opposed the duties ask why this should be necessary, why we should want to increase the prices, and why the people who eat oatmeal, and others who require it for feeding-stuffs, should not get it as cheaply as possible. The one point upon which farmers who produce these things feel intensely is that they should be 'asked to produce their crops at a loss in order that some other branch of their industry or some other section of the community should thrive upon that loss. I think that it is a fundamental point, and that it is quite unfair that one branch of industry or section of the population should thrive at the expense of another section of the community. That is why they feel so intensely when that particular argument is used. If the hon. Members doubts it I would ask him to come up to the North of Scotland and see what the farmers in that part of the world have to say to him on the subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "The same applies to miners!"] We might have a joint meeting of Welsh miners and Scottish 1058 farmers. And that meets the point raised by the hon. Member below the Gangway.I wish to support this proposal because I think it is a step in the right direction. There is not, I believe, a farmer in the North of Scotland who will not say—and I must put this as I am speaking on their behalf—that this is not a sufficient duty. They are all anxious for a higher duty. I understand from the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that they are anxious to help the farmers of Scotland. They expressly state that they are putting on this duty with that object. So far we feel that it has not altogether achieved its object, and would like to see something higher. At the same time, most emphatically we are not prepared to vote against it to-night on those grounds. We shall certainly vote for it in the hope that it will be the first step towards better things to come.
There is one further point to which I would refer, and it was raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). That is the question of turkeys. The turkey is a noble bird. I agree that, to a certain extent, it is a rich man's luxury, but I am wondering why this noble bird is not to receive the benefit of an import duty as well as the humbler chicken. There may be some reason for it, and no doubt there is. This year has been a particularly good year for the production- of turkeys in this country. To whatever part of the country one goes, one finds large numbers of turkeys, but when Christmas comes and foreign turkeys arrive the home producer will not get as good a price as he or she had reason to expect in the Christmas market. It is not yet too late to give them protection. I hope that some application may be put forward and that a duty will be imposed on the importation of turkeys, in order that the home producer may get the full benefit of the fine crop of these noble birds, and that their Christmas table will be cheered as well as the tables of those who hope to eat the product of their labour.
§ 10.17 p.m.
§ Mr. T. GRIFFITHSThe hon. Member who has just sat down said that he did not believe that one industry should thrive on the back of another industry. On that point I should like to deal with the proposal for an additional duty on forged or cast rolls of iron or steel for 1059 rolling-mills, whether finished or not, and I should like to give the Parliamentary Secretary some information about this trade. These rolls are used in the tin-plate mills, in the works of the gal-vanised sheet makers, in the section mills in the steel trade and also in the plate mills in the steel trade. They are manufactured in South Wales in the foundries. These rolls are therefore raw material although they are a finished product in themselves. They are the raw material of these particular trades when they come from the foundries. These rolls are very expensive. Sometimes in the tinplate and sheet trade there are breakages and when you get a breakage of a roll it is a very serious matter in so far as the cost of production in the tinplate or sheet industry is concerned.
As a trade union leader I can tell the Minister that we have more disputes and more trouble on account of the breakage of these rolls than from anything else, because the price of the rolls is so important in the cost of production. We have had many a stoppage, where a man has been suspended or dismissed as the result of a roll breakage. The point which I wish to drive home is, that if you are going to put an additional duty of £8 per ton on these rolls, which are to be used for the manufacture of other articles, you are going to cause more tension and more disputes, perhaps, in these industries when breakages take place. Rolls in the sheet and tinplate trade expand and contract according to the heat when the plates have been rolled through the furnaces in order to produce the finished article. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether the sheet and tinplate manufacturers applied to the Advisory Committee for this import duty, or whether it is the foundry people who have made the application. If so, hon. Members will see that one industry is going to be penalised as the result of our doing something to protect another.
The second point is this. Of the tin-plates produced in South Wales the galvanised sheets produced throughout the country—I want to be quite correct— we export about 80 per cent., and we have to compete in neutral markets with America. Although at one period previous to 1891 we were the only country 1060 in the world which manufactured tin-plates, to-day they are manufactured in France, Italy, Germany, America and even in Russia; and Germany and America to-day are actually exporting tin-plates. Therefore we have to meet this competition in neutral markets, and when trade is depressed one penny per box will decide whether we get an order or not as against the foreigner in these neutral markets. The Parliamentary Secretary will understand that I am raising this matter in order to give him information on this important subject. Will he tell us from where these tinplate rolls are imported; to which part of the country they are imported, Scotland, England or South Wales, and whether they are imported in order to produce tinplates, sheets, sections in the steel trade or ship plates in the North of England and Scotland?
§ 10.23 p.m.
Duchess of ATHOLLI do not wish to add anything to what has been so well said by my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) on the importance of the oat industry to Scotland and the grievous plight in which the grower of oats finds himself. What I want to stress, if I can, is the importance of developing the manufacture of oat products in the country as a means not only of helping to keep on its feet this ancient industry, but also as a means of helping the farmers. I realise that we are discussing an increased duty on foreign oat products, and one has to be thankful for every scrap from the rich man's table, but I cannot help remembering that so recently as last March the Scottish Farmers' Union asked for a duty of 3s. per cwt. on oats, a fixed duty on weight, not a duty that was going to slide with the price; and for a higher duty on oat products. What has been given is something very much less. The duty now is only about a quarter of what the farmers considered to be absolutely necessary in the plight they are in. The duty falls with the price, it is not fixed on weight, and I understand that since the new duty came into operation the price of oats and oat products has been lowered by some foreign suppliers so that the whole value of the duty is lost. In fact, I understand that it has been wiped out.
1061 The Board of Trade returns give the countries from which oat products come, and a former reply which the Minister gave to a question of mine shows that in the past month Germany has been an important supplier of these oat products and pearl barley, and is particularly important having regard to the price at which she sends them. I am sorry that I did not realise that this question was coming up otherwise I should have put a question to the Minister. I should like to have got from him the price at which these things are coming in. But a few months ago, when he was kind enough to give me information, it was quite clear that Germany was undercutting her competitors in our market. She was under-cutting Canada and the United States in regard to oat products, and Holland in regard to pearl barley. My hon. Friend was also good enough to tell me that these products were coming in from Germany under a system of concealed subsidy—what I believe is known as the export bond system.
Germany is exporting other grains at low prices, and quite recently the Belgian Government have found it necessary to say that they would only allow grain to be imported into their country on licence. That is an indication of the seriousness of the threat of rye and grain coming from Germany, probably under some similar system. I have always felt that one of the most important agreements arrived at at Ottawa was the agreement by which the British Government undertook that if the value of a preference given to a Canadian commodity in our market was being threatened by the competition of similar commodities coming to this country under a system of State aid in order to lower prices, the British Government undertook to prohibit the entry of those commodities coming in under that very unfair form of competition. I have always regarded the adoption of that principle as of tremendous importance, because I believe that State-aided dumping is most injurious to international trade, and something that all countries which wish to see trade conducted on fair and honest lines should desire to end.
I cannot help feeling that in this case Canada might, if she wished, invoke this particular Clause of the Ottawa Agreement and ask us to prohibit the entry of these products accordingly. If she did 1062 that it would be of great benefit, not only to the Canadian producer, but to the British farmer and the British oatmeal miller. Whether the Canadian Government does or does not take any action of that kind, it seems to me that the British Government cannot do less for the British producer, whether miller or farmer, than they have undertaken to do for the Canadian producer. With that Ottawa Agreement in view it seems to me that the British Government, if they find on investigation that this increased duty has had very little effect, might well consider doing something very much more drastic. If they do not feel inclined to prohibit imports of dumped and State-aided oat products altogether, they might very materially increase the duty.
I am told that the exclusion of German oat products at the present time would mean that about 360,000 cwt. more of British oats would be put on the market. There would be a demand for that quantity by the millers of this country. That would be a tremendous help to our farmers. I understand that Canada has undertaken for about three years to send us 600,000 cwt. of oatmeal. There need be no scarcity of oatmeal in this country, because 600,000 cwt. is a very considerable proportion of our present imports. Enough meal is milled in this country to enable us to turn out a great deal more home-made oat products than we are doing at present. I ask the Government to watch carefully whether this increased duty has any effect on the price of oats, oat products or pearl barley and, if they find that it has not, I hope they will be ready to do something more substantial to help these industries.
I welcome the further protection which is to be given to the glue and gelatine industry. The hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench did not seem to understand why anything of that kind had been done. I understand that a great fall in the price of glue has taken place in the last few years largely due to the large increase of imports from Russia at cut-throat prices. Only a few month ago I heard that many very poor people who had as their means of livelihood the collecting of bones and selling them to the factories had lost that livelihood because of the effect of these importations on the price of British glue. I cannot feel confident that this increase 1063 in the duty will be sufficient to keep out this Russian glue the importation of which has had such serious effects on the price of the British product. Still, it is a step in the right direction.
I am also glad to think that something is at last being done to give some protection to the home poultry farmer who has suffered greatly from the dumping of Russian poultry in this country. The quantity of poultry coming from Russia has been less within the past year or two, but still the price has been, for several years past, far below the price at which any other country can supply us and far below the price at which the home product can be made to pay. I notice that in the first nine months of the year Russian poultry coming in here averaged a price of less than 6d. per pound and I understand that something very much higher than that is necessary if the British poultry farmer is to be kept on his feet. When we remember how many ex-service men and particularly disabled ex-service men have turned to this kind of farming to earn a livelihood I think many of us, even if we do not like protective duties, will feel that we must do what we can for these men. Again I express the hope that the Government will watch narrowly to see whether these duties are really effective or not. I cannot help feeling some doubt as to whether they will deal with the ease of State-aided dumping from Germany or from Russia or from whatever country it may come and in that case stronger measures will be necessary in order to do what we wish to have done.
§ 10.34 p.m.
Mr. HASLAMI desire to intervene briefly in this Debate in order to associate myself as an English agricultural Member, with the representations that have been made by Scottish Members and by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. R. Ross) in regard to oats. In this unexampled period of agricultural depression, the English farmer and farm worker have been considerably assisted by the Wheat Act passed in April, 1932, but the people in the northern part of the Kingdom have not been able to benefit from that Act in the same way as the agricultural community in England. It is only right and just therefore that the House 1064 should extend a larger measure of protection in regard to the production and sale of oats. My only fear in regard to this Measure is that it may prove insufficient to deal with the terribly low prices which cereals now command in the world. I may point out further, to hon. Members opposite more particularly, that it is cereal production which employs labour, and, if we leave oats unprotected or protected by so small a duty as 10 per cent., it cannot but cause not only loss and ruin to farmers, but considerable further unemployment to Scottish agricultural workers. Therefore, I desire to associate myself with all that has been said on that subject.
I would like to make one further point and to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as he was kind enough to say that he would answer questions, why turkeys are not included with other dead poultry in the duty. A very large number of British farmers and other farmers have embarked on turkey raising on the faith of the representations that have been put forward by Members of the Government that the British farmer was going to have first place in the British market, and to find themselves excluded is, of course, a somewhat bitter pill. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can tell us why the Committee have omitted to include turkeys
§ 10.37 p.m.
§ Mr. R. W. SMITHWe are dealing to-night with a very important subject, namely, the oat question, and I want to draw the attention of the House and the Government to one or two points in regard to this Order. Various Members of the Government have said at different times that oats are of vital importance to the country, and certainly to the North of Scotland, and only yesterday I had a further reply from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that he was anxious to find some way of assisting the oat industry. I want particularly to draw attention to the history of this Order. It was first applied for in October, 1932, by the National Farmers Union who asked for a 20 per cent. duty. In March, 1933, they renewed their application and said that 20 per cent, was not sufficient, and they asked for a duty of 3s. a cwt. on oats. AH last spring we agricultural Members 1065 were pressing the Government to know what they were going to do for the oat situation in Scotland, and we were told that there was an application before the Import Duties Advisory Committee and that until that Committee had reported they could not take any steps. That went on, and in July the Minister of Agriculture informed us that he was then taking up the question of the import of oats from Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada was then in London, and on the 11th July the right hon. Gentleman stated:
I have taken the opportunity of the presence in this country of the Prime Minister of Canada to discuss this question with him, and I have his authority to say that we have every reason to believe that we shall be able to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement.Meanwhile, a communication has been received from the Import Duties Advisory Committee stating that the Committee understand that conversations have been initiated with the Government of Canada on the subject of the importation of oats into this country, and they are disposed to think that in those circumstances it is expedient to defer a decision on the application for an additional duty on foreign oats until they are acquainted with the outcome of those conversations."—[OFFICIAI, REPORT, 11th July, 1933; col. 947; Vol. 280.]I would like to point out that as early as March, when the second application was put in, the National Farmers Union pointed out to the Secretary of State for Scotland that there was this difficulty with Canada, and asked the Government to negotiate with Canada and to come to some agreement to reduce her imports of oats. It was not until July that the Government took action. The Government have been dilatory in their action; it is reprehensible that they should have been so, and it does not show the interest which they profess to take in oats. This Order, although it has done a certain amount, has proved practically ineffective, as prices have gone down. Therefore, my contention is that it will not be sufficient and that the Government should do something more. Under the Import Duties Act an ad valorem duty is provided for, but Section 17 states:
Where at any time it appears to the Treasury, after consultation with the appropriate Department, that any duty chargeable under this Act on goods of any class or description by reference to the value thereof could be levied with greater advantage and convenience if that duty were chargeable by reference to weight or other measure of1066quantity, the Treasury may by regulations direct that the duty shall he charged by reference to weight or other measure of quantity, as may be specified in the regulations.There is something which the Government could do at once. They have their authority. The question need not be held up and the duty would be on quantity instead of ad valorem, which is much more satisfactory. It may be said that a further application should be made. I have read the Import Duties Act very carefully, and I see no difficulty in the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is Minister of Agriculture in Scotland, making an application to the Advisory Committee. There are steps open for the Government to deal with this question at the present time, and I press them to take every step they can, because every month that passes makes it worse for the small agriculturist in Scotland. I have no intention of opposing this Measure, because half-a-loaf is better than no bread. I say that the position has not been met by this Order. The very wording of the Order is that its object is to raise prices, but that has not been done. The Order has been in force since August and prices have not been improved. I beg the Government to do something more. The sooner some steps are taken the better.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins)I am not surprised that many hon. Members from Scotland have risen to-night to voice the views of their constituents regarding the price of oats, especially in the North-East of Scotland. The actual facts of the situation have been pointed out to the Government in very moderate language. During the Recess I had the opportunity of coming into personal touch with many farmers in that area, and when they told me that in truth and in fact they were selling their oats at some 18 per cent.' below pre-War prices I submit that there could be no stronger inducement or argument which I could advance for the complete acceptance of this Order. I am sure every Member must feel intense sympathy with men placed in that awkward position. The Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone) asked me if I had been investigating this question. I can assure him that I have been giving it very close attention during the last two months, and, so far as I can gather, the 1067 informed opinion in the agricultural industry is this, that if the livestock industry were prosperous the price of oats, important as it is, would not be so all-important as it is this evening.
It is from that angle and from that outlook that we have been studying this question, and we have watched each week with anxious eyes the prices of livestock to see if the present restrictions, which have only been in vogue for a comparatively short time are responding to the particular treatment of quota. If I remind the Noble Lord that the restrictions during the first nine months of this year have not been great he will agree with me that during the last three months of this year these restrictions are much more intense than they were, and we hope that by that method some improvement in the wholesale prices of meat may follow, so that the livestock industry, not only in England, but in all parts of Scotland may have the benefit of that policy of restriction.
The fall in the price of oats bas been, indeed, acute, and at the same time the world production of oats has decreased enormously. The price of oats to-day is not entirely due to under consumption, because these prices have fallen month by month and year by year during the last three years, and the total volume of oat production has shown very marked decreases. I have some figures which I might submit to the House, but I will not trouble the House with them at this late hour. I would, however, remind hon. 1068 Members, who have spoken with feeling and with knowledge, that the Government have placed in the hands of the farming industry two distinct weapons or two distinct policies which the farming industry can use. The men who are guiding and controlling the farming industry to-day in Scotland are shrewd and capable and practical men. It is undoubtedly true, as the hon. Member who last addressed the House said, that there have been delays but a reading of the White Paper will show I think that the Committee had sufficient reason for this. It is within the power of the farming industry to-day to re-apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increased duty if they so desire. They have also the power to put into operation a marketing scheme. I agree with some hon. Members who have spoken in former Debates that a marketing scheme presents difficulties, but if the industry will apply their minds to it, as I know they have, and if they find, as they may find, that a marketing scheme is praticable I know they will carry it into effect.
I submit to the House this evening that, either by one or two of the methods I have mentioned, it lies within the purview and the power of the farming industry to address their minds to these difficult questions. Far be it from me to say that one or other or both may secure the end that we all have in view, but if any words of mine could convey to these men on the north-east coast of Scotland not only my sympathy but the knowledge that their difficulties are being carefully studied by my advisers and myself, and that anything we can do to secure the return of that prosperity which we all desire for this country we will do, I should speak those words. I will say no more, except to say, as I said at the start, that there is an Order which comes before this House asking for a slight increase, from 10 to 20 per cent., in the duty on a product which is selling to-day at 18 per cent, below the pre-War price. However much any hon. Member may have in his mind past fiscal policies, if he will visualise the position of men faced with that tragic fact I submit that he and all those like him will unanimously support the Government this evening.
§ 10.52 p.m.
§ Sir P. HARRISWe have had a very remarkable speech, which will appeal both to the House and the country, but hidden away in a mixture of 13 duties covering an immense variety of products—raw materials, foods, manufactured articles, rose trees and metal goods—thisgreat new principle is covered up and might have passed almost unnoticed except for the diligence of certain hon. Members of this House. At the end of a long Parliament—I might literally say on almost its last day—we are allowed to discuss what is obviousy, according to the admissions of its supporters, a very large and important departure from policy. It is an important departure from policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland apparently has some qualms of conscience——
§ Sir G. COLLINSNo, I have not.
§ Sir P. HARRISOf course, we know the elasticity of the principles of many of our old friends and colleagues. People are extraordinarily adaptable. Some of my hon. Friends, old friends and colleagues, were very loud in their approval of duties on manufactured goods and even on raw materials in special circumstances, provided that they were not imposed on food products. The food of the people was to go untaxed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is a consistent politician. I take off my hat to him at any time, because he has a long and consistent record behind him. He has an elaborate creed by which he can prove to his own satisfaction that taxes are always paid by the foreigner and that no new duty ever raises prices. But the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade are saying that these duties are imposed solely because they are to raise prices. If we are to make this departure, it should have been put forward by itself as a special Order, so that we could vote for or against it on its merits and with proper facts and figures to justify it. There has been no such attempt.
I consider that the Commissioners are to blame. The least thing that they could have done was to give a full and considered statement of the reasons for which they came to their conclusions. The Noble Lady put forward as an argument, I understand, the large amount of oats that came from Germany. I have been looking up the oat figures, and I find that they have not come in very large quantities. There has been an increase, it is true. Oats were not principally imported from Germany but from the Argentine, with whom, by the way, we have just made a commercial agreement, and I understand from the President of the Board of Trade that we are now to have a large increase in our trade in manufactured goods. Yet we choose this very time to make this departure of policy.
The second, and the largest, country from which we import oats is our own Dominion of Canada. I think that I am right in saying that, under the Canadian duties, they will come in free. We must be grateful for small mercies, and it is some satisfaction that the Dominion is not to be subject to this duty, but that 1070 is a poor consolation for the unfortunate farmer in the North-East of Scotland who is to get competition from Canada. It does not make much difference to him whether he is ruined by Canada or by the Argentine.
Duchess Of ATHOLLWill the hon. Member give the figures for oat products in Canada, in the first nine months of this year, compared with the first nine months of last year?
§ Sir P. HARRISI have the figures here for oat products, and, as a matter of fact, oat products had actually gone down, from nearly 600,000 cwt, in 1931, to 431,000 in 1933.
§ Sir P. HARRISOat products. The Noble Lady will be interested to know that the quantities have gone down to practically the same extent. [Interruption.] I am really arguing on the larger principle. When originally this new departure in our fiscal policy took place, it was clearly understood that wheat, oats and essential foodstuffs were not to be taxed beyond 10 per cent., and that if it was necessary to deal with those products, as was said over and over again by Ministers, that would be done by other means such as improved organisation, by marketing, and, for better or worse, by a system of quotas
§ Mr. J. WALLACEDid the hon. Member vote for the wheat quota?
§ Sir P. HARRISNo, I did not. I do not know what the hon. Member did, but I know that I did not. That was an irrelevant interruption. The point is that if foods were to be dealt in any way, they were to be dealt with by quotas. Food was not to be subject to an extra duty. Now we have this increase of from 10 per cent, to 20 per cent., and I say that that is distinctly a departure in policy, and is against the promises given to a great number of Government supporters who were quite prepared to support the principle of taxes upon manufactured goods, but who had pledged themselves to let food products in free.
I think it is unfortunate that, at the very end of a Session of Parliament, this duty should be smuggled through mixed up with 13 others in one Order. I hope 1071 that the country outside, which is now beginning to wake up to what is going on, will begin "to realise how this great departure in policy is being used to smuggle in a whole series of food taxes. We know now what the majority of the supporters of the National Government desire. They are not content with 10 percent., they are not content with 20 percent., and I understand that they will not be really content until we have either a duty of something like 60 per cent, or something like prohibition. The Noble Lady was quite frank. She was arguing for prohibition in many of these cases——
§ Sir P. HARRISThe Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl)—not the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who, however, is quite sound on this matter, and no doubt, had she been here, would have been loud in her protest against any duties on any form of grain stuffs. If my hon. Friends want to get wise on this subject, I can commend to them an excellent book by the Noble Lord, her husband. The Government are doing a very wrong thing in the way in which they are tackling this difficult problem of agriculture. Certainly it is a serious thing to stir up feeling, as this is bound ultimately to do, and as it is doing in the case of bacon—[Laughter]. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are amused at the idea that the working class are suffering from some of these bad taxes, but they are already beginning to realise it on the loaf and on bacon. There will be a day of reckoning sooner than hon. Gentlemen opposite may expect, and many hon. Gentlemen who sneaked in with Liberal votes will be made to pay for them.
§ 11.2 p.m.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSI have listened to the whole of this Debate, and, as the last speaker made specific references to myself, I would like to follow him on the subject of oats—the only subject on which 1 would like to follow him, and then not in principle. He does not seem to realise what has happened. The new duty came into operation on the 5th September, so that October is the first complete month of its operation. I am aware that no final conclusion can be drawn from what has happened in a month, but it is 1072 amazing that, in the month of October this year, one-third of our imports came from Russia, as compared with none last year, the imports from Germany were six times as great as last year, and the total imports of oats from foreign countries in the month of October were substantially higher than last year, when the duty was only 10 per cent. That bears out what has been said by the Secretary of State for Scotland by implication. It was obvious from his speech that he is not satisfied with this duty, and the whole of the Scottish Members have pointed out the necessity for something more drastic, emphasising in particular the importance of making the duty a specific duty. In the old Tariff Reform League days, the late Mr. Chamberlain was constantly denounced by Free Traders because he spoke so frequently of ad valorem duties. They never ceased to point out how difficult it was to administer some ad valorem duties, and I agree with that up to a point; there are difficulties. There is the difficulty of valuation. I am amazed at the Import Duties Advisory Committee continually presenting to us ad valorem duties where what we want are specific duties.
Here is an outstanding case in point. The Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) referred to oat products. I have here the October figures. The oat products imported in October were 76,000 cwts., last year 75,000; value last year £80,000, this year £52,000. The average value has dropped 35 per cent. There is no possibility of doubt that the proposal in respect of oats is quite inadequate. We were all cheered by what the Secretary of State for Scotland said. He indicated that the industry ought to get busy and put in another application. I am certain all concerned will read the Debate with great care. It is clear what the feeling of the House is, and I hope it will not be long before an industry which can produce all our requirements is given adequate protection.
§ 11.5 p.m.
§ Dr. BURGINI promised to answer questions. I think I need only answer two. One question asked was why were turkeys excluded from the Order. The answer is because the applications made by the National Farmers Union and 1073 the National Poultry Council expressly asked that they should be. With regard to the rolls that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned, they came from Belgium and Germany. They are used for rolling mills. They go to the Midlands, or wherever there are rolling mills, and we export great quantities of tin plates made through their agency. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) asked me for a definition of pilchards. As it contains a number of Latin words, I will hand it to him privately. I would only say in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that, after hearing it, one would not think that the Import Duties Act was passed by a very large majority, that we are not discussing
§ the first Order made under it but Orders 17, 18 and 19. He complains of something being smuggled through at the end of a Parliament. There is no difference in principle between the Orders and for the convenience of the House they are grouped together. There is no constitutional principle. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) thinks it would have been better if we had 17 different Orders for the 17 different commodities, but he admitted that, if there had been, he would have voted against the lot, so it was consulting the convenience of the House as a whole that they should be grouped together.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 38.
1075| Division No. 309.] | AYES. | [11.10 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Fraser, Captain Ian | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Fremantle, Sir Francis | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Fuller, Captain A. G. | Milne, Charles |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Morrison, William Shephard |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | God, Sir Park | Moss, Captain H. J. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | Munro, Patrick |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Gower, Sir Robert | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Granville, Edgar | O'Donovan, Dr. William James |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Graves, Marjorie | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. |
| Bateman, A. L. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. HOD. John | Palmer, Francis Noel |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Grimston, R. V. | Pebke, Captain Osbert |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Pearson, William G. |
| Blindell, James | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. | Peat, Charles U. |
| Borodale, Viscount | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Penny, Sir George |
| Bossom, A. C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Petherick, M. |
| Bou[...]ton, W. W. | Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennington) | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllst'n) |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Potter, John |
| Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks. E. R.) | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Procter, Major Henry Adam |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Hornby, Frank | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Horsbrugh, Florence | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Howard, Tom Forrest | Ramsden, Sir Eugene |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd. Hexham) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.) | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y) | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brian) | Reid, David D (County Down) |
| Burghley, Lord | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Reid, William Allan (Derby) |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | James Winn-Com. A. W. H. | Remer, John R. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Jamleson, Douglas | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Richards, George William |
| Chapman, Col.R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Robinson, John Roland |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Ker, J Campbell | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) | Rosbotham, Sir Thomas |
| Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Ross, Ronald D. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Leckie, J. A. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Copeland, Ida | Levy, Thomas | Runne, Norah Cecil |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock) | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Liewellin, Major John J. | Salt Edward W. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. O. |
| Denville, Alfred | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Scone, Lord |
| Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Duggan, Hubert John | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Duncan, James A. J. (Kensington, N.) | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast) |
| Elliston, Captain George Sampson | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Elmley, Viscount | McKie, John Hamilton | Slater, John |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.) |
| Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard | Magnay, Thomas | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Manningham-Puller. Lt.-Col Sir M. | Somervell, Sir Donald |
| Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Soper, Richard |
| Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Spencer, Captain Richard A. | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Spens, William Patrick | Thorp, Linton Theodore | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Stones, James | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Storey, Samuel | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Stourton, Hon. John J. | Wallace, John (Dunfermline) | Womersley, Walter James |
| Strickland, Captain W. F. | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) | |
| Stuart, Lord C. Crlchton- | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) | TELLERS FOR THE AYFS.— |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. | Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward |
| Sugden, Sir Willrld Hart | Weymouth, Viscount | and Major George Davits. |
| Summersby, Charles H. | Whyte, Jardine Bell | |
| NOES. | ||
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.) | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Banfield, John William | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Harris, Sir Percy | Salter, Or. Alfred |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Holdsworth, Herbert | Smith. Tom (Normanton) |
| Curry, A. C. | Jenkins, Sir William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Daggar, George | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Lawson, John James | Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, Thomas (York, Hon Valley) |
| Edwards, Charles | Lunn, William | Wilmot, John Charles |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | McEntee, Valentine L. | |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Mailalieu, Edward Lancelot | Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham. |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Maxton, James |
§
Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1") Order, 1933, dated the twenty—eighth day of July, 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—eighth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, be approved.
§ Motion made, and Question put,
| Division No. 310.] | AYES. | [11.17 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Duggan, Hubert John | James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. |
| Alien, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) | Duncan, James A.L. (Kensington, N.) | Jamieson, Douglas |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Jesson, Major Thomas E. |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Elmley, Viscount | ker, J. Campbell |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles [Montrose) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Entwistle, Cyril Fullard | Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Leckle, J. A. |
| Bateman, A. L. | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | Levy, Thomas |
| Blinded, James | Fraser, Captain Ian | Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Klim'rnock) |
| Borodale, Viscount | Fremantle, Sir Francis | Little, Graham-. Sir Ernest |
| Bossom, A. C. | Fuller, Captain A. G. | Liewellin, Major John J. |
| Bou'ton, W. W. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton | Lloyd, Geoffrey |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C) |
| Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks. E. R.) | Gluckstein, Louis Halle | Loder, Captain J. de Vere |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Goff, Sir Park | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Gower, Sir Robert | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Granville, Ednar | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Graves, Marjorie | McKie, John Hamilton |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y) | Grotton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) |
| Buchan-Hephurn, P. G. T. | Grimston, R. V. | Magnay, Thomas |
| Burghley, Lord | Critten, W. G. Howard | Manningham-suller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Marsden, Commander Arthur |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Chapman, Col R. (Hounhton-te-5prlng) | Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Clarry, Reginald George | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Milne, Charles |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres |
| Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Colman, N. C. O. | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmst'd) | Morrison, William Shephard |
| Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Hornby, Frank | Moss, Captain H. J |
| Copeland, Ida | Horsbrugh, Florence | Munro, Patrick |
| Craven-Ellis, William | Howard, Tom Forrest | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Crooke, J. Smediey | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | O'Donovan, Dr. William James |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. |
§ "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 18) Order, 1933, dated the thirtieth day of August, 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 seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.∼]
§ The House divided: Ayeis, 1S6: Noes, 38.
1077| Palmer, Francis Noel | Roil, Ronald D. | Storey, Samuel |
| Peake, Captain Osbert | Row Taylor, Walter (Woodbrldge) | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Pearson, William G. | Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Peat, Charles U. | Runge, Norah Cecil | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Penny, Sir George | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Petherick, M. | Salt, Edward W. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'prn,Bilston) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | Summersby, Charles H. |
| Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada | Scone, Lord | Sutclitle, Harold |
| Potter, John | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) | Thornton, Sir Frederick Charies |
| Procter, Major Henry Adam | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| Pybus, Percy John | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Itles) | Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast) | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Ramsden, Sir Eugene | Skelton, Archibald Noel | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Slater, John | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- | Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.) | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Reid, David D. (County Down) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam) | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Reid, William Allan (Derby) | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.J |
| Remer, John R. | Somervell, Sir Donald | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. | Soper, Richard | Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George |
| Richards, George William | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. | wise, Alfred R. |
| Robinson, John Roland | Spencer, Captain Richard A. | |
| Ropner, Colonel L. | Spens, William Patrick | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Rosbotham, Sir Thomas | Stones, James | Lieu, Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward |
| and Mr. Womersley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Griffith, F. Kingiley (Mlddlesbro'.W). | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Banfield, John William | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Harris, sir Percy | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Holdsworth, Herbert | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Curry, A. C. | Jenkins. Sir William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Daggar, George | Jonas, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Lawton, John James | Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Edwards, Charles | Lunn, William | Wilmot, John Charles |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | McEntee, Valentine L. | |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Maxton, James |
§
Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 18) Order, 1933, dated the thirtieth day of August, 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 seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, be approved.
§ Motion made, and Question put,
1078§ "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 19) Order, 1933, dated the twelfth day of September, 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 seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]
§ The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 38.
| Horsbrugh, Florence | Munro, Patrick | shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Howard, Tom Forest | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Simon, Bt. Hon. Sir John |
| Hodson, capt. A. u. M.(Hackney, N.) | O'Donovan, Dr. William James | Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast) |
| Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) | Palmer, Francis Noel | Slater, John |
| Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Peake, Captain Osbert | Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.) |
| James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H. | Pearson, William G. | Smith, Louie W. (Sheffield, hallam) |
| Jamieson, Douglas | Peat, Charles U. | Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Penny, Sir George | Somervell, Sir Donald |
| Jones, Lewis (Swansea, Wert) | Petherick, M. | Soper, Richard |
| Ker, J. Campbell | Peto, Geoffrey (W'verh'pt'n,Bllston) | Southby, Commander Archibald B. J. |
| Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) | pickford, Hon. Mary Ada | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Law, Richard K. (Hull. S.W.) | Potter, John | Spens, William Patrick |
| Leckie, J. A. | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Stones, James |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Pybus, Percy John | Storey, Samuel |
| Levy, Thomas | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. | Stourton, Hon. John J. |
| Lindsay, Kenneth Martin (Kilm'rnock) | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) | Strickland, Captain w. F. |
| Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest | Ramsden, Sir Eugene | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Liewellin, Major John J. | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Lloyd, Geoffrey | Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham- | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Summersby, Charles H. |
| Loder, Captain J. de Vere | fled, William Allan (Derby) | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick) | Renter, John R. | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Richards, George William | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Robinson, John Roland | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| McKie, John Hamilton | Ropner, Colonel L. | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Rosbotham, Sir Thomas | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Magnay, Thomas | Ross, Ronald D. | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Marsden, Commander Arthur | Runge, Norah Cecil | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Mavhew Lieut.-Colonel John | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Salt, Edward W. | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Milne, Charles | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | |
| Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres | Scone, Lord | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwelt) | Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward |
| Morrison, William Shephard | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) | and Mr. Womersley. |
| NOES. | ||
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W). | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Banfield, John William | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pantypool) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll) | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Harris, Sir Percy | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Holdsworth, Herbert | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Curry, A. C. | Jenkins, Sir William | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Daggar, George | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Lawson, John James | Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly) |
| Davies, Rhvs John (Westhoughton) | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Edwards, Charles | Lunn, William | Wilmot, John Charles |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | McEntee, Valentine L. | |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Maxton, James |
§
Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 19) Order, 1933, dated the twelfth day of September, 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 seventh day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty—three, be approved.