HC Deb 26 June 1935 vol 303 cc1237-42

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1935, dated the third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Question again proposed.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

At a certain point this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade introduced five Orders dealing with Import Duties, and I had just got up to speak when we were interrupted by other business which has occupied the time of the House ever since. The observations I desire to make are fairly simple. Whenever the Government bring before the House of Commons the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, they seem to take it for granted that those recommendations must be adopted automatically. I have never yet heard that the Government give serious consideration to any of the recommendations, which means that we have reached a stage when the Import Duties Advisory Committee are practically the lawmakers in respect of the fiscal policy of the country. We have therefore a right to protest, and we shall protest against one of these Orders to-night in order to indicate that we are not in favour of what is being done by the Government in this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary was very cute—if that be an appropriate Parliamentary word. He blames this matter on to a body of which I am sure no Member of the House except myself has ever heard before, the Ophthalmic Benefit Joint Committee of the National Health Insurance Scheme. That Committee has requested the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inform the Government that it is in favour of providing British made spectacles for the insured population. When we have got round it in that way, with a little modulation in a musical sense, we know exactly where the hon. Gentleman has landed us to-night.

I believe we were all here when the Government altered the fiscal policy of the country in 1931. Two points were then put forward in favour of that policy, which is embodied in these Orders. One point was that the quality of articles produced in this country must be as good as that of the commodities which were brought in from abroad and which are now shut out by the duties. Secondly, and above all, the conditions of employment of the workers in the industries concerned were to be fully safeguarded. The new policy—these Orders are part of the new policy—was intended to provide that the workpeople employed in producing commodities similar to those upon which we imposed the duties should have the very best conditions. There is not a word in any of these Orders about either of these two points. I am not so sure that, in imposing these duties and thus reviving these native industries, the conditions are as good in all cases as they were before the duties were imposed.

The hon. Gentleman did not mention all the articles that are to be subject to new duties. Let me read some of them, and the House will find how low the Government can descend, and how petty it can be in its operations. We here are at the centre of the biggest Empire of the world. Let us see what the Government are dealing with: Spectacles; goggles; eye-glasses; monocles. I am not surprised that monocles come in here; there seems to be a Birmingham tinge about these Orders. I am wondering whether the hon. Gentleman can give us an idea of how many people wear monocles in this country? Is this a new industry that ought to be encouraged by the imposition of a duty? We ought to be told how far these duties are imposed in order to encourage home industries, or whether they are imposed in order to raise revenue, and, if the latter, how much revenue will be raised by the imposition of duties on monocles or goggles. I suppose that on the hoardings, before the next General Election, we shall have, aded to the paraphernalia of the Government's posters, admonitions to wear more goggles and monocles.

Then duties are to be imposed on wood split pulleys and part thereof, on brooms and brushes, and also on hair clippers. Japan has been doing something in sending very cheap hair clippers to this country. We are now told that in this new industry the workpeople of this country are to flourish, but the hon. Gentleman has never told us who is manufacturing these commodities that used to be produced in foreign lands and imported here. I have more than once raised with the Board of Trade the question of the firms who are coming here to establish businesses, and are, without any question whatsoever, degrading the conditions of employment of our workpeople. Then we are told that the Empire is to be saved because new factories are to be established here by foreigners to produce

commodities that used to be produced in Germany and elsewhere. The mentality of the Government is astonishing to me. Here they are, bankers, railway magnates, financiers, colliery proprietors, and we are brought down to taxing these goods. I would ask the House to listen to the wording. I hope that some great musician will some day get hold of these words and put them to music: Duties on metal keys for opening canned goods when imported with those goods in the same package and in numbers not exceeding one key per can. That is what the new tariff policy of the Government has landed us into. If this country is to be saved by these means, I pity my poor country. I am wondering where the Liberal party stand on an issue of this kind. I wonder if they will speak to-night in favour of imposing a duty on the one key per can—never mind the size of the can or the quality of the key. The hon. Gentleman said there were 30,000,000 of these keys sold per annum. I suppose it is suggested that the Birmingham workshops will be humming in future in producing these keys. I wonder whether there will be keys for all these cans in future. That is a point which will have to be remembered—whether the housewife, after these duties are imposed, when she brings her goods from the grocer will find a key. In the centre of the greatest Empire in the world we are entitled to ask a question of that kind. Because of the sheer nonsense of these proposals and their pettiness, in view of the other mighty problems confronting this country, we shall divide against the Government to show how stupid we think they are.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 38.

Division No. 249.] AYES. [10.55 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Brocklebank, C. E. R. Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Albery, Irving James Browne, Captain A. C. Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Atholl, Duchess of Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Denville, Alfred
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Butt, Sir Alfred Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly) Doran, Edward
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) Caporn, Arthur Cecil Eales, John Frederick
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Carver, Major William H. Eastwood, John Francis
Beit, Sir Alfred L. Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Bernays, Robert Conant, R. J. E. Elmley, Viscount
Blindell, James Cook, Thomas A. Fremantle, Sir Francis
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Fuller, Captain A. G.
Boyce, H. Leslie Crooke, J. Smedley Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.) Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Goff, Sir Park
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Croom-Johnson, R. P. Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Broadbent, Colonel John Cross, R. H. Graves, Marjorle
Greene, William P. C. McLean, Major Sir Alan Selley, Harry R.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Grimston, R. V. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Guy, J. C. Morrison Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Hales, Harold K. Martin, Thomas B. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Harbord, Arthur Morgan, Robert H. Spens, William Patrick
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.) Stones, James
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hornby, Frank Nunn, William Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Howard, Tom Forrest O'Donovan, Dr. William James Sutcliffe, Harold
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Palmer, Francis Noel Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Pearson, William G. Thompson, Sir Luke
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Petherick, M. Thomson, Sir James D. W.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Radford, E. A. Tufnell, Lieut.-commander R. L.
Jamieson, Ht. Hon. Douglas Raikes, Henry V. A. M. Turton, Robert Hugh
Jesson, Major Thomas E. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) Reid, William Allan (Derby) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton Remer, John R. Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Law, Sir Alfred Rickards, George William Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Leech, Dr. J. W. Ropner, Colonel L. Wells, Sydney Richard
Levy, Thomas Rosbotham, Sir Thomas Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Llewellin, Major John J. Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu Salmon, Sir Isidore TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney) Sir Walter Womersley and
McKie, John Hamilton Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Captain Hope.
NOES.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R. Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Banfield, John William Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Milner, Major James
Batey, Joseph Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding) Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Cape, Thomas Janner, Barnett Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Cleary, J. J. Jenkins, Sir William Tinker, John Joseph
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) White, Henry Graham
Daggar, George Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawson, John James Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Dobbie, William Leonard, William
Edwards, Sir Charles Logan, David Gilbert TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) Lunn, William Mr. John and Mr. Paling
Gardner, Benjamin Walter McEntee, Valentine L.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1935, dated the third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said third day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 16) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 17) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 18) Order, 1935, dated the fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 19) Order, 1935, dated the seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said seventeenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]