HC Deb 04 June 1934 vol 290 cc647-71
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

The first Amendment which I shall take on this Clause is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard)—in page 5, line 4, to leave out "fifteen" and to insert "eleven."


Is the Amendment which comes first out of order, or not selected?


The Amendment practically means the negation of the Clause.


It does not amount to the negation of the Clause, but merely says that a certain duty has to be fixed. Prior to that date the matter has to be referred to a Committee. It is still entitled to a duty on a recommendation of the Committee being made.


If the Committee makes that recommendation, it will be unnecessary.


Further to that point of Order. From the point of view of procedure, the recommendation has to be confirmed by this House.


I think not. In the ordinary way it is open to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make a recommendation. The object of the Clause is to make an order without going to Advisory Committee.

7.8 p.m.


I beg to move in page 5, line 4, to leave out "fifteen," and to insert "eleven."

The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade when moving the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, has been that the whole of the matters have been thoroughly threshed out, and that the recommendations have been made after going into the whole of the facts. We have been told that it is the purpose of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to suggest changes in customs duties in order to protect the home manufacturer of the particular article in respect of which the application is made. I can well understand that. The manufacturer of the article says, "Look there, we are being affected by foreign competition." As a result of the inquiry, the Order comes before the House. This Clause seeks to put a customs duty equal to 15 per cent. on certain kinds of patent leather goods. The Committee ought to be aware of the fact that a new duty of 15 per cent. is not being levied. It is increasing an existing duty from 10 to 15 per cent., and the Committee will observe that it is not being done through the Imports Advisory Committee.

We on this side of the House are not satisfied with the way in which this matter is being manipulated, and I think the Committee ought to be made aware of the history of the matter. On 15th February, 1933, an application was made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for an increase of the duty on certain patent leather from 10 to 15 per cent. Notice was given and a statement from the different interests who were opposing the application was made. The Federation of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers, a British federation in this-country, opposed the application, and the Co-operative Wholesale Society submitted its statement in writing. Later on an inquiry was held, oral evidence was submitted, and the case for the suggested increase from 10 to 15 per cent. was opposed on the ground that the duty was unnecessary, because there was little production at home of what may be termed patent-shoe leather. As a matter of fact, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary will dispute it, up to a few months ago there was only one firm in this country engaged in the manufacture of patent-shoe leather. I believe there are now two or three. I think he will agree that the production at home is very limited indeed.

After the inquiry had taken place and oral evidence had been submitted, on 6th April the Advisory Committee wrote and said, that the committee did not propose to make any recommendations at present in regard to the application for an additional duty on patent leather. In other words, the committee obviously felt that no case had been made out for an additional duty. Then to the surprise of everybody came the suggested increase in the Finance Bill, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no reference to the matter in his Budget Speech.

The committee have a right to know why this particular departure has been made in the case of patent leather. When I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary I thought he failed to make out a convincing case; at any rate, he did not convince me. Personally, I was not satisfied that he was speaking with his usual confidence, because I do not think he himself is satisfied that this thing has been brought about fairly. What was his argument? The Import Duties Advisory Committee decided that this matter was outside their jurisdiction; that they were concerned with trade within the United Kingdom. If they found the matter likely to benefit somebody else, it was not their business. The real reason for it, he said, was that the Government had found that two sets of industrialists had made a bargain between themselves, one in this country and the other in the Dominion of Canada. Even at Ottawa, with the Government representatives there, they were unaware of the bargain made between the two sets of industrialists. The real reason for this increase was to implement fully this bargain made between the two sets of industrialists. That being so, we think it is grossly unfair. We say there is no case for an increase of duty, because the home producer is not suffering from foreign competition and production is very small. If any increase of duty is necessary, it should come through the ordinary channels.

To my mind this matter has not been brought about fairly. Is it suggested, simply because two sets of industrialists have made a bargain, that we must implement it? Is this to be taken as a precedent? If two industrialists reach a bargain on another matter, will the Government implement that? There was a bargain made between an industrial section in this country and another in Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary admits it. Because of that the Government decide to implement the bargain by bringing in this Clause, although the Import Duties Advisory Committee have stated that they do not propose to make any recommendation. There is no case for the increase. As regards costs, it was admitted by those bringing forward the application to be about 1½d. to 2½d. per pair of shoes. The extra 5 per cent. is likely to increase the price of shoes by another 1d. or 1½d. So far as cost is concerned, I have evidence in my hand to show that in the case of one particular firm of boot manufacturers they will be mulcted £3,000 or £4,000 as a result of this unnecessary 5 per cent. On the whole, I feel there is no case for the increase, and I hope the Committee will reject it.

7.15 p.m.


I have been trying to discover some reasons for this increase, but so far I have been unsuccessful. I thought at first there might be some reason because the Canadian manufacturers have been unloading tariffs on the importation of British leather and allied goods, but I find the contrary is the case. As a matter of fact, I think it is true that Canadian tariffs have been increased so far as British imports are concerned. I have the authority of two Conservative speakers two or three weeks ago for that statement, and I thought that they ought to be experts on tariffs at any rate. The second thing I cannot understand is why the Advisory Committee turned down a recommendation for an increase. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary has stated that that was because it was outside their jurisdiction, but that seems a very dubious reason when one considers that the committee heard all the evidence and arguments of the manufacturers. Why should they hear the evidence if it is outside their jurisdiction?

Another point that struck me was that it could not be a question of looking after British trading interests, because the most important trading interests, the boot manufacturers, were opposed to the increase. That interest represents at least 100 times more employés than the single patent leather firm that was concerned at that time. The boot interests represents 80 per cent. of the total use of leather of this kind in this country, and they were opposed to the increase. The only reason I heard given was even worse than that which my hon. Friend has stated—that one Canadian firm at Ottawa had made a kind of semi-official bargain with the British interests. It seems extraordinary that one British firm employing fewer than 1,000 workers can override the interests of another industry with more than 100,000 workers; and it seems more extraordinary that this one small firm can bind the British Government to raise the rate from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., even though no arguments have been adduced to show that any advantage accrues to this country. I hope the Minister will give us better and more adequate reasons for this increase than were given on the last occasion.

7.18 p.m.


We are entitled to a little more explanation of this duty. I should like to support the Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade still seems to persist in what I think is a most extraordinary position, namely, that when this application for an increased duty on patent leather—an application made by Canadian interests—came before the Import Duties Advisory Committee it was not rejected. We have heard that the committee heard all the evidence on the subject, and I think it is true to infer from that that they rejected the claim——


There was no rejection by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. After hearing the evidence, it was found that the matter was beyond their competence.


I understand that the letter the Advisory Committee wrote on the 6th April, 1933, to some of the opponents stated that the committee did not propose to make any recommendations at present in regard to the application for an additional duty on patent leather. There was no suggestion that it was outside their competence. It simply turned the application down "for the present."


I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. There was a definite hearing of evidence, and the application was not granted. In ordinary terms, that means that the application was rejected. I submit that the reason was because of Section 3, Subsection (2), of the Import Duties Act, 1932, which lays down plainly when these applications may or may not be rejected or accepted. May I remind the Committee of what that Sub-section says: In deciding what recommendation, if any, to make for the purposes of this Section, the Committee shall have regard to the advisability in the national interest of restricting imports into the United Kingdom and the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom. Of course, having heard the evidence, it was perfectly plain to the Advisory Committee that this was not in the interests of the trade and industry of this country. I am glad to see the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary; I do not think he was saying anything to the contrary. That, in my submission, is a rejection; he says it is not, but we agree what it was in effect. He went on to say that this proposal was to the benefit of Canadian industries, and he pointed out that he hoped we should get some sort of concession in future from Canadian industry. I would like to tell him that in the West Riding of Yorkshire not very much is thought of the hopes which he expressed in that direction. I want him to say what sort of thing he hopes to get as a result of this sacrifice of a certain section of British industry in the interests of Canadian industry. The Committee might legitimately demand some explanation as to what he hopes to get from Canada. Is it the sort of thing that the woollen and worsted trades of the West Riding have recently obtained from the Canadian Tariff Board? If not, what is it?

7.23 p.m.


We are discussing patent leather, and the Committee might like to know some of the figures relating to it. The imports of patent, varnished, japanned and enamelled leather entering this country from all sources in 1933 amounted approximately to £750,000. In the first three months of 1934 the importation from all sources amounted to £98,000. Of that amount, £64,000 came from Canada. Hon. Members will appreciate that all that comes from Canada comes free of all duty whatever, whatever the rate of duty may be that is imposed on the leather that comes from elsewhere. We are discussing the duty on the remainder, and the additional revenue from the duty, if the Clause to which I am speaking is added to the Bill, will amount to approximately £10,000 in a full year, adding at most one halfpenny per square foot on the price of patent leather—not one halfpenny per pair of shoes but a halfpenny per square foot.


When I mentioned the figures, I quoted from one who submitted evidence to the Committee, in which he said the present 10 per cent. duty represented 1½d. to 2½d. per pair of boots.


I am not in any way discussing the sources of information open to the hon. Member, but the tables that have been prepared for Government purposes, to which I have access, show that the increase in price on patent leather will be unlikely to be as much as one halfpenny per square foot. The question which is really before the Committee is, to use the words of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, whether the Committee have been treated fairly. The issue I have to face is that for some reason the Government, instead of using the ordinary procedure of the Import Duties Act, have adopted the less usual course of putting a Clause in the Finance Bill, and did that, to use the hon. Gentleman's expression, after the Import Duties Advisory Committee had considered the evidence. There is no dispute about the facts, although the Committee may not have the whole of them in their possession. The United Kingdom Tanning Industries and the Canadian Tanning Industries on the 5th July, 1932, made an agreement. The material clause of that agreement stated that: The United Kingdom had placed a duty of 15 per cent. on foreign leather except patent leather, and, conditional on the continuation of the present arrangement plus the granting of protection in that market equal to 15 per cent. ad valorem against foreign patent leather the Canadian Tanning Industries have agreed with the United Kingdom leather delegates to recommend that the Canadian Government should reduce the British preferential rate of 15 per cent ad valorem "——


Is the hon. Gentleman reading from the agreement?


I am reading from a clause in it.


May I ask that the agreement be produced and laid on the Table of the House if the hon. Gentleman is quoting from it?


I am sure, if the hon. Gentleman is quoting from an official document, that he will follow the usual practice and lay it on the Table of the House.


As I intimated, I am not quoting from an official document, but referring to a clause in an agreement dated 5th July, 1932, that was made between the United Kingdom Tanning Industries on the one hand and the Canadian Tanning Industries on the other, and I was giving the Committee the information with regard to this agreement. The whole point of the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and of the hon. Members who supported it was that the information with regard to this agreement appears to be a little sketchy. I was endeavouring to comply with the Committee's request for information, and I was pointing out that here was a bargain between two groups of industrialists in an industry in which British industry was very greatly dependent upon the Canadian. I entirely subscribe to what the hon. Member said, that there was very little production of patent leather in this country. I gave the reasons in the previous discussion; it has something to do with the sun and the rapidity of drying the leather, which necessitates a softer climate. The Clause which I was reading stipulated the advantages which the Canadian industry proposed to invite the Canadian Government to give to the British exporter if the British Government gave to the Canadian exporter equivalent advantages. That was a bargain made between these two groups of people.


Can we know what the advantages were?


I was about to give them when the hon. and learned Gentleman interrupted me. The advantages were: to recommend that the Canadian Government should reduce the British preferential rate of 15 per cent. ad valorem to the former British preferential tariff rate under tariff item 604 of 121/2 per cent., which was in effect down to the end of 1st June, 1931; and to recommend that the intermediate and general tariff rate of Canada be increased to 27½ per cent. ad valorem so as to give the United Kingdom leather producers a protective tariff spread in the Canadian market equal to 15 per cent. ad valorem. I did not make the agreement nor draft it; I am merely giving to the Committee the terms of the material clause. It was an agreement between the two tanning industries, which they thought it worth while to make, and under which there were mutual obligations and mutual advantages. The Canadian Government put their part of the bargain into operation, and the advantages which were sought for by the British tanning industry were granted. By an accident, the British delegates negotiating at the Ottawa Conference were not aware of this discussion between the industries, and so the Ottawa Agreements were concluded without there being inserted in the list of obligations which the British Parliament were to undertake those implementing this agreement made by the British tanning industry. We had, therefore, this position, that an agreement, not binding on either Government, had been implemented by the Canadian Government, providing for a 15 per cent. preference in the Canadian market, and that there was no corresponding provision in British legislation to bring about the suggested preference.

The matter went before the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It appeared to be a matter that came within the competence of that committee, and they listened to the evidence and they wrote the letter which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Gripps) has read. As the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Mallalieu) rightly said, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are required by Section 3, Sub-section (2) of the Import Duties Act, 1932, when considering what recommendations they are to make, to have regard: To the advisability in the national interest and to the interests generally of trade and industry in the United Kingdom. If the avowed object of the duties is not the trade interests of the United Kingdom but the interests of the Canadian industry, it is contended that the case falls outside Section 3, Sub-section (2) of the Act, and consequently the Advisory Committee were not able to make a recommendation. Hon. Members are entitled to say that that is argument, that that is a gloss, that it is supposition. I can only give to the Committee the explanation which I believe to be both true and accurate. The Advisory Committee are an independent body. They make recommendations, or they write intimating that they are not doing so. It is open to hon. Members to think that the letter which has been read amounts to a rejection, it is open to them to imagine that the evidence did not satisfy the Committee, but, quite clearly, the facts are equally open to the explanation which I have given, and that is the explanation which the Government have accepted, and is the reason for the Government's action in inserting this Clause in this Bill.

The matter was very carefully considered. The Canadian Government had given a concession under terms which implied that the United Kingdom were to place duties on foreign patent leather, and those duties had not been put on. Although the greatest reluctance was felt, having regard to what had occurred, the conclusion was reached that, in order that there should be no question of our good faith, and with a view to consolidating good commercial relations between the United Kingdom and Canada, the wishes of the Canadian Government, frequently emphasised by representations, should be met. It appeared the more desirable to do this because the Canadian Government have shown themselves increasingly ready to meet our wishes in other matters. The hon. Member for Colne Valley has referred to the interim Textile Report, of which some forecast has been given in the Press. That report has not yet come to hand, and consequently there has been no opportunity of examining it, but I can tell the Committee that the Canadian Government have restored free entry for fine cotton goods, and has extended to linen goods embroidered with cotton the free entry granted under the Ottawa Agreement respecting linen goods; and, more recently, in the Canadian Budget the most important item was the reduction from 3 per cent. to 1½ per cent., in the case of British goods only, of the excise on the duty-paid value of imported goods.

I do not want to exaggerate these things and on the other hand, I do not want to minimise them, but I want this Committee to know that in the considered opinion of the Government handling this matter the Canadian Government have shown an increasing tendency to help British industry, and that it would be particularly unfortunate if any suggestion, were allowed to gain currency that we were not willing to implement an agreement and a bargain arrived at between groups of manufacturers where it had been put into operation. It has been suggested that we are going behind the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but that is no more the case than with any of the Ottawa duties. The Ottawa duties are outside the purview of that committee. The Ottawa duties were imposed in return for tariff concessions from the Dominions. The remainder of this Clause—though this perhaps is not germane to the Amendment—is to show that this is an Ottawa duty exactly as if it had been dealt with in the general discussions made at the time.

I have given hon. Members a frank, complete and open explanation. Nobody likes the position. It is not pleasant to impose a duty where there is very little horn manufacture to protect. I think the question whether the manufacturer of patent leather at home cannot be considerably increased is worthy of some scientific discussion. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that recently the number of those manufacturing it had increased, although he mentioned quite a small number. However that may be, the facts are as I have stated. We have put this duty into the Finance Bill instead of passing it through the Import Duties Advisory Committee because we believe it to be outside the scope of Section 3, Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1932—we do not believe it is against the "interest of British industry" that this should be done—and it is to implement a matter of Government policy.

7.37 p.m.


The hon. Gentleman has now given us a very much fuller explanation than we had at any earlier period. He now tells us, I think I am right in saying for the first time, that the Canadian Government have been pressing many times for this duty to be put on. Certainly I was not aware of that fact, but that hardly alters the criticism of this Clause. The matter was allowed to be referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, it was heard by them, and they decided that, for the present at any rate, it was not in the national interest or in the interests generally of the trade of the United Kingdom that this duty should be imposed, and therefore they did not impose it. The hon. Gentleman said that this has nothing to do with the interests of the United Kingdom, and that under the Ottawa Agreements duties are imposed merely for the purpose of getting concessions in Canada for other industries.


The discussion on this Amendment has become rather wide, but I think necessarily rather wide, and I want to safeguard myself against a repetition of these arguments on the Question, "The Clause stand part of the Bill." It is obvious that this is rather a difficult matter and I think it would be better to discuss it generally on the Amendment.


I agree, except for one or two technical matters which follow on the rest of the Clause. This Clause is apparently designed not to benefit the patent leather industry, but, by reason of an exchange of concessions, to benefit some other industry. That may be all very well where the Government have carefully considered the interests of other industries—for instance, if they had consulted the boot and shoe industry—to see whether this is a proper arrangement, but no such thing has been done here, and that is the great objection of this Clause. Here are two sets of manufacturers—the manufacturers interested in patent leather being one single firm—who go to Canada and enter into an agreement, as part of the British tanning industry, with the Canadian tanning industry, without the representatives of the Government knowing anything at all about it. This British tanning industry is now, apparently, to be allowed to affect any other industry in this country, without there being any control over it. Once it has entered into the arrangement with the Canadian tanning industry, a pistol is pointed at the head of our Government and they are told, "You have got to comply with this, because we have pledged our word." The Canadian tanners' arrangement, which might happen to be extremely favourable to the Canadian tanners, is implemented and then they turn round and say, "You have got to do your part of the bargain." But it never was our bargain at all, but the bargain of someone in the industry, and I certainly am not prepared to leave bargaining over the tariff interests of this country in the hands of the tanners or any other vested interest. It is bad enough when it is done by a National Government, and we do not want it done by vested interests individually, irrespective of all the other interests in the country. The hon. Gentleman knows from his experience of these tariff bargains that a multitude of interests come into these questions, directly and indirectly, but none of them were considered in this case by the people who made the agreement. The only people who were considered were the tanning interests in the two countries.


If there were a case in which a pistol was put at the head of the Government and we were obliged to implement an agreement arrived at between two sets of industrialists for reasons which might be beneficial to their own industry or because it would hurt some other industry, such a proceeding would be open to grave objection; but, of course, the examination which the hon. and learned Gentleman said did not take place has been undertaken prior to the decision to insert this Clause in the Finance Bill.


I am afraid that really will not help the hon. Gentleman. Having had the pistol presented at his head, he has been able to think out some quite good reasons why he should do what the man with the pistol asks him to do—that is always simple, after the event—but I would much prefer that the hon. Gentleman had decided before whether he would like the pistol to be put to his head. He would have had a much freer judgment as to the whole of the circumstances of the case, and this method, as he says, is liable to abuse, and at least is a clumsy and inept method, because it leaves out of account the vital interests of, in this case, the whole body of boot and shoe manufacturers. This is not for the benefit of the boot and shoe industry, because we know that the Import Duties Advisory Committee found, after inquiry, that it was not to be for the benefit of the industries of this country. But we are told that it is for the benefit of the industry of Canada, and therefore we have got to do it. I object very strongly to the implementing of this arrangement, to which we have been pledged through the industry, and not through our Government, and we on this side propose, on those grounds, to vote against this Clause.

7.45 p.m.


I want to add one or two arguments to the case which has just been put from this Front Bench, but I do not propose to go over the whole of it in detail. I agree with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in regard to the details which have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade; they certainly have been much more complete than they were on the previous occasion. I have before me the speech which he made, and the general impression which I received was that the proposals which we are now discussing were for the benefit of the Canadian industry. I remember a little bit of discussion which took place between the hon. Member and one of his hon. Friends behind him on the question of what was a quid pro quo. We are now informed that there are certain advantages which accrue. I regret that we have only had the details now. The advantages which are to accrue to this country require very considerable examination, and I should like to have an opportunity of giving that examination.

I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's statement in regard to the argument that the imposition of this duty would increase the cost of shoes made from patent leather. His reply has always been that the increase would be one halfpenny per square foot or one penny per pair. As far as the duties have been applied, it has meant 2½d. and it may mean 3½d. per pair when this heavy imposition is placed upon the purchaser of shoes in this country. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, not what one halfpenny per square foot would mean, but what it is likely to mean after it has been passed on by the manufacturers to the users. A commendable desire is shown to see our industries flourish, but I do not see how any further advantage will be given to Canada. It has been admitted in the past that a discussion took place between an industry in Canada and a firm in this country. I have been informed how the two firms came into being,;and from the evidence I think that one was a Canadian firm.


Will the hon. Member allow me to give him one fact? In the first three months of 1934 the value of these imports was £98,000 from all sources, and of that, two-thirds was from Canada; roughly a quarter, or £25,000 of the whole came from the United States, and £7,000 worth or another 7 per cent. came from Germany. The task of supplying the home market with the quantity that we now receive from the United States and Germany offers quite a good scope.


The Canadian industry has already stated that it can increase its supplies to 19,000,000! square feet, although it is only supplying 6,000,000 square feet. There is not much hope for the home industry, and I do not think that the action which is now being taken will strengthen it to any degree. It may give a further advantage to Canada. I do not see much chance of the hon. Gentleman's opinion on this matter fructifying. The interests which use this commodity have been given representation of a very tangible and detailed character.

7.50 p.m.


The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) described the process by which this duty has been imposed as levelling a pistol at the head of the Government, and the Parliamentary Secretary rose and refuted that statement; but it was all taken from his own speech, which is very fresh in the minds of the Committee. He said in my hearing that it was not a pleasant thing to impose a duty when there would be no substantial benefit to the industry here, and he went on to say that it had to be done because there was the bargain, the history of which he had described in some detail. The Canadian Government had implemented it, and we must not be thought not to be doing our part. If that is not putting a pistol to the head of the Government. I do not know what is. It means that the decision has been taken already by somebody else before the Government starts to review the question at all. Afterwards the Government may find reasons. It is perhaps not quite so unpleasant as the Parliamentary Secretary thought, but unpleasant in some way it must certainly be.

I want to ask how far these new sources and causes of tariffs are to go. We have the Import Duties Act, which is checked to some extent by the presence of a statutory body who investigate the benefit of import duties to English industries. There are also the Ottawa Agreements which go beyond that, taking as they do the wider view and considering imperial interests. Now we are to have action which considers neither national nor imperial, but purely sectional, interests. That is the most dangerous thing that we have seen yet. How far is it to be carried? It is open to any group of manufacturers to make an agreement like this, and the agreement may be harmful or corrupt, but, if it suits somebody on the other side to adopt it, the British Government will come to us helplessly and say, "Whatever are we to do? We have to pass this." We ought to know where to stop. We all desire to consider national and imperial interests, but in face of what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary the imperial interest was not a very substantial one. On his own figures, Canada were supplying about two-thirds of the imports into this country and they were doing pretty well out of the previous assistance. I wonder at their temerity for asking for further artificial assistance.

I make my protest against a dangerous practice in a hole-and-corner way. The Government either never knew about it or forgot it at Ottawa, and yet we are asked to bind ourselves by what has been done by a group of sectional interests. If that is to go on, the corrupt effect of tariffs may be worse than have always been imagined by Free Traders.

Question put, "That 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 48.

Division No. 262.] AYES. [5.37 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Clarke, Frank Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Loeds, W.) Clarry, Reginald George Gunston, Captain D. W.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Clayton, Sir Christopher Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Albery, Irving James Cobb, Sir Cyril Hales, Harold K.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.) Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Colfox, Major William Philip Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey Hartland, George A.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Conant, R. J. E. Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Cook, Thomas A. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cooke, Douglas Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Courtnope, Colonel Sir George L. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Cranborne, Viscount Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Crooke, J. Smedley Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle) Hepworth, Joseph
Barton, Capt. Basil Keliey Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Culverwell, Cyril Tom Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Dalkeith, Earl of Horsbrugh, Florence
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Ports-n'th, C.) Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Hudson. Cast. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Davison, Sir William Henry Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Blinded, James Dawson, Sir Philip Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Borodale, Viscount Denman, Hon. R. D. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Bossom, A. C. Dickie, John P. Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Dower, Captain A. V. G. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Bralthwalte, J. Q. (Hillsborough) Duggan, Hubert John Ker, J. Campbell
Broadbent, Colonel John Duncan, Jamas A. L. (Kensington, N.) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Dunglass. Lord Kerr, Hamilton W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham) Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Kimball, Lawrence
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Elliston, Captain George Sampson Knight, Holford
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Elmley, Viscount Knox, Sir Alfred
Browne, Captain A. C. Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Bullock, Captain Malcolm Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool) Law, Sir Alfred
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Burnett, John George Everard, W. Lindsay Leech, Dr. J. W.
Butt, Sir Alfred Fermoy, Lord Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Fox. Sir Glfford Levy, Thomas
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Fuller, Captain A. G. Lewis, Oswald
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Galbraith, James Francis Wallace Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Ganzonl, Sir John Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Carver, Major William H. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Castlereagh, Viscount Gledhill, Gilbert Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Gluckstein, Louis Halle Mabane, William
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Goff, Sir Park MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Goodman, Colonel Albert W. McEwen. Captain J. H. F.
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Granville, Edgar McKie, John Hamilton
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Grimston, R. V. McLean, Major Sir Alan
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Remer, John R. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Haltland, Adam Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur u. Sutcliffe, Harold
Making, Brigadier-General Ernest Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Tate, Mavis Constance
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Runge, Norah Cecil Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Thompson, Sir Luke
Mariden, Commander Arthur Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Rutherford, John (Edmonton) Thorp, Linton Theodore
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswlnford)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k) Salmon, Sir Isldore Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham) Salt, Edward W. Train, John
Monsell. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) Tree, Ronald
Morgan, Robert H. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Tufnell, Lieut. Commander R. L.
Moss, Captain H. J. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Savery, Samuel Servington Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Munro, Patrick Scone, Lord Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Selley, Harry R. Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Wayland, Sir William A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersfld) Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) Wells, Sidney Richard
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Weymouth, Viscount
Peake, Captain Osbert Skelton, Archibald Noel Whyte, Jardine Bell
Pearson, William G. Smithers, Sir Waldron Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Peat, Charles U. Somervell, Sir Donald Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Percy, Lord Eustace Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Petherick, M. Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertfd)
Pike, Cecil F. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Power, Sir John Cecil Spencer, Captain Richard A. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Spens, William Patrick Womersley, Sir Walter James
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Rawson, Sir Cooper Strauss, Edward A. Sir George Penny and Lieut.-
Ray, Sir William Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Griffiths, George A. (Yorks. W. Riding) Pickering, Ernest H.
Banfield, John William Grundy, Thomas W. Rea, Walter Russell
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rothschild, James A. de
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Harris, Sir Percy Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cove, William G. Haldsworth, Herbert Thorne, William James
Cripps, Sir Stafford Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Tinker, John Joseph
Daggar. George Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) West, F. R.
Dobble, William Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Foot. Dingle (Dundee) Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Logan, David Gilbert Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea) Lunn, William Wilmot, John
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mainwaring, William Henry Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'. W.) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

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

Division No. 263.] AYES. [7.55 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Grimston, R. V. Rankin, Robert
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Griffen. W. G. Howard Rawson, Sir Cooper
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Ray, Sir William
Albery, Irving James Gunston, Captain D. W. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, w.) Hales, Harold K. Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Hamilton, Sir George (llford) Remer, John R.
Apsley, Lord Hammersley, Samuel S. Ropner, Colonel L.
Atholl, Duchess of Hanbury, Cecil Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Balley, Eric Alfred George Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ross, Ronald D.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. H arbor d, Arthur Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hartland, George A. Ruggles-Brlse, Colonel E. A.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Runge, Norah Cecil
Balniel, Lord Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd) Salt, Edward W.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Hepworth, Joseph Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Blinden, James Hornby, Frank Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Borodale, Viscount Horobin, Ian M. Selley, Harry R.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Horsbrugh, Florence Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)
Broadbent, Colonel John Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hume. Sir George Hopwood Shepperson, Sir Ernest w.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Browne, Captain A. C. Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Smithers, Sir Waldron
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Somervell, Sir Donald
Burnett, John George Jesson, Major Thomas E. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Soper, Richard
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Kimball, Lawrence Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Carver, Major William H. Knight, Holford Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Knox, Sir Alfred Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Law, Sir Alfred Spens, William Patrick
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Clarry, Reginald George Leckle, J. A. Stanley, Hon. O. F. G (Westmorland)
Clayton, Sir Christopher Leech, Dr. J. W. Stewart, J. H. (Fife. E.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Levy, Thomas Stourton, Hon. John J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Llewellin, Major John J. Strauss, Edward A.
Colfox. Major William Philip Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.) Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Lockwood. Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Summersby, Charles H.
Conant, R. J. E. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Sutcllffe, Harold
Cook, Thomas A. McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Tate, Mavis Constance
Cooke, Douglas McKie, John Hamilton Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Thompson, Sir Luke
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. McLean, Major Sir Alan Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Craven-Ellis, William McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Thorp, Linton Theodore
Crooke, J. Smedley Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswlnford)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro) Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Train, John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll) Marsden, Commander Arthur Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Dawson, Sir Philip Martin, Thomas B. Turton, Robert Hugh
Denman, Hon. R. D. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Dunglass, Lord Monsell. Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey Morgan, Robert H. Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Elmley, Viscount Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Wells, Sydney Richard
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Morrison, G- A. (Scottish Univer'ties) Weymouth, Viscount
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Moss. Captain H. J. Whyte, Jardine Bell
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Munro, Patrick Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Everard, W. Lindsay Normand. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Peake, Captain Osbert Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Fox, Sir Gilford Pearson, William G. Wise, Alfred R.
Fuller, Captain A. G. Peat, Charles U. Withers, Sir John James
Ganzont. Sir John Percy, Lord Eustace Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Gillett. Sir George Masterman Petherick, M. Womersley, Sir Walter James
Gledhill. Gilbert Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Worthington, Dr. John V.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Pike, Cecil F.
Gower, Sir Robert Pownall, Sir Assheton TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Radford, E. A. Sir George Penny and Lieut.-
Greene, William P. C. Ralkes, Henry V. A. M. Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Daggar, George
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Cocks, Frederick Seymour Edwards, Charles
Banfield, John William Cove, William G. Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Batey, Joseph Cripps, Sir Stafford Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Bernays, Robert Curry, A. C. George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.) Lawson, John James Thorne, William James
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Leonard, William Tinker, John Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Lunn, William West, F. R.
Grundy, Thomas W. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Mainwaring, William Henry Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)
Harris, Sir Percy Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) Wilmot, John
Holdsworth, Herbert Milner, Major James
Jenkins, Sir William Owen, Major Goronwy TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Rea, Walter Russell Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

With regard to the next Amendment, in the name af the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones)—in page 5, to leave out lines 6 to 12—I have decided that it would impose a charge. Perhaps, however, the hon. Member's object is to ask a question, and, if that be the case, he can do so on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.3 p.m.


As you rightly observe, Captain Bourne, the purpose of my Amendment is really to elucidate the meaning of this Clause. There are two points which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. In the first portion of Sub-section (1) we are told that a Customs duty is to be imposed upon patent leather, and then there is a proviso which says that it shall not apply to any goods which fall within a certain class or category, that class or category being goods which are provided for in the Import Duties Act. I would like to know what patent leather is in fact taxed with an additional duty under the Import Duties Act. As far as I remember, there is none, but, if the Parliamentary Secretary can throw some light upon that matter for me, I shall be very glad.

The other point is a little more difficult for me even to put to the Parliamentary Secretary. As I understand it, Subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Ottawa Agreements Act provides for the imposition of duties in accordance with the Ottawa Agreements. If I have grasped aright the purpose of the proviso to Subsection (2), what is proposed is really to substitute some other method of doing what appears to me to be the same thing. I do not know if I have grasped the point correctly, but, if the Government are in fact proposing a new method for doing the same thing, there ought surely to be some explanation for it, and I shall be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary can throw some light upon what, I confess, is to me a somewhat abstruse problem

8.6 p.m.


I am glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now in his place, because I should like to offer an observation or two upon the extraordinary variety of methods of imposing taxation which we have seen hitherto. The first duty with which we dealt was that on arc lamp carbons, and hon. Members consistently pressed for an inquiry into that duty. The Chancellor refused. Indeed, he gave no answer at all, but left it to the Parliamentary Secretary to reply by arguments which no impartial Committee was to have the opportunity of testing. No actual evidence was given, nor were we able to hear what were the opinions of the interested parties.

We passed on to the question of insulin, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted an entirely different attitude. There it was a question of abolishing the duty, and there the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply was, as far as I could understand it, glad to welcome the fact that those who were interested in the manufacture of insulin would be able, if he were taking off the duty to-day, to make application to the Tariff Advisory Committee, and, if that Committee advised that a duty was desirable, he, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not resist making an Order. That was the second point of view. It was an occasion on which an inquiry might result in the imposition of a duty, and, therefore, it was welcome. In the first case an inquiry might result in a duty not being imposed, and, therefore, it was not granted.

The present case is an extraordinary one, and, I hope, unique. Here we have another example of all open inquiry being refused. I do not know exactly what the circumstances were—the Parliamentary Secretary has not explained them—in which the trade interests concerned forgot in some extraordinary way to mention to the Board of Trade that they had ever made this agreement. I cannot conceive of any trade delegation, even if it only represented a small industry like that of patent leather, being so incredibly incompetent as to forget to mention to the Board of Trade or the Treasury She fact that they had made an agreement to which, apparently, they expected the Treasury to give effect by imposing a duty, and that it should have escaped the notice of the Government is really a most remarkable thing. But that does not deter them now, after 18 months or more, from proposing the duty that is provided for in this Clause. I should have thought, after what the Parliamentary Secretary has said as to his reluctance to impose a duty, that he would have taken some opportunity to have an inquiry, even if it were not carried out by the Tariff Advisory Committee. Inquiries are not limited to the Tariff Advisory Committee; the hon. Gentleman, or the President of the Board of Trade, is at perfect liberty to gather together any body he likes to advise him about anything he likes, and I should have thought that in a case of this kind, where he admits that the people principally concerned, namely, the boot and shoe industry, are opposed to the duty, and the people in favour of it are only a tiny trade, he would at least have taken an opportunity of getting independent advice before going so far as to impose what he himself admits is an unwelcome duty.

In spite of all the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary as to the necessity of carrying out the undertaking mutually given by these two interests, I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Clause, and I hope that if in future the Chancellor of the Exchequer has occasion in his Budget to impose further duties of which the source and origin remain to some extent wrapped in mystery, he will adopt the method of having some kind of inquiry by some sort of impartial body. It is no good saying that the Tariff Advisory Committee is not competent on this, that or any other occasion to inquire into a duty; there are plenty of other methods of inquiry; and I hope that in this Finance Bill we have seen the last of tariffs which are imposed without inquiry and which give rise to suspicion which may be right or may be wrong, but which it is a pity should exist in the minds of any Members of the Committee.

8.12 p.m.


The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has asked me to assist him by explaining the dovetailing of some of the parts of Clause 6, and, in particular, to give some explanation as to their meaning and general effect. The main operative part of Clause 6 imposes a duty, not only on patent leather, but on goods composed wholly of patent leather. That is, perhaps, precautionary. It is designed to avoid any question as to the proper amount of duty to be charged on those articles, The duty does not apply to articles which contain patent leather as a component—for instance, a handbag. The proviso, that is to say, lines 6 to 12, is necessary because of Sub-section (4, b) of Section 1 of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932. Where an Ottawa duty is in force, all additional duties cease to apply. If you are going to make the duty on patent leather an Ottawa duty, it would automatically, under the Ottawa Agreements Act. make other additional duties cease to apply.

In order to prevent that happening, you must say that Sub-section (4, b) of Section 1 of the Ottawa Agreements Act shall not apply to that particular duty. That is so in this case because there is an existing duty higher than 15 per cent. on certain forms of patent leather. The hon. Member asked me to give him one or two examples. Shaped parts for making up into boots and shoes are subject, under an Additional Import Duties Order, to a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem, that is to say, the 10 per cent. general ad valorem duty plus an additional 10 per cent. Without this proviso, the effect of making the 15 per cent. duty under this Clause an Ottawa duty would be to prevent the already existing 20 per cent. duty from applying any longer. Sub-section (2) places the new duty in substantially the same position as those imposed under the Ottawa Agreements Act, and, as the new duty is partly the outcome of the Ottawa Conference, it is desirable that that should be the case, and that preference and drawback and all that sort of thing, which applies to Ottawa duties, should apply to this duty. The proviso to the second Sub-section says that Section 1 (2) of the Ottawa Agreements Act shall not apply, but that the duty shall lapse if the agreement with Canada lapses. The Subsection of the Ottawa Agreements Act referred to says that the duties chargeable under that Act must be repealed whenever they can be repealed without affecting the Ottawa Agreements. As here we have not an Ottawa Agreement, this duty could be repealed immediately

under the Ottawa Agreements Act. You, therefore, have to adapt the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, because there is no agreement under which this duty is included. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, it is not my fault that I have not trade the position clear.

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

The Commiteee divided; Ayes 206; Noes 49.

Division No. 264.] AYES. [8.18 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gledhill, Gilbert Moss, Captain H. J.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Gluckstein, Louis Halle Munro. Patrick
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Gower, Sir Robert Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Albery, Irving James Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) Greene, William P. C. Peake, Captain Osbert
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Grimston, R. V. Pearson, William G.
Apsley, Lord Gritten, W. G. Howard Penny, Sir George
Atholl, Duchess of Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Percy. Lord Eustace
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Gunston, Captain D. W. Petherick, M.
Balllie. Sir Adrian W. M. Hales, Harold K. Peto, Geoffrey K. (Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hammersley, Samuel S. Pike, Cecil F.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Hanbury, Cecil Pownall, Sir Assheton
Balniel, Lord Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Radford, E. A.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Harbord, Arthur Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Hartland, George A. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Rankin, Robert
Belt. Sir Alfred L. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Ray, Sir William
Blindell, James Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Boulton, W. W. Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough) Hepworth, Joseph Remer, John R.
Broadbent, Colonel John Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Ropner, Colonel L.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Hornby, Frank Rosbotham, Sir Thomas.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Horobin, Ian M. Ross, Ronald D.
Browne, Captain A. C. Horsbrugh, Florence Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Hume, Sir George Hopwood Runge, Norah Cecil
Burnett, John George Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford) Salt, Edward W.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Jesson, Major Thomas E. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Clarry, Reginald George Jones. Lewis (Swansea, West) Selley, Harry R.
Clayton, Sir Christopher Kimball, Lawrence Shaw, Halen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Knight, Holford Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Knox, Sir Alfred Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Colfox, Major William Philip Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Conant, R. J. E. Law, Sir Alfred Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)
Cook, Thomas A. Law, Richard K. (Hall, S. W.) Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dlne, C.)
Cooke, Douglas Leckle, J. A. Smithers, Sir Waldron
Courtauld, Major John Sewell Leech, Dr. J. W. Somervell, Sir Donald
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Lees-Jones, John Somerville, Anneslev A. (Windsor)
Craven-Ellis, William Levy, Thomas Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Crooke, J. Smedley Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) Soper, Richard
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lockwood, John C. (Hackney. C.) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Loder, Captain J. de Vere Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Dawson, Sir Philip McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Denman, Hon. R. D. McKie, John Hamilton Spens, William Patrick
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Dunglass, Lord McLean, Major Sir Alan Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Elmley. Viscount McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Stourton, Hon. John J.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Macquisten, Frederick Alexander Strauss. Edward A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Manningham-Bullor, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart
Entwistle. Cyril Fullard Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Summersby. Charles H.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Marsden, Commander Arthur Tate, Mavis Constance
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Martin, Thomas B. Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Everard, W. Lindsay Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Thompson, Sir Luke
Fleming, Edward Lascelles Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Fuller, Captain A. G. Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres Thorp, Linton Theodore
Ganzonl. Sir John Morgan, Robert H. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Glliett, Sir George Masterman Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Train, John Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour. Wise, Alfred R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. Wells, Sydney Richard Withers, Sir John James
Turton, Robert Hugh Weymouth, Viscount Worthington, Dr. John V.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline) Whyte, Jardine Bell
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Williame, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) Sir Walter Womersley and Dr.
Wirrender, Sir Victor A. G. Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) Morris-Jones.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) M liner, Major James
Banfield, John William Grundy, Thomas W. Owen, Major Goronwy
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Rea, Walter Russell
Bernays, Robert Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zel'nd) Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Harris, Sir Percy Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Holdsworth, Herbert Thorne, William James
Cove, William G. Jenkins, Sir William Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Curry, A. C. Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) West, F. R.
Daggar, George Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) White, Henry Graham
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee) Leonard, William Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Gardner, Benjamin Walter Lunn, William Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) Wilmot, John
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mainwaring. William Henry
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G.
Macdonald and Mr. Groves.