Commons Sitting of 15 April 1935

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
DEATH SENTENCE.
Mr. BATEMAN: On behalf of Madame Van der Elst and 52,961 other persons, I present to-day to you, Mr. Speaker and to this House, a petition that the death sentence shall be abolished in the case of Percy Charles Anderson. The House will understand that I am simply an instrument to bring this matter before the House. I present this petition here to-day with my apologies to the House, because I know that it is Budget Day, but to-morrow is Tuesday, and it could not wait until then, because this sentence will be carried out to-morrow at eight o'clock. Wherefore, I apologise to the House for bringing this petition forward on Budget Day.
NEW WRIT.
For the Burgh of Edinburgh (West Division), in the room of the right Hon., Wilfred Guild Normand, K.C., Lord Justice General and Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland.—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Medway Lower Navigation Bill.
Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
Folkestone and District Electricity Bill [Lords].
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
South Shields Corporation Bill. (King's Consent signified.)
Read the Third time and passed.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill.
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Rhyl Urban District Council Bill. (By Order.)
Considered and deferred until Wednesday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  INDIA

    MR. SIBNATH BANERJEE (ARREST).
    Mr. MAXTONasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. Sibnath Banerjee, secretary of the All India Trade Union Congress, has been arrested and his meetings declared unlawful on more than one occasion; and whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure that there is no further interference of this kind with legitimate trade union organising in India?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I have no information as to the first part of the question except that I am aware that orders have from time to time been issued prohibiting meetings in furtherance of the aims of the communist organisations in Bengal recently declared unlawful, with one of which Mr. Sibnath Banerjee was closely connected. I am unable to accept the suggestion that there has been any interference in India with legitimate trades union activity.
    Mr. MAXTON: Would the fact that this man had Communist associations prevent him from doing ordinary trade union work in the eyes of the law in India?
    Mr. BUTLER: No, if those activities are restricted to legitimate trade union activities. Yes, if they are directed to furthering Communism.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are we to understand that even the advocacy of Communist theories is illegal in India?
    Mr. BUTLER: The fact that Mr. Sibnath Banerjee was connected with an organisation which has been declared unlawful because of Communist activities no doubt accounts for his arrest.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the passing of the new legislation make India free in these matters.

    DISTURBANCES, KARACHI
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will authorise a public inquiry into the occurrence at Karachi when British troops fired on a crowd of Moslem demonstrators

    1579
    at Karachi, on the 20th March, as a result of which about 30 people were killed and a considerably larger number wounded?
    Mr. BUTLER: No, Sir. The whole matter has been carefully reviewed by the Governments of India and Bombay, and their conclusions were announced in the statement published by the latter Government last Wednesday, of which I am placing a copy in the Library. The Government of Bombay record the opinion that a situation of great danger was only averted by the discipline and steadiness of the troops under the control of their officers; and further that the local officers made every possible effort to prevent the situation which finally a, and that the action taken to deal with this situation when it menaced the lives and property of the citizens could not have been avoided. They add that the facts have been fully ascertained and that no useful purpose will be served by any public inquiry which would tend further to embitter communal feeling. My right hon. Friend entirely agrees with these conclusions.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the facts so fully ascertained are known only to certain circles, and that the great mass of public opinion in India is entirely unaware of these statements?
    Mr. BUTLER: A very full statement was published in the Press in India containing all the relevant facts. That statement was largely re-published in the Press of this country, and I am now placing a copy of the full statement in the Library of the House.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the horrible burning alive of 10 Hindus at Firozabad mentioned in to-day's papers?

    ZANZIBAR (CLOVE MARKETING LEGISLATION).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any recent communication from the Government of India on the clove marketing legislation in Zanzibar; and, if so, what steps he is taking to bring the views of the Government of India before the Colonial Office?
    Mr. BUTLER: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received a further communication from the Government of India which is under discussion between him and the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (CIVIL SERVICE, BENGAL).
    Captain ARTHUR HOPEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Civil Service (Bengal) Association has recently asked him to receive a deputation; and, if so, what reply was given?
    Mr. BUTLER: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend decided that he could not receive a separate deputation from one provincial branch of the Indian Civil Service Association, as this would make it impossible for him to decline to receive a separate deputation from any other provincial branch that might make the request. To ensure, however, that the deputation should be as fully representative as possible, the arrangements for the Indian Civil Service members of the general Service deputation, which my right hon. Friend received on the 29th March, were entrusted to the representative in this country of the Indian Civil Service Central Association, and it is understood that an invitation was extended to representatives of the Bengal branch to join in the deputation but that they did not see their way to avail themselves of it.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    COUNCIL MEETING (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who will represent His Majesty's Government at the forthcoming meeting of the League of Nations Council; and whether any instructions have been given to His Majesty's representative on the question of assistance to refugees from the Saar?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL(Mr. Baldwin): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will represent His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, which takes place at Geneva to-day. The question of assistance to refugees from the Saar is

    1581
    not on the agenda of this meeting, and the second part of the hon. Member's question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will His Majesty's Government bear in mind the very tragic position of some of these refugees?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, but that does not arise at Geneva in the business of this meeting.

    NEW BUILDINGS, GENEVA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs particulars of the national gifts made by this country to the new League of Nations buildings at Geneva?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is proposed that the gift should take the form of panels of sculpture in stone to be placed over the entrance to the Council Chamber. Mr. Eric Gill has been asked to undertake the work and is submitting a design.

  WHALING (JAPANESE SHIPS).
  Mr. RANKINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that Japanese ships have commenced the capture of substantial quantities of whales in the Antarctic; and whether any attempt will be made to persuade Japan to conform to some type of international convention like that to which Great Britain and Norway subscribe?
  Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware that a Japanese whaling company sent a factory ship with three whalers to the Antarctic at the end of last year. I have as yet no precise information as to the results of the expedition. His Majesty's Government have under consideration the question of suggesting to the Japanese Government that they should accede to the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which was signed at Geneva in 1931.

  UNITED STATES (BRITISH VISITORS).
  Mr. CLARRYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British visitors to the United States of America are required to give an undertaking on entry that they will not take part in any political or other activity against the Government of the
  1582
  country; and whether any similar condition is imposed on British visitors to European countries; if so, which are the countries?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend has in mind the questionnaire which all intending passengers to the United States of America are called upon to answer at the time of booking their passage, in which the applicant is required to state whether he is an anarchist or a person who advocates the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States. So far as I am aware, no formal undertaking of the nature described by my hon. Friend is required of British visitors on entry into the United States of America or any European country.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MILK PRICES.
    Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Minister of Agriculture how the present retail price of milk in the principal industrial centres compares with previous years; whether he is satisfied that it is not excessive; and, if not, whether he will take steps to bring about its reduction?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE(Mr. Elliot): I regret I have not sufficient information about retail prices of milk in previous years to answer completely the first part of the question, but I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a recent report of the Consumers' Committee for England, from which he will see that, after considering data covering most of the principal towns, the committee found that in many cases retail milk prices had risen since 1933. The committee's report raises questions which are within the scope of the Milk Reorganisation Commission for Great Britain, and I have asked that commission to take the report into consideration in connection with any proposals they may formulate for the improvement of organised milk marketing. I should mention further than the Food Council are at present conducting an investigation into the margins between wholesale and retail prices, upon which the Consumers' Committee made some observations. As to the second part of the question, the hon. Member will appreciate that until the

    1583
    reports of the Reorganisation Commission and the Food Council are received and considered, it would be undesirable for me to express any opinion. As to the last part, I have no power to enforce reductions in retail prices.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is giving very close attention to this problem of increased prices?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that the only result of the efforts of the Milk Marketing Board is to sell the milk at a higher price

    PEAS (CANNING).
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the state of the market of peas grown for canning; and whether he has any statement to make especially with reference to the importation of Japanese and other peas?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that the price of peas generally has fallen recently. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 4th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to bring to the notice of pea growers in this country that the peas grown are too large and that if they were smaller, like the peas grown in France, we could compete with anybody?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of canners to Lincolnshire peas which they will find to be of the right variety?
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people will be glad to have peas whether they are large or small?

    SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).
    Mr. HANNONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the importance of the programme which is being prepared for the agricultural
    1584
    section of the Sixth International Congress for Scientific Management which is to be held in the Central Hall, Westminster, in July this year, he will be prepared to give the work of the congress publicity in the official publications of the Ministry?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Arrangements have already been made for articles on different aspects of management to appear in the Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture before the date of the congress and officers of the Ministry are assisting the organising committee in various ways. I have also accepted an invitation to become vice-patron and hope that the congress will meet with wide support from agricultural organisations and from agriculturists generally.
    Mr. HANNON: Is the House to understand from the reply that His Majesty's Government will do everything possible to promote a successful conclusion to the negotiations at the conference?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    SHELL-FISH (CLEANSING).
    Sir JOHN PYBUSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now consider making an order requiring all shell-fish to be cleansed before they are marketed for human food in this country, thus safeguarding the public health and putting all oyster merchants on an equality in respect of hygienic regulations?
    Mr. ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I have considered this question, but we are not satisfied that an Order of so far-reaching a character would be justified. The matter is, however, receiving our attention, and will be the subject of further inquiry.
    Sir THOMAS ROSBOTHAM: Has the Minister considered the position of the mussel fishermen in Lancashire whose beds have been condemned and who have to pay cleansing fees in order to market their mussels; and is he fully satisfied that those beds that have not been condemned and from which mussels are being marketed are free from pollution?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It is in order to discover such facts that we are desirous of having further inquiry.
    Sir J. PYBUSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, pending the enactment and enforcement of a comprehensive shell-fish cleansing order, he will, in justice to the Brightlingsea oyster merchants and the urban district council of Brightlingsea, who have done valuable pioneer work in providing the means of cleansing oysters, consider the provision of financial assistance to the urban district council whereby the fees for cleansing may be reduced.
    Mr. ELLIOT: The question of giving financial assistance to the Urban District Council of Brightlingsea in respect of the expenditure incurred by them for the purpose of cleansing oysters is under consideration, but I am not in a position to say what assistance, if any, can be given.

    BURNING PIT-HEAP, TYLDESLEY.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to say whether the burning pit-heaps at Gin Pits, Astley, at Tyldesley, which have been reported to him, are now under control; and can he say if the colliery company have given him an assurance when the fires will be extinguished?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH(Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is expecting shortly to receive a further report from his inspector and on the receipt of this he will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member keep a close watch on this fire, and will he also assist me in getting a private Bill through this House, which will provide further powers for dealing with this matter?

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Postmaster-General what was the amount held by him at the beginning of the last financial year, and received by him since, on account of deposits for the installation of telephones; and whether any interest is paid on these deposits?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): On the 1st April, 1934, the sum of £2,965,148 was held as telephone subscribers' deposits and a further £130,000 was received up to the 1st October, 1934. Of these sums, however, over £1,500,000 has been refunded to subscribers since the latter date in accordance with the policy I announced in the House on 6th June. No interest is paid on these deposits.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Postmaster-General what response he has had to his advertisement calling attention to the opportunities for calling a doctor for a sick child when a telephone is installed?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry that it is impossible to distinguish, among the new orders for telephone service which are now reaching the Post Office in large numbers, those which are attributable to a particular advertisement.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has been able to instal a public call-office in North Somercotes?
    Sir K. WOOD: A public call-office has existed in the North Somercotes Post Office for several years, but it has recently been decided to provide a kiosk. The local council was unable to approve the site first proposed for this kiosk; but an alternative site has now been agreed; and I aril arranging for a kiosk to be provided as soon as possible.

    LEITERS IN TRANSIT (OPENING).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that sealed private letters between persons residing in Jersey and correspondents in the Irish. Free State, having nothing whatever to do with lotteries, continue to be opened by the British Post Office in transit to the Irish Free State; and whether he will give directions that this continual interference with the private communications of private individuals through the post shall be discontinued?
    Sir K. WOOD: As I have frequently explained, letters can be opened only in pursuance of directions issued by a Secretary of State; letters addressed to known intermediaries of the promoters of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes are liable

    1587
    to examination, if the Secretary of State so directs. Letters addressed to such persons which do not relate to the sweepstake are forwarded to the addressees.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I drew his attention to the matter referred to in the question some weeks ago; that these letters have nothing whatever to do with the Irish Sweepstake, and will he see that private letters to private individuals on their own private affairs are not opened in the post?
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any additional staff has had to be appointed for this nefarious practice?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. We do it in our stride.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this form of progression by the Post Office is greatly resented by private individuals, and will he take some discriminatory steps to see that private correspondence is not opened?

    AIR MAILS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Postmaster-General whether he can submit an estimate of the amount of inland mail he could advantageously send by night air-services were they in operation within the United Kingdom; and whether he can give an outline of the air routes which would be so used?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I cannot furnish at present an estimate or information on the lines suggested. The matter is, however, under examination.
    Mr. WHITESIDE: In view of the fact that Leeds was excluded from the experimental services last year, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the claims of that city as one of our most important centres?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir.

    CONTRACT, BURSLEM (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Postmaster-General whether he has made any further inquiries as to the wages paid by employers in the cooperage industry in Burslem; and whether he is satisfied that the wage of 1s. per hour paid by a Burslem employer who has secured a Post Office contract is in accordance with the fair-wage resolution?
    Sir K. WOOD: Further inquiries have been made in the matter, but they are not yet complete.

  HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS).
  Sir T. ROSBOTHAMasked the Postmaster-General whether he will grant exemption from licence fees to those local authorities or local Jubilee committees who desire to place wireless sets in the schools for the purpose of enabling the scholars to hear the King's Jubilee message to the nation?
  Sir K. WOOD: I have given instructions that no wireless licence fee should be required in respect of a wireless set installed temporarily in a school or other public building solely for the reception of the special Jubilee broadcasting programme.
  Mr. STOREYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the decision to give power to the Unemployment Assistance Board to make a special payment to applicants in receipt of assistance during the Silver Jubilee celebrations, he will now take steps to make possible similar grants to those in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit?
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour whether he will grant an extra day's relief to the unemployed, so that they may be able to celebrate at the Jubilee?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): My right hon. Friend has no funds out of which to make special payments to the unemployed on the occasion of the Jubilee. So far as discretionary grants are concerned, the House is aware that public assistance authorities and the Unemployment Assistance Board have under consideration the question of making additional payments to their applicants.
  Mr. THORNE: Can the hon. Member say whether those who have signed the live register will be called upon to sign again, and, if they do not re-sign, will they be paid benefit?
  Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make inquiry and inform the House if any of the

  1589
  colliery owners are giving to their employés a day's wage, or any other form of grant, on the occasion of the celebration of the Royal Jubilee on 6th May, and, in particular, what the Lancashire coalowners are doing?
  Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. As regards the South Wales colliery owners, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G Hall) last Thursday. My hon. Friend has not, up to the present, heard of any other proposals, but he feels sure that colliery owners in other districts will consider the possibility of some special action to mark the event, following the example so admirably set by South Wales.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will take steps to associate in the Jubilee celebrations members of the nursing service, both at home and from Overseas?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): A number of seats to view the State Drive in London on 6th May has been allotted to the Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service and the Territorial Army Nursing Service, and both these Services will be represented in St. Paul's Cathedral by their Matrons-in-Chief.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Has any reservation been made for representatives of overseas nursing services in case any of them are over here? There were many Canadians and Australians who were nurses here during the War, and, if any are present in London, is some reservation to be made for them?
  Mr. HACKING: No. I think it would be impossible to deal with individual applications.
  Viscountess ASTOR: It will be very harmful if it is not done.

  AVIATION (INTERNAL AIRWAYS).
  Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any committee has been entrusted with the duty of preparing a comprehensive scheme, including the ground organisa
  1590
  tion of aerodromes, for the development of internal airways; and, if so, when its report may be expected?
  Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend has decided that it is essential to accelerate the survey to which my right hon. Friend referred in his speech introducing Air Estimates, and that its first stage should be completed within a period of three months. The work will be entrusted to the Aerodromes Advisory Board, on which professional and technical institutions, as well as Government Departments, are represented, provided that body can undertake to complete it within the time specified.
  Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Is the hon. Member aware that municipalities have postponed establishing municipal aerodromes pending an authorised scheme, and that further delay in this respect will retard the development of civil airways?
  Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not a fact that there is complete stalemate between His Majesty's Government. and this Board, that the Royal Aeronautical Society has withdrawn its representatives, and does he not think that some new and more effective board should immediately be appointed?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Should not this have been done at least two years ago, and is it not true that there is a great deal of discontent over this organisation?
  Sir V. WARRENDER: I will convey to my right hon. Friend the views that have been expressed.

  COTTON INDUSTRY (WAGES AGREEMENT).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether any application has been received from employers and employed with reference to the legalisation of a wages agreement, under the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act; and what the position now is?
  Mr. HUDSON: An application has been received from the Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Association and the Amalgamated Weavers' Association and my right hon. Friend has appointed a Board to consider this application and report

  1591
  to him in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Nineteen objections have been received during the three weeks allowed for objections to the making of an order in respect of the agreement submitted. The Board proposes to meet in Manchester to-morrow (Tuesday).

  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour how many of the 2,000,000 unemployed had only been out of work for a day or less?
  Mr. HUDSON: I regret that statistics giving the desired information are not available.
  Mr. BATEY: If the hon. Member has no statistics, is he aware that the Dominions Secretary stated in a speech last Monday that there were 1,500,000 fewer unemployed than in 1932. is that statement correct?
  Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the letter from the right hon. Gentleman in to-day's "Manchester Guardian," which explains it.
  Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of miners unemployed during February, 1932, and February, 1935, respectively?
  Mr. HUDSON: At 22nd February, 1932, there were 201,842 insured persons aged 16 to 64 in the coal mining industry in Great Britain recorded as wholly unemployed, and 92,848 temporarily stopped. At 25th February, 1935, the corresponding figures were 183,666 wholly unemployed and 66,557 temporarily stopped.

  LABOUR CONDITIONS (WEEKLY REST).
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement relative to the legal provisions now existing in this country, showing under what statutory authority these legal provisions exist, whereby persons employed in industry are entitled to a period of rest of 24 hours in every period of seven days?
  Mr. HUDSON: I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the statement
  There are relevant legal provisions in the Factory and Workshops Acts and the Coal Mines Act, 1911. The effect of the employment provisions in the Factory and Workshops Acts is that women and young persons (with certain exceptions) cannot be employed between 4 p.m. on Saturday (or where another short day is substituted for Saturday, 8 p.m. on. Saturday) and 6 a.m. on Monday. The exceptions are in respect of (a) male young persons over 16 working in shifts in necessarily continuous processes in blast furnaces, paper mills and glass works, and (b) women and young persons employed in creameries during the months of May to October. The hours of these workers are subject to special provisions. Section 92, Sub-section 3 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, provides that no boy, girl or woman shall be employed above ground in connection with any mine on Sunday or after 2 p.m. on Saturday.
  Mr. G. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour whether the ratification by this country of the 1921 convention concerning the weekly rest day in industry is still under consideration?
  Mr. HUDSON: This matter is closely connected with the general question of the limitation of weekly hours of work and would have to be taken into consideration when any decision is reached on that subject.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    AUSTRALIAN TARIFF.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can furnish the particulars of tariff items which have been considered by the Australian tariff board on the application of manufacturers in this country in pursuance of the Ottawa agreements, and the results of all such applications?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): A very large number of rates of duty in the Australian Tariff have been reviewed by the Tariff Board under Article 11 of the Trade Agreement concluded at Ottawa with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, and it is impossible to give, within the limits of a Parliamentary

    1593
    question and answer, details of the findings in each case. Particulars of all the changes made in the tariffs as a result of the board's findings have been published from time to time in the Board of Trade Journal.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether, having regard to the many misrepresentations as to the attitude of Australia, he will publish in some convenient form an account of the many changes which Australia have made since the agreement was arrived at?
    Mr. THOMAS: I will consider that after the present negotiations with Australian Ministers have been concluded.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Russo-German trade agreement providing for a credit of about £16,000,000 at an average period of five years and at 2 per cent. above the rediscount rate of the Reichsbank, any steps are to be taken to grant more favourable credit terms to Russia in order to promote Russo-British trade?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on the 4th February last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

    TRADE MARKS.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the laboratories at the Metropolitan Police College at Hendon are to be used to assist public authorities within the Metropolitan Police area to detect false trade descriptions of articles of food; also, whether it is intended in the near future that the Metropolitan Police are to take part in prosecutions for applying false trade descriptions to goods offered for sale; and, if not, why on the day the police college was declared open an egg-shell was shown under a light which disclosed that two words, namely, Best Danish, had been so far obliterated as not to be visible without this mechanical assistance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Cases under the Acts dealing with
    1594
    food and drugs and merchandise marks arising in the Metropolitan Police district are not dealt with by the police unless other fraudulent activities are involved. No alteration of the present procedure in this respect is contemplated. The egg-shell referred to was an instructional exhibit.
    Mr. GARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that too much of the taxpayers' money is not spent in the interests of pure science?

  MIGRATION POLICY.
  Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the immigration from foreign countries into British Dominions, particularly Canada, the Government, in consultation and combination with the Dominion authorities concerned, will set up a board, representing the British and Dominion. Governments, and also the various charitable and other organisations concerned with emigration, to formulate plans for promoting the flow of British migrants overseas, and to consider and make recommendations as to the changes necessary to secure a workable scheme, satisfactory to Dominion interests and enabling the original objects of the Overseas Settlement Act to be fully carried out?
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: As regards the general question of migration within the Empire, I would refer my hon. Friend to the report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Migration Policy (Cmd. 4689) which was published in August last. This report has been communicated to the other Governments concerned, with a request for their views, and replies have already been received from New Zealand, Queensland and South Australia. I hope that opportunity for, at any rate, a preliminary discussion of the general question with oversea Ministers may arise in the near future. As regards the particular machinery to be adopted for examining and considering methods of promoting migration, I am not in a position to express any view at the present moment, except that the closest co-operation between the Government here and the Governments in the Dominions will clearly be essential.
  Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of the fact that a good deal of time is passing which might be used in a valuable way, is it not desirable that the Government should suggest a date for a general meeting to consider the whole matter and bring the charitable organisations concerned into it?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have already arranged that the report shall be submitted to all the Governments and charitable organisations concerned, and I think it would be better to avail ourselves of the opportunity for a personal discussion with responsible Ministers here rather than leave it to correspondence.
  Mr. LUNN: Is it a fact that no reply has been received from Canada or the Federal Government of Australia?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have already indicated that replies have been received from New Zealand, Queensland and South Australia.
  Brigadier-General NATION: Are the replies favourable to the Government's proposals or against them?
  Mr. THOMAS: There are no Government proposals, and nothing would be resented more by the Dominions than Government proposals. An independent committee was set up, and their recommendations were submitted to the Dominion Governments whose observations were invited. I think that the presence of the Dominion Ministers in London will give us an opportunity of discussing the whole situation. It is only fair to say that I have never taken the view that we should desire to encourage migration until the Dominions are ready to receive the migrants and provide chances for them.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we take it that no final commitments will be made by the Government on migration policy before the House has had an opportunity of discussing the subject?
  Mr. THOMAS: The commitments of the Government mean the commitments of other Governments, and the hon. Member may take it that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter.

  TOWN PLANNING SCHEMES (ALLOTMENTS).
  Mr. CAPORNasked the Minister of Health whether any land now under cultivation in the city of Nottingham as allotments and allotment gardens has been reserved by the local authority for building or industrial purposes under any proposed scheme under the Town and County Planning Act; and, if so, how much of such land has been so reserved and how much will be reserved for allotments under the proposed scheme?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the scheme now under consideration, which deals with rather more than half the area of the city, proposes to make a substantial reservation for allotment purposes. The exact amount and location of the land to be reserved is still to be decided.
  Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: May I ask whether this matter will be kept in view when sanctioning all town planning schemes?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That point is dealt with in reply to another question.
  Mr. CAPORNasked the Minister of Health whether he satisfies himself that reasonable provision has been made in every town-planning scheme for allotment gardens and other recreational needs before finally approving the draft scheme under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, Sir.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    EXPORTS (HUMBER PORTS).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the quantity of coal exported from the Humber ports, respectively, during the three months ended 31st March, 1935, and the comparable figures for the same period during 1930?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Particulars of the quantity of coal exported from each of the Humber ports in March, 1935, are not yet available, but I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information

    1597
    in respect of the three months ended February, 1930 and 1935.
    Following is the informations:

    From

    Quantity of Coal exported from the Humber Ports during the three months ended February

    1930

    1935

    Tons

    Tons

    Goole

    342,696

    182,024

    Grimsby

    96,140

    24,773

    Immingham

    529,467

    374,030

    Hull

    534,948

    205,043

    Total

    1,503,251

    785,870

    It should be noted that the figures for the earlier period were affected by the Central Collieries Commercial Association's voluntary scheme.

    WAGE EARNERS.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Secretary for Mines the number of miners employed during February, 1932, and February, 1935?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have been asked to reply. The average number of wage earners on colliery books in Great Britain during February, 1932, was 835,900, and during February, 1935, 771,800.
    Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that there were 60,000 fewer miners employed this February than in 1932. If that be the case, how could the Dominion Secretary make the statement last Monday that there were 44,500 fewer miners unemployed this February as compared with 1932?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers, but there has been a smaller diminution in employment during the last two years. There was a greater growth of unemployment during the term of office of the Labour Government.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the figures the hon. and gallant Member has read out relate to the number of persons on the colliery books, which is not the same as the number reported as employed, because persons working short time may be included on the colliery books? The two figures are not strictly comparable.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is it not the case that the number of people employed in coal mining is less now than at any time for the last 30 years
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot answer that question, but the diminution in employment is much less than it was.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that there never has been a Labour Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR INSURANCE COMPANIES (DEPOSITS).
    Mr. CLEARYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give details regarding the deposits required by his Department from motor insurance companies; and whether he will consider raising the scale of such deposits, in view of recent failures of motor insurance companies?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on the 14th February to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Potter).
    Mr. PETHERICK: Will my hon. and gallant Friend make it clear that the Government do not intend to engage in any credit-giving competition with foreign countries, even against those countries which are not in a position to grant trade—
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member is referring to the wrong question.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the very grave public misgiving in this matter, and the fact that one of the companies which failed was taken over by another company which, having received additional premiums, itself then failed, and that very great hardship is falling on people owing to the lack of proper regulation of these companies?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The whole matter is under the consideration of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of a rumour in the city that about five other companies are likely to fail in the next week?

    PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES, LONDON.
    Sir P. HARRISasked the Home Secretary whether the Carriage Office of the Commissioner of Police still exercises control over London omnibuses; whether it inspects them both for cleanliness and as to mechanical defects; if so, how often they are inspected; and whether the Department has inspectors on the road to see to the proper running of London public service vehicles?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, the licensing and inspection of omnibuses is now carried out by the Traffic Commissioner for the Metropolitan Area in pursuance of Section 51 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Are we to understand that the police have no control over the state of the omnibuses on the streets and no power to stop them if they are not properly kept?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The police are not concerned with the licensing or inspection.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: If members of the public want to make complaints, can they address them to the Home Office or must they be addressed to the Traffic Commissioners?

    PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PLACES (RUBBER STUDS).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a report from the Birmingham Corporation in connection with the laying down of rubber studs at pedestrian crossings; and what conclusions have been formed of the usefulness of these rubber studs?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No, Sir, but there is no objection to the use of rubber studs for this purpose if they comply with the regulations. There are some in London which have 'been laid down with my approval.

    TRAFFIC SIGNS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the question of road restriction signs being so designed as to give the de-restricting indication on the reverse thereof; what saving of public funds would accrue by the adoption of such a sign; and whether
    1600
    he will give consideration to this proposal?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think there would be any saving of public funds in this proposal, but I have it in mind.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of many motorists the present sign is too inconspicuous and will he consider erecting a sign which can be more easily seen?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I had all those considerations in mind in giving the answer which I have just given to the hon. and gallant Member's question.
    Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in many cases the sign does not exist at all?
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when he is going to come to a decision with regard to the painting of lamp posts as a de-restriction sign?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That suggestion was discussed in the House and the predominant view was that a sign separate from the lamp post should be erected.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Was there not a decision on the part of the Ministry that they would look into the question of marking the lamp posts throughout the length of a road which is de-restricted?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, I do not think that that is the case. Certain inconveniences would attach to that course which it would take too long to explain to the House in answer to a question.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Would the hon. Gentleman, when considering this matter, also consider the advisability of having signs on both sides of the road?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the widespread desire for a system of increased pensions for persons of 60 years of age and over so as to induce them to leave employment and thus make way for younger people, he will set up a committee to go fully into this matter and

  1601
  submit a report to this House, and further to report on the possibilities of an all-in insurance scheme, so that this House may have the fullest information before them?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 14th February to a supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. K. Lindsay).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In view of the fact that the Government actuaries reported this year on the state of the contributory pensions scheme, would the Government be good enough to look further into this suggestion?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Did my hon. Friend observe the other day that 57 men over 65 years of age were retired from Blaenavon Colliery, and that the whole colliery went on strike in indignation; and does he not realise that old men like to work while young men are not so keen on it?
  Mr. EDWARDS: Did the hon. Gentleman include in his reply the all-in insurance scheme, as suggested at the end of the question?
  Mr. COOPER: My right hon. Friend's reply, to which I have referred, pointed out that such an inquiry, if undertaken, would show that the scheme would probably be impracticable.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: If the Treasury go into the matter, will they consider its application to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are Members of this House?

  ALIENS.
  Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Home Secretary from what countries the greater proportion of the 14,500 aliens who have been naturalised as British subjects during the last 10 years have come; and whether he has any figures to show how many of these are now being maintained from public funds?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The figure of 14,500 includes 2,202 British-born women, 4,521 persons from Russia, 1,137 from Poland, 611 from Germany and 453 from the United States of America. No figures are
  1602
  available to show how many naturalised persons are being maintained from public funds, nor has my attention been drawn to any such cases.
  Mr. FLEMINGasked the Home Secretary how many aliens were recommended for deportation during the three months ended 31st March in the years 1934 and 1935, respectively; and in how many of those cases were orders for deportation made?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: During the three months ended 31st March, 1934, 46 aliens were recommended for deportation; 28 were deported and four made their own arrangements to leave the country. Of the remainder, nine could not be deported because the nationality of the alien could not be definitely established, and two are still serving sentences of imprisonment. During the three months ended 31st March, 1935, 47 aliens were recommended for deportation. Fifteen have been deported and nine have made their own arrangements to leave the country. Of the remainder, five could not be deported because the nationality of the alien could not be definitely established, one has died, and 13 are still serving sentences of imprisonment.
  Mr. FLEMING: Will my right hon. Friend say whether among those deported or recommended for deportation there were any German refugees?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I require notice of that question.

  HERR JACOB (DISAPPEARANCE).
  Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to make any statement on the inquiries which have been carried out by the Metropolitan police in connection with the disappearance of Herr Jacob; and whether these inquiries have disclosed the presence in this country of a counter refugee organisation engaged in any activities contrary to the public interest?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on Monday last.
  Sir C. CAYZER: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be able to make a statement?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT SLOUGH.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he received a report from the factory inspector in connection with an accident to a workman who became entangled in some machinery at the Slough Asphalt Works, Bucks; and whether the machinery was properly protected?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: It appears from the report I have received on this accident that the mixing machine which the workman was operating was fitted with a grid guard, the bars of which were spaced three inches apart. Somehow or another the workman must have got his foot between the bars but how this occurred has not been explained. One of the bars was found after the accident to be so bent as to make an opening six inches wide, but it was stated at the inquest that it was not bent before the accident. I am informed that a new guard has since been fitted with cross bars so designed as to prevent any similar accident in the future.

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. BATEMANasked the Home Secretary whether in view of the growing feeling in this country that capital punishment should be abolished, he will state what recent applications have been made to his Department for a reconsideration of the question; and what the views of his Department are thereon?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not accept the implication in the first part of the question and nothing has come to my notice which would indicate that there has been any significant change of public opinion on this subject.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Would my right hon. Friend take the opinion of prison governors throughout the world, who have reported that capital punishment does no good and has a very disastrous effect on the rest of the prisoners and prison officials?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    LAND VALUES (TAXATION).
    Mr. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make an estimate showing what would have been the approximate amount of income he would have received from the land
    1604
    Value tax of the Finance Act, 1931, if it had not been repealed?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir. I would remind the hon. Member that Lord Snowden, in moving the Land Values Tax Resolution on the 4th May, 1931, explained that it would be quite impossible to give even approximately the estimate for which the hon. Member asks until considerable progress had been made with the valuation.

    OIL OF TURPENTINE (DUTY).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the receipts from the duty on oil of turpentine for the 12 months ended 31st March, 1935?
    Mr. COOPER: It is anticipated that the receipts in 1934–35 will be approximately the same as in the previous year, i.e., £154,000.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister, whom I am glad to see in his place, when he will be in a position to make a statement to the House on the subject of the discussions at Stresa?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I must confess to the House that I have not had time since my return, only about an hour ago, to consider this statement. So far as the business done at Stresa is concerned, I will try to make it to-morrow, but, if I find it physically impossible to do so, I would ask the House to allow me to make it on Wednesday.
Mr. ATTLEE: I wish to give notice on that statement that it is proposed to raise the general question of these discussions on Thursday on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1935–36).
Copy ordered, "of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by Mr. Chancellor of the

1605
Exchequer when opening the Budget." —[Mr. Duff Cooper.]
Copy presented accordingly, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS REPORTED.

  HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  EASINGTON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  3.34 p.m.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Last year when I opened my Budget I told the Committee that I felt justified in taking a reasonably optimistic view of the progress of trade, and at a later stage I added an expression of my view that the reduction of 6d. in the standard rate of Income Tax would probably prove a useful stimulus. Those anticipations have been amply fulfilled. The year that has just closed has been characterised by a substantial advance towards recovery. Our industrial activity has increased by about 12 per cent. Our manufacturing production has established a new record, and our exports were up last year by £30,000,000. Interest rates remained low, and there was a great increase in the volume of capital works and particularly of new buildings. If I may take as an example one or two industries, we find that last January the number of motor vehicles registered was 30 per cent. greater than it was the year before. The output of steel last year increased by 30 per cent. and of pig iron by 50 per cent. The rayon industry also established a new record for output. In fact, I have only been able to find one direction in which a new low record was established, and that was in the time lost in trade disputes, which is lower than has ever been recorded before. Perhaps that was not altogether unconnected with the fact that the cost of living remained throughout the year substantially below the level which existed when the Government first took office.
  Then, again, retail trade has continued to expand. In February it was nearly 5 per cent. greater than it was the year before, showing that the improvement had reached right down to the purchasing power of the people. Side by side with this general increase in expenditure there was no diminution in the thrift of the people. Deposits with the Post Office
  1618
  Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks and the net sales of Savings Certificates by nearly £50,000,000 last year. As an indication of the improvement in the ordinary household budget, the Committee may be interested to know that from figures derived from the returns of Customs and Excise, I calculate that last year the people of this country sweetened their lives with 80,000 tons of sugar more than in the previous year. They smoked 6,500,000 lbs. more tobacco, equivalent, I am told, to the consumption of 2,600,000,000 cigarettes. They spent £2,750,000 more on entertainments; they washed away their troubles with 270,000,000 more pints of beer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and with 700,000,000 more cups of that beverage which cheers but not inebriates they "welcomed peaceful evening in."
  Viscountess ASTOR: No cheers for that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not need to be reminded that our recovery is far from being complete and that we require constant effort even to maintain what we have already achieved; but, in making a review of the financial condition of the country, there can, I think, be no question that improvement has been steadily progressive and has now become substantial. It is not without significance that this forward movement has followed upon a succession of balanced Budgets. When we look round at the other great countries of the world, we see a strange variety of forms of government, of economic systems, and of plans for recovery. Everywhere statesmen and peoples are striving to bring back prosperity by such means as seem to them appropriate to their own conditions. I am certainly not here to claim that our methods are better than theirs, but, in view of our incorrigible habit of self-depreciation, it does not seem unpardonable to point out that nowhere else can you find a parallel to the results which have been achieved here.

  REVIEW OF PAST YEAR.
  Now let us consider the out-turn of 1934, and it will only be necessary for me to draw attention to the salient points, because the details are in the Blue Paper which hon. Members have in their possession. I estimated for a surplus of £796,000, but, since the revenue exceeded

  1619
  the estimate by £9,921,000, and the expenditure only showed an excess of £3,155,000, the actual surplus realised was £7,562,000, a very satisfactory result. It did not prove necessary to use the powers that were given me by Parliament to borrow for the contractual Sinking Funds. The figure of expenditure includes £12,343,000 that has already been spent on the redemption of Debt, and, if we add that to the realised surplus, we see that the real out-turn of the year—that is, the excess of revenue over expenditure other than that applied to the redemption of Debt—was £19,905,000.
  I come to a few details on the expenditure side. The Consolidated Fund charges show an excess of £519,000, owing to an under-estimate of the sums payable to the Post Office Fund and to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland. The Supply Services exceeded the Estimates by £2,636,000. This figure may seem to hon. Members to be rather low as compared with the amount of £18,000,000 which was the total of the various Supplementary Estimates presented during the year, but it must be remembered that in my original Budget I had already included a sum of £7,600,000 on account of the restoration of cuts, and moreover a sum of £4,275,000 which I had provided for the Unemployment Assistance Board was not required in consequence of the suspension of the regulations. Certain other services also have cost rather less than the provision I had made, so that the total expenditure came out less than might have been expected, considering the amount of the Supplementary Estimates. I do not think there is anything further that requires mentioning on the expenditure side.
  On the revenue side Customs and Excise yielded £289,696,000, which seems a remarkably close approximation to my estimate of £290,000,000. I ought, however, to remind the Committee that last July, in accordance with a recommendation from the Import Duties Advisory Committee, I reduced the Silk Duties, which involved a loss to the revenue of about £2,000,000. In spite of that, however, we obtained £3,500,000 more from Customs and Excise than we obtained in the previous year. Most of the individual duties came out very close to my expectation. I might, however, just mention a surplus of nearly £700,000 from the duties
  1620
  on articles coming from the Irish Free State. That was partly due to the new Coal-Cattle Agreement, but the other imports from the Irish Free State were rather larger than I had expected.
  Inland Revenue gave me £388,500,000, £16,000,000 more than the estimate. That increase was mainly due to Income Tax, which produced an excess of £9,377,000, and Death Duties, which yielded an excess of £5,356,000. I think perhaps a word of explanation is required in connection with these two increases. In some quarters it has been suggested that this large increase in Income Tax proves that I displayed an undue pessimism last year in estimating the profits and incomes which would come into assessment, and, if that were really true, it would, of course, encourage a very highly optimistic view of the future of the tax, but, unfortunately, the matter is not so simple as that. Only £2,000,000 out of this £9,377,000 can be attributed to a greater amount of income and profits coming into assessment than I had estimated for. Of the remainder, £1,000,000 is accounted for by a closer collection of the arrears coming forward from the previous year, while no less than £6,000,000 was due to a reduction in the amount carried forward for the next year over what I anticipated. The fact is that in the March quarter the Inland Revenue collected a record percentage of the tax, and, although that is a striking testimony to the public spirit of the taxpayer and also to the conditions which made it possible for him to fulfil his obligations so promptly, it will be obvious to the Committee that the process is not one which can be expected to recur in future years. As to Death Duties, which are always a speculative item, the increase was due to a rise in the value of securities. A rise of that kind benefits the Exchequer twice over, because, not only does it increase the actual value of the estates, but it also brings them into the range of a higher level of duty. The other Inland Revenue duties included the Surtax, which was up by £1,000,000, and that was due entirely to a better rate of collection; Stamp Duties, which were short of estimates by £1,000,000, but were still About £1,500,000 better than in 1933; and then the £2,000,000 which we got from Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax show that the last dying convulsions of these two imposts, once so

  1621
  vital to us, are still capable of returning a perceptible contribution to this bumper yield of Inland Revenue.
  The Post Office net receipts of £12,250,000 are below the estimate by £1,750,000, which was partly due to the restoration of cuts in pay, and partly to the surrender of revenue involved in the recent reduction of telephone charges. The Exchequer share of Motor Duties and receipts from Crown Lands came out pretty well according to plan, but Sundry Loans and Miscellaneous Receipts fell short by £4,303,000.

  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Before I leave the past year, the Committee will expect me as usual to make a short statement about the National Debt. In April last I repaid, at the earliest date that was possible, £105,000,000 of 4 per cent. Treasury Bonds, and also £11,000,000 3 per cent. Bonds, which had been drawn for redemption in the previous December. To provide for these maturities, and also to give a small margin for the reduction of floating Debt, I raised in April £150,000,000 by the issue of a 3 per cent. Funding Loan. Last December I took advantage of the continued cheapness of money to give notice to draw for repayment one half, that is, £44,000,000 of the remaining 3 per cent. Treasury Bonds. Since then £34,000,000 of those Bonds have already been purchased and redeemed out of Sinking Fund money, so that the redemption of the remainder, which takes place to-day, will be carried out without any disturbance of the market. I must once again make grateful acknowledgement of the repayment last summer by the Government of the Union of South Africa of the balance of their War Debt amounting to £7,500,000, which has, of course, been applied to the redemption of Debt. The net effect of all these transactions, together with the operation of the Statutory Sinking Fund, has been the reduction in the nominal amount of the National Debt by £21,750,000 during the year, and also of the annual interest charge by £1,650,000 a year. Last year I mentioned to the Committee that the Exchange Equalisation Account then showed a profit. This year I may repeat that observation with somewhat greater emphasis, and I should like also to express my gratitude to the Committee for their forbearance in not asking me for details of the working of the account.

  EXPENDITURE, 1935–36.
  I am now ready, and I dare say the Committee is ready also, to begin the examination of the prospects for the coming year. The first subject to claim our attention is the Fixed Debt Charge. I am sure that hon. Members have not forgotten the warning which I addressed to them last year that in future there would undoubtedly have to be a larger allocation to the Fixed Debt Charge in order to provide for Debt reduction on a more appropriate scale, and also to cover the estimated average cost of interest on Treasury Bills and Savings Certificates over a period of years. At the time when I uttered that warning short-term interest rates stood at a level which appeared abnormally low, and I did not anticipate that there would be any considerable redemption of Debt during the year. As a matter of fact, however, there has been no important change in conditions during the past twelve months. Treasury Bills have remained at the extremely low average rate of about 12s. 6d. per cent., and the encashment of Savings Certificates has actually been lower than it was in 1933. Partly in consequence of this, and partly as a result of the Budget surplus, there has in fact been a redemption of Debt by £20,000,000, and in these circumstances I have felt justified in retaining the Fixed Debt Charge at the same figure of £224,000,000. If the interest rates on Treasury Bills continue to remain at anything like their present level, that figure ought to contain something available for Debt redemption out of revenue, but I think perhaps that it would be advisable, in order to guard against contingencies, to ask Parliament to give me powers again to borrow for the purpose of the contractual Sinking Funds.
  There are three other smaller items charged on the Consolidated Fund: Northern Ireland, which I put at £6,750,000; Miscellaneous Consolidated Fund Services, £3,700,000; and the payment to the Post Office Fund, which in accordance with the out-turn of 1934, will be £1,130,000. That brings the total for Consolidated Fund Services up to £235,580,000.
  The Estimates for the Supply Services are already known to the Committee. They amount to £490,390,000. But there are several items which are not included

  1623
  in that. There is the subsidy for beet-sugar, there is the cattle subsidy, and there is the increased cost of unemployment assistance, all of which will require Supplementary Estimates later on, and although, as usual, I expect that there will be savings available to make some set off against these charges, I think it is only prudent to provide an additional margin which I may put, in round figures, at £4,000,000. The Supply Services, therefore, for 1935, will cost £494,390,000 If that figure be compared with the original Estimates for 1934, the Committee will see that there is an increase of very nearly £25,000,000.
  That is a very formidable figure. It is not due to any relaxation of control over administration. It is accounted for by certain definite decisions which have been approved by Parliament. I have had to provide £10,500,000 extra for the deficiencies in the Army and Navy, and for the increase in the Air Force, and I have to provide £14,500,000 extra for civil and social services. Part of that last increase is due to the fact that the restoration of cuts in salaries and wages only operated last year for nine months, whereas, of course, now we have to provide for 12 months. Then we have also to take account of the automatic increases in certain items like old age pensions. But the two main causes of the increase are the additional £4,500,000 required for the industries of shipping and agriculture, and the extra £5,000,000 which must be provided for the unemployed, chiefly in connection with the provisions of the Unemployment Act of last year. I do not think that hon. Members will regret having eaten this part of their cake, and I am sure, therefore, they will be neither surprised nor resentful to find it no longer figures in the fare on the table.
  Outside the ordinary expenditure there are two self-balancing items— the Post Office and the Road Fund. The Post Office Vote shows a substantial increase at £64,000,000, due partly to the restoration of cuts, and partly to the expectation of a general expansion of business, which is always a welcome sign of more active trade. The Road Fund I put at £26,500,000, which is very near the receipt in 1934, but exceeds the estimate for last year by £2,250,000, although it includes the full effect this year of the
  1624
  reduced licence duties which came into operation on 1st January last. Omitting these two self-balancing items, I can summarise the expenditure as follows:

  Consolidated Fund Services

  £235,580,000;

  Supply Services, including the margin of £4,000,000

  £494,390,000,

  making a total or ordinary expenditure of

  £729,970,000

  REVENUE, 1935–36.
  What revenue can we find to finance this enormous outlay? I take the smaller items first. The Exchequer's share of the Motor Vehicle Duties remains at £5,000,000, the minimum fixed under the arrangement embodied in the Finance Act of last year. The Post Office Net Receipt, in spite of the extra business which we expect, must be reduced to £11,850,000 as a result of higher expenditure on account of the restoration of the cuts, and also on account of that reduction in telephone charges which my right hon. Friend undertook recently with the approval of the Treasury. Crown Lands I put at £1,330,000, a casual increase of £100,000 over last year's estimate. Sundry Loans are £3,900,000, and Miscellaneous Receipts, always a variable item, I put at £21,500,000.
  Then I come to the. Inland Revenue Duties. The receipts from Income Tax last year were just below £229,000,000, but I have already pointed out to the Committee that £6,000,000 of that was due to the acceleration of collection owing to the fact that in the March quarter we exceeded all our anticipations, and, in fact, had the best proportion of collection that we have experienced since the end of the War. But the result, of course, of this acceleration was to diminish the arrears which are carried forward into the current year, and therefore the gain of 1934 is the loss of 1935. We must, therefore, compare our Estimates for 1935 not with £229,000,000, but with £223,000,000. I hope, of course, that the Income Tax payer will continue his good work of last year, and even improve upon it, but the rate of collection is now so high that I am afraid we must not expect any more considerable gain from a still further increase in the rate of collection. In 1935 we have to bear the extra cost in a full year of the reduction of Income Tax last year, and I estimate that extra cost at £3,000,000. On the other hand, we may expect to

  1625
  gain in assessment, because the profits and income in 1934 on which is based the Income Tax for 1935 were greater than the profits and income in 1933, upon which was based the Income Tax of 1934.
  All the information which I have been able to gather shows that there was a substantial improvement in trading conditions in 1934, and, taking all things into account, I estimate that I may receive from Income Tax in the current year £237,000,000, which is £14,000,000 more than in 1934, leaving out the amount due to the acceleration of collection. Surtax I put at £51,500,000—about the same figure as last year. I have to take account there, also, of the fact that there was a speedier collection last year, and the Committee is aware that there is a lag of a year between Surtax and Income Tax, and we shall therefore have to wait for another year before Surtax shows an expansion comparable to that which I have provided for in Income Tax. Death Duties I put at £80,000,000, that is nearly £1,500,000 less than last year, butt last year the yield from large estates was certainly on the high side. Stamp duties, I think, should show a continued improvement, and they ought to reach £25,000,000. The remaining Inland Revenue Duties including Excess Profits Duty and Corporation Profits Tax, are expected to yield £2,500,000. I, therefore, have a total for Inland Revenue of £396,000,000, made up of Income Tax, £237,000,000; Surtax £51,500,000; Death Duties, £80,000,000; Stamp Duties £25,000,000, and the remainder £2,500,000.
  Turning to Customs and Excise, I think I may expect, without undue optimism, that most of the duties will respond to the general expansion of trade. Contrary to recent experience, I am expecting an increase of £1,400,000 in the receipts from the Spirit Duty. That is not because I am anticipating an increase of consumption, but because I expect the realisation of clearances which were postponed last year, presumably in the hope that there might be some reduction in that duty. I am allowing also for substantial increases in a number of other items: Beer £1,300,000, wine £300,000, tobacco £1,600,000, oil over £1,000,000, silk £300,000, entertainments nearly £300,000. I anticipate an increased consumption of sugar, but I cannot expect
  1626
  increased revenue from it, because of the larger proportion of sugar which is now coming from the Empire and which consequently enjoys preferential rates. In the tariff duties, under the Import Duties Act, I am allowing for a fall of £400,000. The Ottawa Duties also show a downward trend, which again is what one has to expect seeing that the purpose of those duties was to divert trade from foreign countries to countries of the Empire. Therefore, from that source, instead of £7,400,000 which I obtained last year I am expecting only £7,000,000. On the other hand, the duties on goods from the Irish Free State seem to keep up their yield. They gave £4,700,000 last year, and I am now estimating them at £5,000,000. Further details will be found in the White Paper which will be available to hon. Members when I resume my seat. The total figure for Customs and Excise is £296,000,000, or over £6,000,000 more than was received by the Exchequer in 1934. That makes a total estimated revenue, on the basis of existing taxation of:

  Inland Revenue

  £396,000,000,

  Customs and Excise

  £296,000,000,

  minor items

  £43,580,000;

  adding up to

  £735,580,000.

  Deducting from that the estimated ordinary expenditure of

  £729,970,000,

  I am left with a prospective surplus of

  £5,610,000.

  LOCAL LOANS FUND.
  Before we decide what to do with that surplus, I have one or two other matters to speak about. I will deal with one which, although it forms part of the financial proposals of the year, does not affect either revenue or expenditure. We are at present financing the Local Loans Fund by 3 per cent. Local Loans Stock. That stock dates from 1887, the year of the Goschen conversion scheme, and it is in the form which was common to longterm Government stocks at that period. It is a perpetual annuity. The holders have no right to claim redemption, but Parliament reserved the right to order redemption at par at any time after the year 1912 by giving one month's notice. There has been no occasion up to now to alter the method of borrowing, but hon. Members will see what a curious anomaly it is that we should be financing our Local Loans Fund by what purports to be and

  1627
  was intended to be a long-term stock, but one which, ever since 1912, has been redeemable at one month's notice. There was no practical importance in the anomaly so long as the yield on Government securities at the market price was well over 3 per cent., and so long as Government Departments were easily able to absorb any stock, so that it was unnecessary to make a public issue. But I am sure the Committee will agree that the time has come when we ought to have additional powers for any future borrowing, to enable us to issue stock in such form as may be best suited to modern conditions. Accordingly, I shall propose a Clause to that effect in the Finance Bill. I shall also ask for further powers to be exercised if and when the conversion of existing stock should be feasible. These powers, of course, will not make any difference to the rights of stockholders. They will be merely concerned with machinery. I want the Committee to understand that I am not now taking upon myself the role of prophet. It is quite clear that conversion is not practicable at the present moment, and, indeed, I cannot give any indication of when it may be possible to convert, but it is desirable that powers should be ready in the hands of the Treasury, so that they may be used at the appropriate moment in whatever form is thought best at the time. The Committee may remember that my predecessor, Lord Snowden, in the second Budget of 1931, obtained powers for the conversion of the War Loan at a time when that operation certainly did not seem to be within the range of possibility, but that later on those powers proved to be extremely convenient.

  MINOR CHANGES.
  Now I have to deal with one or two minor points. I shall have to bring forward a Resolution connected with the Beer Duties, but hon. Members will be relieved to know that this is not to impose any fresh burden upon beer. It is merely to put the law into harmony with what has been for some time the established practice. I shall also have Resolutions to correct an anomaly in the charge of Sugar Duties, to authorise an increase in the duty on rice in husk, to impose a new duty upon soya beans, and to cover a Clause in the Finance Bill to amend the definition of value of imported
  1628
  goods for Customs purposes. There will be another Resolution to deal with the classification for taxation purposes of vehicles on the borderline of the goods class.
  I have a small change to propose in the Liquor Licence Duties. I cannot afford a general all-round reduction, but I do propose to make a concession in the minimum licence duties, which vary at present according to the population. The result will be that, subject to a minimum, which for public-houses will be £10 in urban districts and £5 in rural districts, and for beer houses £6 10s. in urban districts and £3 10s. in rural districts, the small houses will be put into the same position as the large ones, that is to say, their licence duties will vary according to their annual value. That change will come into operation on 1st October next, and it should, I think, be of considerable benefit to the small licence holders. I have received from the Brewers' Society an assurance that their members will pass on the concession to the licence holders. The Finance Bill will contain a small concession in the Estate Duties. Where a deceased person has provided during his life for an annuity at his death for the benefit of his family or others there is exemption at present, under the Finance Act of 1894, for annuities which do not exceed £25 a year. It has been represented to me -that that limit of £25, fixed 40 years ago, is now too low. I agree, and I propose, therefore, to extend the exemption to annuities not exceeding £52 a year. These minor changes are not going to produce any great effect one way or the other upon the revenue. Some of them mean small increases, others small reductions, but the net effect on the whole I estimate will be an increase of about £145,000 in the current year.

  HEAVY OIL DUTY.
  I come now to the next point, which concerns road vehicles. I dare say a good many hon. Members are aware of a development in recent times which, however admirable in itself, does threaten a considerable danger to the very important revenue which I derive from the duty upon light hydrocarbon oils. This development is an increased use of what are known as Diesel engines, particularly in the heavier types of goods and passenger vehicles. There has been a very

  1629
  marked growth of these heavy-oil engines in recent years. There are now said to be over 7,000 of them on the roads, and they are increasing daily. This development is not merely due to the inherent advantage of the particular type of engine. It is true that a Diesel engine, with one gallon of fuel, will do as much work as a petrol engine does on a gallon and three-quarters of petrol, but when the Committee consider that the duty on the heavy oil is only a penny a gallon, whereas the duty on petrol is 8d. a gallon, it will be seen what an enormous fiscal advantage accrues to the Diesel engine. In 1933 the licence duty on these heavy-oil vehicles was increased to a greater extent than that on the corresponding petrol vehicles, but, of course, the licence duty does not bear any relation to the amount of work performed, and as a counterpoise of the enormous difference in the oil duty it really has very little effect. Last year, I am told, in consequence of this development—and I may say that the total taxation on the heavy-oil vehicle doing only a moderate mileage is from one-half to two-thirds of that on the corresponding petrol vehicle—I lost £1,300,000 in revenue, and if that loss remains unchecked it might well rise to £2,200,000 in the coming year. There-fore, I cannot contemplate with equanimity a threat to my oil duty of that character, and while I certainly have no desire to cramp the development of the Diesel engine, which I am told has considerable advantages, I must ask it to make a somewhat larger contribution to the revenue.
  I propose, therefore, to remove this differential licence duty and to substitute for it a more adequate and more equitable form of taxation by raising the duty on heavy oil used as fuel by road vehicles to 8d. The duty will, of course, be confined to oil used in road vehicles, and though the duty is equalised, the Diesel engine will still retain the advantage which it already possesses in consequence of the greater mileage it can do per gallon. In fact, if I took account of that, the duty would have to be raised not to 8d. but to is. 2d. per gallon. These engines can work upon a very wide range of fuel. That makes it impossible to adopt the ordinary method of taxing a specified grade. I am obliged to fall back upon taxing every kind of heavy oil used as fuel in road vehicles. As it
  1630
  will be necessary that the duty should be backed by prohibition, supported by heavy penalties, on the use in such vehicles of untaxed oil, and as I cannot bring these things into operation until the Finance Bill is passed, I cannot raise the duty until August next. If I had been able to get the advantage of the higher duty in a full year, it would have brought me in £1,200,000. As it is, I can only count upon £800,000 in the current year.

  ROAD FUND.
  In spite of the reduction of the horsepower tax by 25 per cent. last year, the licence duty on road vehicles produced. £800,000 more than it did in the year before. At the same time the outgoings. of the Road Fund were curtailed by the reduction in programmes which followed upon the crisis of 1931, and the result of that is that on 31st March last there was in the Fund a balance, an apparent surplus, of £7,000,000. I say apparent surplus, because part of it, namely, £2,530,000, was a debt owing to the Exchequer in repayment of the loans in 1931 and 1932. The relevant Acts give the Treasury discretion to appoint the times and conditions of repayment. As I did not require the money last year, I did not give the order for repayment until this year. Accordingly, that sum is included in the estimate of Miscellaneous Revenue which I have already given as £21,500,000. That leaves a balance in the Road Fund of £4,470,000. The need for curtailment of programmes has passed. Already, during last year, we have considerably increased our commitments, and recently the Government, through my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, invited the local authorities to submit a five years' plan of road construction and improvement. The replies to that invitation are not yet complete, but when they are we hope, with the cooperation of the local authorities, to embark upon a programme which will be considerably in excess of anything that we have yet achieved in a similar period of time. This, of course, will involve additional calls upon the Road Fund, but those calls will only come in as the commitments mature, and in the near future the income of the fund, both present and prospective, will be amply sufficient to meet all the calls that will come upon it.
  ESTIMATED SURPLUS.
  There is, therefore, no need, for the purposes of the Road Fund, of this £4,470,000, but, on the other hand, it has occurred to me that there is a very pressing need for it elsewhere, as an addition to my modest surplus to be used for the relief of taxation. Accordingly, I have informed my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that I propose to transfer it to the Exchequer. I should say that my hon. Friend has expressed some reluctance to assume even temporarily the role of the dying Sir Philip Sidney, but I have endeavoured to console him with the assurance that if, in fact, during the course of the next year or so, more money should be required for roads than the Road Fund can supply, he will, in my opinion, be entitled to ask for consideration. The result of that transaction is to raise the figure for Miscellaneous Revenue to £25,970,000. Perhaps it will be useful to return to that prospective surplus and see how it has been getting on while I have been talking. When it was last seen, it stood at £5,610,000, and it has now been fortified by the addition of £145,000 for Minor Items, £800,000 for the yield on the Heavy Oil Duty and the £4,470,000 for the increase of Miscellaneous Revenue. I now find myself in possession of a sum available for distribution of £11,025,000.

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  In dealing last year with a much larger surplus than this, I based myself upon a dictum of Lord Snowden, that in common justice the first relief ought to be given to those classes who suffered most when the crisis was acute. I see no reason to depart from that principle now. As it is obvious that I have not enough at my disposal to enable me to make a complete restoration, I must adjust my distribution to try to meet the most pressing needs. Among these the first that I deal with concerns the Entertainments Duty. The emergency Budget of 1931 reimposed a duty on admission for payments over 2d. up to 6d., which had been free since 1924, and it also increased the scale of duty on payments over 6d. It will be recollected that in imposing these extra charges Lord Snowden expressly stated that he desired to give an opportunity to all sections of the community to contribute towards the nation's needs. I have had a good deal
  1632
  of evidence to show that the intentions of the author have not been altogether fulfilled. Particularly, the duty on the cheaper seats in the cinema houses and that on those entertainments in which living performers have been putting up a very gallant struggle for survival against the competition of mechanical performances, seem to have fallen largely on the proprietors rather than on the public.
  It is time they had some relief. To revert to the old scale would cost in a full year £2,700,000. Out of that not less than £2,300,000 is attributable to the duty on the seats up to 6d. Only £400,000 comes from the rest. I propose to allocate the whole of the £2,700,000 to the relief of the Entertainments Duty, but I want to take the opportunity of remodelling the scale which existed before 1931. I propose to relieve from all duty all payments up to 6d. costing, as I have said, £2,300,000 in a full year. The remaining £400,000 I propose to apply entirely to the reduction of the duty an seats over 6d. in entertainments given by living performers. They have claimed total exemption; I cannot give them that, but I am sure they will not fail to appreciate the importance of a change which, for the first time, differentiates between this kind of performance and another, and differentiates in their favour. Hon. Members will find the details of the new scales in the White Paper. The proposal will come into operation on the 1st July, and a Resolution will be moved accordingly. The cost in the present year is estimated to be £2,025,000.

  INCOME TAX ALLOWANCES.
  Last year I took off the 6d. from the Income Tax which had been imposed in 1931, but I was not able then to deal with Income Tax allowances, or with the extra 10 per cent. that had been placed upon the Surtax. I have now to make some proposals about Income Tax allowances which involve some change of method. The old reliefs were never scientific, nor are they sacrosanct. They were imposed at a time when the cost of living was high, and some of them were afterwards increased at a time when the cost of living was falling. But there are other reasons for an alteration. In 1931, the increased taxation from reduced allowances was to some partial extent

  1633
  compensated for by an increase in the earned income allowance from one-sixth to one-fifth. To go back now to the exact system which prevailed before the change in 1931 would, therefore, involve the withdrawal of a concession which was very welcome at the time, and which has now, I think, become established in the tax. At any rate, I should be very sorry myself to alter it.
  There is a further consideration which weighs with me even more heavily. I had to choose last year between a reduction in the standard rate and an alteration in the Income Tax allowances, and I deliberately selected the first, because I thought it was the more likely to give renewed encouragement and stimulus to trade. I am very glad that that has been borne out by what has happened. But I realised quite well at the time that that proposal conferred a greater benefit upon the large taxpayer than upon the small, because, of course, to the small Income Taxpayer the most important thing is the level of his personal allowances and reliefs, which makes to him more difference than an alteration in the level of the standard rate. Therefore I want this year to see the small taxpayer have his turn. I want the relief that I can give—and, as I shall show, it will be substantial—to go as far as possible to incomes near the bottom of the scale. It is pretty clear what is the best method of effecting that. It is to make an alteration in the zone which is subject to the lower rate of Income Tax. At the present time the rule is that the first £175 of taxable income—that is, income less the personal allowances—is charged Income Tax only at half rate, that is, at 2s. 3d. in the £. I propose to substitute for that a new rule, that the first £135 shall be charged only at one-third rate, namely, 1s. 6d. in the £.
  It is not very easy for hon. Members to grasp at once what that means. It means, of course, that up to £135 of taxable income a taxpayer will pay at ls. 6d. instead of 2s. 3d.; and between £135 and £175 of taxable income he will pay at 4s. 6d. instead of 2s. 3d. But a man who has a taxable income of £175 has to calculate what is the net effect of the reduction and increase. It comes out that under this proposal 2,250,000 taxpayers, that is, about 70 per cent. of the whole body of Income Tax payers, who have taxable incomes not exceeding
  1634
  £135, will get a reduction of Income Tax amounting to 9d. in the £, that is to say, three times as much as they got last year. Another 200,000 taxpayers, whose taxable income lies between £135 and £175, will also get relief, but that relief will gradually diminish as they go from £135 to £175, until at the higher figure it has practicaly died out. Let me give the Committee an example to show how the plan works. It really gives a very substantial help to the small taxpayer. Take the case of a married man with three children and an earned income of £500. He has a taxable income of £120. At the present time he pays in Income Tax £13 10s.; under this proposal his tax will be reduced to £9. For technical purposes it will be necessary to move a Resolution in connection with this proposal.
  That is not my only proposal; I have two more, both of which are designed to lighten the burdens which at present fall upon those who carry the responsibilities of family life. The first concerns the personal allowance of a married taxpayer. That now stands at £150; I propose to raise it by £20, to £170. The second concerns the children's allowances. These at present stand at £50 for the first child and £40 for each subsequent child. I must say that I look upon the continued diminution of the birth-rate in this country with considerable apprehension. At the present time it may seem that we have here a larger population than we are able to support in England. At the same time, we know the difficulty which the Dominions find in accommodating a larger population, when they themselves are troubled with unemployment. But I have a feeling that the time may not be far distant when that position will be reversed, when the countries of the British Empire will be crying out for more citizens of the right breed, and when we in this country shall not be able to supply the demand. I think that if to-day we can give even a little help to those who are carrying on the race, the money will not he wasted. I propose to raise the allowance for each child after the first to £50, however many children there are.
  These two last proposals benefit all families, and, taken in conjunction with the first one, they give a great deal of relief to families with small incomes. I have already mentioned the case of a

  1635
  married man with three children and an earned income of £500, and have shown how his tax under the first proposal would be reduced from £13 10s. to £9. Under these further proposals he will get a further reduction of £3, bringing his tax down to £6. If his income is all derived from investments, instead of paying as he does now, £29 16s. 3d., he will only be called upon to pay £20 5s. A married man with £400 a year total income and two children, if his income is entirely derived from investments, now pays £18, and under my proposals he will in future pay £9 13s. If his income is all earned, he now pays £9; in future he will pay only £3 15s. A man with £300 total income, married but without any children, if his income is derived from investments, now pays £16 17s. 6d.; in future he will pay only £9 15s. If his income is earned, he now pays £10 2s. 6d.; in future he will pay only £5 5s.
  I have one other minor amendment to propose. The smallest earned income which is at present liable to tax, in the hands of a single person, is £125. Such a person gets a personal allowance of £100 and an earned income allowance of £25, and his liability, therefore, is extinguished. But, if his income is derived from investments, he then has to pay tax on £25. That has pressed rather hardly on some people with very small incomes, where their income has been reduced by reason of the conversion loans. I am proposing in future to fix an exemption limit of £125 for all types of income, whether consisting wholly or partly of investment income; and I have to couple with that a special provision for incomes just over £125, so as to prevent there being a sudden jump in liability at that point. For incomes between £125 and £140 there will be an over-riding provision that the tax shall not exceed one-fifth of the excess over £125.
  The Financial Statement will give a number of tables which will illustrate these proposals in detail, and I think I only need now give the Committee what the cost of these reductions will come to in the aggregate. In a full year the cost of these various amendments in Income Tax allowances will amount to £10,000,000; but, owing to the way in which the tax is collected, I shall
  1636
  only have to find, in the current year, £4,500,000. This £10,000,000 will, I believe, give a welcome relief to a very great number of small taxpayers. I am sorry that it is impossible for me this year to do anything to relieve the extra 10 per cent. put upon the Surtax payers, but I think the proposal I made last year reducing the standard rate, taken in conjunction with those I am now making, on the whole constitute a fair division of relief among the various classes of Income Tax payers.

  SALARY CUTS: RESTORATION.
  There still remains for consideration that part of the cuts in remuneration which I was not able to restore last year. After thinking it over, I have come to the conclusion that it is advisable to make no further division of the process of restoration, and I am therefore proposing to clean the slate and to make a full restoration from 1st July, the same date as that on which the corresponding change was made last year. That will cost me in a full year £5,500,000 and in the current year only £4,000,000. In consequence of the provision of the Statutory Salaries (Restoration) Act of 1934 no legislation will be necessary, but we shall require an Order-in-Council and a Supplementary Estimate, which will be introduced at an appropriate opportunity.

  FINAL BALANCE-SHEET.
  Adding together the cost in the present year of these various reliefs, I find that they account for £10,525,000 out of the £11,025,000 which I have at my disposal. The final figures therefore are:

  Revenue

  …

  …

  …

  £734,470,000;

  Expenditure

  …

  …

  …

  £733,970,000.

  leaving me with a prospective surplus for the year of £500,000
  So I conclude the fourth Budget which I have presented to this Committee; not quite as bountiful a Budget as last year, but yet one carrying a little further the removal of burdens and in particular bringing a larger measure of relief to certain classes who perhaps have not yet enjoyed their full share of our returning prosperity. Their voices may not be as strident as those of some others, but they are none the less deserving of our

  1637
  attention, for the small taxpayer's contribution to the needs of the country has been of the first importance. He has borne the long struggle to provide his contribution, often involving great distress of mind and the sacrifice of the scanty luxuries of his household, with a patience and courage that seem to me to be beyond all praise.
  We are framing our requirements to-day at a time of fresh anxiety in Europe. We must recognise that our further progress may be powerfully affected by events over which we have little control. Moreover, we have ever before our eyes those districts, once the seat of our most prosperous industries, which to-day still lie under the shadow of world depression. We must not, we shall not, relax our efforts by any or every measure which offers a reasonable prospect of success to restore them to a position in which they can play their part in the normal life of the nation. But, taking the country as a whole, looking back over these 3½ years, we can see the improvement has been solid, continuous and steady. To that result many things have made their contribution—tariffs, conversion operations, cheap money, balanced Budgets, remissions of taxation. They have done it largely by creating a spirit of confidence. Confidence is the mother of enterprise, and, when it operates upon many individuals and through many channels, it is far and away the most effective form of promoting a general and rapid expansion of economic activities. Broadly speaking, we may say that we have recovered in this country 80 per cent. of our prosperity. Our task is now to win back the remaining 20 per cent. without jeopardising the confidence that we have already established. Given peace abroad and a fair measure of unity at home, I see no reason why we should not during this current year make a further substantial advance towards prosperity, and it is in that conviction that I have framed my Budget Estimates.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

  1. ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, as respects payments for admission to entertainments held on and after the first clay of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, entertainments duty shall be chargeable subject to the following variations:
  1638

  (a) the duty shall cease to be charged on payments not exceeding sixpence;

  (b) the duty shall be charged at the reduced rates set out in the following table in a case where all the performers whose words or actions constitute the entertainment are actually present and performing and the entertainment consists solely of one or more of the following items, namely, a stage play within the meaning of the Theatres Act, 1843, a ballet, a performance of music (whether vocal or instrumental), a lecture, a recitation, a music hall or other variety entertainment, a circus, or a travelling show.

  TABLE

  Amount of Payment.

  Duty.

  Where the amount of the payment, excluding the amount of duty:

  Exceeds 6d. and does not exceed 8½d.

  One half-penny.

  Exceeds 8½d. and does not exceed 11d.

  One penny.

  Exceeds 11d. and does not exceed 1s.1½d.

  Three half-pence.

  Exceeds 1s.1½d. and does not exceed 1s.4d.

  Two pence.

  Exceeds 1s.4d. and does not exceed 1s.6½d.

  Two pence half-penny

  Exceeds 1s.6½d. and does not exceed 1s.9d.

  Three pence.

  Exceeds 1s.9d.

  Three pence for the first 1s. 9d. and one penny for every 5d. or part of 5d. over 1s. 9d.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913"
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I am sure I shall be voicing the views of the whole House in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the admirable way in which he has presented his Budget. He possesses the gift of lucidity, and an admirable power of brevity. I am not sure that he has not broken a new record for Budgets to-day, and when I consider the amount of information he managed to pack into a comparatively short time, I wonder what Chancellors of the Exchequer managed to do in the 4½ hours they used to occupy in the past. I do not intend this afternoon to indulge in any controversy. That comes better at a later stage. I should like to express what, I know, is felt by Members on these benches—our pleasure at the reliefs that are being given to the smaller

  1639
  income taxpayers, and particularly to persons with family responsibilities. It was a piece of justice which was overdue. I was also pleased to see the change proposed in the entertainments duty, both in its effects on those occupying cheaper seats and also, particularly, because of the remodelling of the tax in order to meet the case of living performers. I am also pleased with the final restoration of the cuts, and I hope to see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour following suit very shortly and doing away with another device that was put in to balance the Budget—the means test.
  One word I would say with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's general Budget. In order to obtain a surplus, he adopted what one might call a very Churchillian device. His surplus was somewhat precarious, made up by a. raid. Indeed, there seemed to me to be a general festive—almost jubilee—atmosphere about the right hon. Gentleman's speech. When he dealt with beer and tea and entertainments, and then when he followed with his Budget, it certainly seemed to me rather an atmosphere of "Let us eat, drink and be merry, for to-morrow we die." It seemed rather a closing kind of Budget. He managed to get a surplus for this year and he was able to give some benefits for future years. It seemed as if he had a doubt in his mind whether he would be carrying that burden in the future. However, I do not intend this afternoon to look a gift horse too closely in the mouth. I recognise there are some gifts. To-morrow my colleagues will deal with some detailed points and criticisms. There is a good deal to be said about the Heavy Oil Duty.
  This is a Budget that is carrying on rather than introducing. It contains nothing very startling, and it is in the ordinary tradition of Budgets. It has given us advantages for which we are grateful. I certainly think it is somewhat precariously balanced. Finally, and this is a serious word, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we had hanging over us the dangers of the international situation. We have in this Budget provision for greater armaments, and the danger of an armaments race hangs over the Budget. The further point that makes it balance somewhat precariously is the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman depends on the
  1640
  very cheap rates obtaining for dealing with the debt. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is, at all events, somewhat adventurous. He has made up a Budget which contains a certain number of unknown factors, and I am glad to see that he does not err too much on the side of caution. I will again congratulate him upon the admirable way in which he has placed it before us.
  5.16 p.m.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I wish in a few words to join in the congratulations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the appreciation, which I am sure is felt in all quarters of the Committee, at the conciseness and clarity with which, as usual, he has presented these vast and complicated accounts. Speaking on this occasion last year, I expressed disappointment then that nothing had been done to restore the Income Tax allowances to the smaller taxpayers, and particularly to those with families, and expressed afterwards the hope that they would be regarded as having the first claim on any surplus this year. I am glad now, after an interval of 12 months, to be able to express congratulations and thanks that on this occasion those allowances have been, if not completely, at all events, in very large measure, restored.
  I am sure that Members in all quarters of the Committee also will rejoice that the remaining cuts in salaries, which had most reluctantly to be imposed on the servants of the State in 1931, are now to be restored. This is not the occasion to enter into any minute examination or criticism of the Budget, but it is necessary to point out, as indeed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has pointed out, that, while these reliefs and the other reliefs will involve an annual and a permanent reduction of revenue, on the other hand, that is made good to the extent of one-half of the sum distributed from what can be called a windfall, namely, the raid on the Road Fund. It amounts to nearly half the surplus which is distributed, and it can only be obtained once and for all, and is not to be regarded as an annual increase of revenue. Consequently I am afraid that, as far as that point is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has departed somewhat from those canons of strict finance of which he has hitherto been one of the champions.

  1641
  Furthermore, the concessions made involve only an expenditure or a reduction of taxation for three-quarters of a year, while in this year, therefore, no provision has been made for next year for the increase of 33 per cent. of the charge to be provided for this year. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about the depressed areas or any funds to be made available for the Commissioners who are at work there, but perhaps we may hear something further about that matter after the interview which is to take place next Thursday between the Cabinet Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). In the meantime, to-day I restrict myself once more to expressing the appreciation which, I am sure, is felt in all quarters of the Committee at the right hon. Gentleman's most able and comprehensive statement.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. MAXTON: I wish to associate myself with the congratulations which are being showered upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which he is so modestly accepting this afternoon. I should hate to enter a critical word. Last year I remember that the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the party above the Gangway and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) were very critical, and I was congratulatory, and I found out that that congratulation was one of the biggest sins that I had ever committed in Parliament. I congratulated the right hon. Gentleman for restoring cuts to the unemployed. The note of criticism that I would enter here is that the restoration of the cuts to the unemployed still leaves the unemployed man far and away below the level of the rest of the community, and I could have wished that in this Budget some arrangement had been made for a definite raising of the unemployed man's level above the best point at which it has ever been. The hon. Gentleman above the Gangway referred to the prospects of the removal of the means test, and I would suggest that that is a proper thing to do. I would also suggest that the removal of the Anomalies Act would also be a very suitable object for the Chancellor's consideration. I am not raising this in any controversial way at all, but merely to point out that there are some 300,000
  1642
  people affected by that in a very injurious way.
  There is also the question of the general level of the remuneration paid to unemployed people. After all, we cannot regard 17s. as a reasonable allowance for the maintenance of a full-grown man, even when he gets the whole of it, and I hoped that some provision would have been made there in order to make it possible to increase the allowances for next year without imposing any further burdens upon the other contributors to the fund. Indeed, while I, like other speakers, congratulate the Chancellor upon having restored the cuts to the public servants, I think that he could quite well have drawn a line as between the lower-paid public servants and the higher-paid public servants, as he drew a line in the matter of the entertainments duty. We are all tremendously glad that the lower-paid workers in the Post Office, in the Ministry of Labour and in other public Departments who were on very low salaries, and who will be on very low salaries even after the restoration of the cuts, are receiving these back.
  I think that some of the others, including Members of Parliament, could quite well have gone another year or two without the restoration, and that the amount that has gone to them would have brought far greater happiness and relief in the homes of unemployed people than it will to the better-paid civil servants. These are recognised as minor criticisms. My congratulations to the Chancellor are none the less genuine because I make these criticisms. If the right hon. Gentleman takes the optimistic view of the future which ran through his speech, he might quite well have expressed that optimism by increasing the income tax and the super-tax to bring into his hands a free sum of money that could have been used during this incoming year for great national developments in many directions. More and more he is being pressed by the House for schemes of national expansion of one kind or another; they are coming from all quarters. He ought to do that out of revenue, and not out of borrowings, as he might consider doing it.
  There is one other thing I would say—and I am sure that it is a matter of regret to all of us—and that is that in the esti-

  1643
  mated expenditure for this incoming year there is £10,500,000 additional for armaments expenditure, and a contingently larger sum to which he has made a general reference. I suppose that every Member in this House regrets that amount. Some believe that it is necessary, and some believe that it is unnecessary. Whether it is necessary or whether it is unnecessary does not represent any failure on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but failure on the part of some of his colleagues in other Departments. I am sure that every Member of this House a year or two ago hoped that the process of world affairs would be such that very large reductions in armament expenditure would have been taking place now, but the fact that the expenditure has gone up is no fault of the Chancellor's except in so far as he has to share responsibility for the general operations of those who sit on the Government Front Bench with him.
  With these very limited criticisms, I conclude my remarks by again saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves the congratulations of the Committee. The fact that things have run with him instead of against him is not his fault, but he knows as well as anyone here that we have not reached any period of economic stability in this country, and he knows perfectly well that happenings here or in other places might quite easily turn the relative progress of to-day into very serious catastrophe. He is to be congratulated, however, in presenting his Budget to-day with the possibility of making things balance, and with the hope of a reasonable continuance of that stability for the months immediately ahead. May I just make this one small reference to an omitted part of his statement? Perhaps it is not right of me to raise it, but I can remember in. the last two or three Budgets there was always some reference to the question of the American Debt. I notice that to-day it has gone into that very nice category where it no longer needs to be mentioned. That is a very satisfactory way of dealing with external debts, and I hope that he will always be able to deal with them in quite as efficient a fashion by letting them drop into the limbo of forgotten things.
  5.26 p.m.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: As Chairman of the Income Taxpayers' Society of Great Britain, I hope that I may be allowed to thank very sincerely the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very valuable concessions which he has made to the smaller income taxpayers in reducing the present half rates of 2s. 3d. in the £on the first £135 to 1s. 6d. in the £ and for the increases in family allowances. I can assure him that that will be very greatly appreciated by the smaller income taxpayer. I think income taxpayers are entitled to receive a concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer because, after all, had it not been for them his Budget estimate in respect of Income Tax would not have been exceeded by £9,250,000. Whatever be the reasons for that, whether it was partly due to better trade—
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, old 40 Members being present—
  Sir W. DAVISON: I was saying. that I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fully justified in making this concession to, at any rate, a small number of income taxpayers, having regard to the fact that without the income taxpayers his Budget estimate would not have been exceeded by £9,250,000 in respect of Income Tax, and his surplus of £7,500,000 would not have materialised. Whatever be the reasons for this excess of Income Tax over the Budget figures, whether it be owing to the improved prosperity of the country or whether it be due to the patriotic promptness with which Income Tax has been paid, it is something for which the income taxpayer deserves credit.
  I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that one of the main ingredients of prosperity is low taxation. Undoubtedly, the prosperity of the country, which means improved employment, will never be really on right lines until we get back to normal taxation and away from war taxation. Sometimes I think it would be better if the words "Income Tax" could be changed to "industry tax," so that the public would realise that this tax is really a handicap on industry. While one recognises it is essential that £10,500,000 should be provided this year for our defence forces, which have been allowed to fall so much behind, one can

  1645
  but hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider whether in future this arrear, which has been running on for eight or nine years, might be met by a loan which could be raised in the City on short-dated security to the amount of £30,000,000, £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 at 2½ per cent. It would be fair that a loan should be raised in this case, because the country has had the benefit for the last eight or nine years of not laying out money which ought properly to have been laid out in connection with our defence forces. Such a scheme would have a double benefit. Not only would the laying out of the money in making up the neglected parts of our defences give employment, but taxation might to that extent be remitted, which would in itself be a stimulus to trade. In conclusion, I must again point out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognizes—the terrible drain on the capital assets of the country caused by the continuance at war rates of the heavy surtax payable by the income taxpayer: this together with the annual capital levy amounting to £80,000,000 a year in respect of death duties is gradually eating into and destroying the capital resources of the country on which we ultimately depend for our social services and our national defence.
  5.34 p.m.
  Sir FRANK SANDERSON: I rise to make one important point, and that is to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend with regard to the imposition of the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty on soya beans. He will be aware that the effect of that duty will be that soya oil which is crushed and extracted on the continent will be immediately dumped into this country, and I would ask him if he has made, or if he proposes to make, any provision for the immediate imposition of a duty upon imported soya oil from the continent?
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: I do not propose to keep the Committee for more than a few minutes, and I am anxious not to qualify the chorus of deserved praise which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received from all parts of the Committee on the manner in which he has presented his Budget, but I cannot remain silent in face of the situation which exists in South Wales, Durham and Scot-
  1646
  land, when I find that in this Budget no provision whatever has been made for any large expenditure of money for the initiation of schemes to bring relief to those districts. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed clearly that the Government propose to continue the harshest cuts which were imposed in 1931. Every newspaper in the country this evening and to-morrow will be carrying the news that the cuts of 1931 have been restored, while the harshest and most substantial of the cuts, the means test, is to remain. That was imposed as part of the economy scheme. I do not understand how the Chancellor of the Exchequer can contend that he is basing his four Budgets upon the principle of restoring the cuts to those who had to carry the heaviest burdens and were the least able to carry it, while he still leaves the means test, which means that the distressed areas of Great Britain have to carry the heaviest load that was imposed in economies of 1931.
  It is in the distressed areas where there are to be found men who have been unemployed the longest period, and who therefore are liable to the application of the means test. It is cruel, it is harsh, and it is not good citizenship for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to leave these distressed areas in their present condition, and I should be doing less than my duty as the representative of one of the most distressed areas if I did not raise my voice to-night. In the Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer will hear a great deal more on this question. I hope he has prepared in his mind some schemes for the relief of these areas, and I hope that we shall have them produced, because we are going to have new unemployment insurance regulations in the near future. I want to protest at the silence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject and the absence of any mention whatsoever about the cuts on unemployed men who have not yet had their cuts restored. It is a violation of the pledge made by the National Government and in the election of 1931, which stated that the Government would restore all the cuts when the finances were at their disposal. Yet they still leave the poorest and the most helpless members of the community suffering from the burden of cuts which have been restored to the rest of the community.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The petrol engine and the petrol tank are the most dangerous things that mankind ever invented. It was the hope of those of us who take an interest in improving the progress of the air that the Diesel engine would eventually take the place of the petrol engine in aircraft. Every pilot knows that if there is a crash he may be burnt to death. So long as Diesel oil was practically untaxed—there was a trivial tax of £1 a ton on it—the Diesel engine was making progress on the land and it would soon have got into the air, to the safe development of the aeroplane. Now, however, I am afraid that a very heavy blow has been struck at it, and I am deeply disappointed.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The increased tax will be applicable to the oil used in Diesel engines affixed to road vehicles only.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: That may be so, but it is only by the development of the road vehicles that you can reach that stage of development of the Diesel engine which will make it ultimately applicable to aircraft. Therefore, I am afraid that this tax will mean a serious setback in that direction.
  There is another matter to which I would refer, as representing a Highland constituency. I feel very much aggrieved that nothing has been done to reduce the terrible penal taxation of the whisky duty, which has deprived us in the Highlands of one of our most important industries. At one time it was a huge Highland industry. Some 133 distilleries have been shut down, and I fear that the rest will be shut down unless there is a relief of taxation. It means that the farmers are penalised. Here is something which is taxed 72s. 6d. per gallon. It is wrong to put such a tax upon the Highlands and upon the comparatively small proportion of the population who use that particular commodity. This high taxation is not bringing the revenue to the right hon. Gentleman. Before the War, the whisky duty paid 19 per cent. of the taxation of the country, but now it is only 4 per cent. That is because the high taxation is killing the trade. For the sake of his own revenue and of in-
  1648
  creasing the amount to be yielded from this industry there ought to be a substantial reduction in the taxation. That would be to the convenience of the public; it would greatly increase the possible revenue to be derived, and it would mean that we should take a sensible course, instead of dividing mankind into two classes, those who can afford to pay for whisky so highly taxed, and those who cannot afford to do so. The right hon. Gentleman would be doing a great service if he could give us a reasonable reduction of this penal taxation.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  WITHDRAWAL OF REBATE ON HEAVY OILS USED FOR ROAD TRANSPORT.
  Resolved,
  "That—

  (a) on and after the eighth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, no oils other than light oils shall be used as fuel for a mechanically propelled vehicle constructed or adapted for use on roads, if a rebate has been allowed on the delivery of the oils for home consumption and has not been repaid in accordance with regulations made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise;

  (b) where oils, other than light oils, are delivered for home consumption on or after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and it is intended to use the oils as fuel for such a vehicle as aforesaid, a declaration shall be made to that effect, and thereupon no rebate shall be allowed in respect of the oils;

  (c) for the purpose of this Resolution oils shall be deemed to be used as fuel for such a vehicle as aforesaid if they are used as fuel for any engine with which the vehicle is equipped, whether for the propulsion of the vehicle or not."

  SUGAR (ARTIFICIAL REDUCTION OF POLARISATION).
  Resolved,
  "That, as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, any sugar chargeable with a duty of customs or excise which has been so treated, whether by the addition of invert sugar or otherwise, as to reduce its polarisation, shall be chargeable with the duty as if it were of a polarisation exceeding ninety-nine degrees.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  BEER (PRIMING AND COLOURING SOLUTIONS).
  Resolved,
  "That, as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, any excise duty chargeable on beer by reference to the worts thereof shall in the case of a brewer for sale be chargeable and be deemed always to have been chargeable as if priming and colouring solutions were worts.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  RICE IMPORTED IN THE HUSK.
  Resolved,
  "That, as from the sixteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, the duty of customs chargeable on rice imported in the husk shall, instead of being charged under Part I of the Import Duties Act, 1932, be charged under section one of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, and shall be a duty at the rate of two-thirds of a penny per pound:
  Provided that Sub-section (2) of Section one of the last-mentioned Act shall not apply in relation to the said duty.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

  SOYA BEANS.
  Resolved,
  "That, as from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, soya beans shall cease to be exempted from the general ad valorem duty, and the Import Duties Act, 1932, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall have effect accordingly."

  VALUATION OF GOODS FOR PURPOSE OF AD VALOREM DUTIES.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to make further provision for the valuation of imported goods for the purpose of any enactment for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is chargeable on the goods by reference to their value."

  LICENCE DUTY ON CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLES.
  Resolved,
  "That, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, where a mechanically propelled vehicle is constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of a machine or contrivance and no other load except articles used in connection with the machine or contrivance, the vehicle shall, notwithstanding that the machine or contrivance is built in as part thereof, be chargeable with Licence Duty
  1650
  as a goods vehicle and as if the machine or contrivance were burden and were not to be included in the unladen weight of the vehicle for the purpose of computing the amount of the duty:
  Provided that nothing in this Resolution shall apply to any vehicle chargeable with duty under paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by the Finance Act, 1933."

  INCOME TAX.

    CHARGE OF TAX.
    Resolved,
    "That—

    (a) Income Tax for the year 1935–36 shall be charged at the standard rate of four shillings and sixpence in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;

    (b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1934–35 shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1935–36.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this-Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOR 1934–35.
    Resolved,
    "That Income Tax for the year 1934–35 in respect of the excess of the total income of an individual over two thousand pounds shall be charged at rates in the pound which respectively exceed the standard rate by amounts equal to the amounts by which the rates at which Income Tax was charged in respect of the said excess for the year 1933–34 respectively exceeded the standard rate for that year.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    AMENDMENT AS TO RELIEF IN RESPECT OF LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUMS.
    Resolved,
    "That—

    (a) on a claim under section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by any subsequent enactment, for an allowance of tax in respect of life insurance premiums or other payments' no allowance shall be given at a rate of tax greater than one-third of the standard rate—

    (i) if the taxable income of the claimant does not exceed one hundred and thirty-five pounds; or

    1651

    (ii) in respect of the amount, if any, by which the premiums or payments exceed the amount by which the claimant's taxable income exceeds one hundred and thirty-five pounds;

    (b) for the purpose of this Resolution the expression "taxable income" in relation to a claimant means his total income less any amount on which he is, by virtue of subsection (1) of section forty of the Finance Act, 1927, entitled to relief by way of a deduction of tax.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. 1913."

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to amend the law relating to National Debt, Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance."
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes before Six o' Clock.