HC Deb 09 June 1936 vol 313 cc87-188

5.55 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "ten years," and to insert "one year."

We come now to a Clause to which we attach importance and which we intend to resist. It deals with the key industry duties and the Safeguarding of Industries Act and renews them for another ten years. We shall oppose it because we see no reason at all why there should be two different tariffs, and we consider that it was a mistake when the Import Duties Act was carried, that it did not simply absorb and include the key industry duties and the Safeguarding of Industries Act just as it absorbed other protectionist Acts, such as the Abnormal Importation Act. This has been discussed before, and the argument from the Government Bench was that these key industry duties represent a very special set of circumstances, that these articles are vital to national safety in time of emergency and, therefore, that they need to have particular care taken in regard to them. But that is the very reason for bringing them within the machinery of the Import Duties Act, because it has sufficient elasticity to deal with industries which have some particular circumstances connected with them. That Act set up the Import Duties Advisory Committee, consisting of three persons who are paid high salaries and who sit, I believe, several times a week, whose special duty it is to consider what are the particular circumstances connected with an industry and give it a tariff in accordance with the circumstances that it finds.

That machinery is important from the point of view not only of the industry itself, but of industry as a whole because, although such articles as wireless valves may be important in time of war, they are very important in time of peace. They are very important to other industries, and this machinery, by which you can consider the requirements of other industries which use these commodities, is I think specially adapted to these key industry duties. But, if you pass this Clause now, it will mean that you select a special little group of industries and apply to them the machinery by which, quite apart from any other industries, they shall not be in a position to receive any comment or criticism for the next 10 years. Their whole record shows that they are industries which are in special need of comment and criticism, because their record is not a good one. It has not carried out the anticipations which the House formed when it originally gave them this protection 15 years ago. These key industry duties were first carried in 1929 and they were given protection for five years only, because it was believed that at the end of that time they would have shown themselves so competent to stand on their own feet that no further protection would be needed. I can quote the words of the present Prime Minister on that presumption. He said: I myself stand by the five years which we have thought fit for this purpose. The five years passed, and brought us to 1926, when the industries still claimed that they could not stand on their own feet and must have further protection for another 10 years. When that was given to them, the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade remarked: They are now on such a healthy basis that they can altogether dispense with this hot-air treatment. Another 10 years has gone by, and again it is proposed to extend the protection for 10 further years by this system which is peculiar to the industries themselves. The whole of this record shows that these are not industries which ought to be left entirely free from, at any rate, that amount of supervision which the Import Duties Advisory Committee exercises over all the other protected industries of the country. The original Committee on whose recommendations the Bill was based in 1921 definitely reported that if it was found that these industries could not stand on their own feet as a result of Protection, a suggestion which ought to be taken into account was that these industries should be subject to State control.

The Government have not given 10 seconds' consideration to that proposal, and indeed their political position would prevent it. They are now asking us to set up a series of industries which have shown themselves to be stagnant and unprogressive, and which, behind this special shelter, will be able to continue, quietly and cosily, making easy money without any comment or criticism until the year 1946. Not only shall we oppose the Clause, but I would observe that, though this Clause may be passed for 10 years, no Parliament can bind future Parliaments, and, on behalf of those with whom I act, I distinctly state that whatever may be the fate of this particular Bill, it will not preclude us, if the opportunity comes our way, and if we think it right, from taking everything connected with these industries into account in considering what will be the best for national interest and national safety.

6.4 p.m.


Every Member of the Committee will have read last week with great interest the announcement of the large number of men who have been got back into employment, in addition to the various numbers who have returned to work during the past few years. One reason why so many men are getting back to employment is because the leaders of industry in this country have a feeling of security with regard to the future, as the result of the last General Election in November, when business men realised that at least for four years we were going to have a stable and a sane Government. In addition, the Safeguarding of Industries Act has contributed very greatly to the number of men who have got back to employment. If we were to leave this Act in the air, only to be continued one year at a time, many leaders of industry would hesitate to develop their present businesses or to start new businesses. It is necessary to give that sense of security to the business leaders of the country, and this will be done if they are informed that the Safeguarding of Industries Act is to be continued for another 10 years. Coupled with the fact that we have now a stable and a sane Government for at least four years, the business leaders of the country will have that sense of security which will enable them to extend their businesses and to start new ones, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will resist the Amendment.

6.7 p.m.


I rise to support the Amendment, and although I have very little to add to what my right hon. Friend has said, I would emphasise to the Committee that before we give this 10 years of safeguarding to these industries, it is necessary for some inquiry to take place in order to investigate some of the statements made not only by my right hon. Friend, but in certain other quarters. I can understand that, if this country were in a state of national emergency, as it was from 1914 to 1918, it would be necessary to protect certain of our industries required for national purposes. I suggest that the method which has been adopted from 1921 onwards for protecting some of these industries is not the right way to do it. If the necessity should arise again, as it might, those industries ought not to be carried on in the same hands and in the same way as they are at the moment.


I gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate that the discussion on the Amendment was rather wide in its application. We must either keep it strictly to the term of years or have a general discussion on the principle of the Clause. I am in the hands of the Committee as to which hon. Members would find more convenient.


I think that it would be more convenient to discuss the general principle on this Amendment. I assume that it will not preclude us from dealing in particular with our Amendments regarding wireless valves and so on.


Most certainly not; only I do not want to have the arguments repeated on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I only wanted to make it clear.


My arguments are addressed really to the subject-matter of the Amendment. Before we give another 10 years' period of safeguarding to these industries, there ought to be adequate inquiry into the whole matter.

6.9 p.m.


The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said with justice that, before a proposal was put before the Committee that the safeguarding duties should be extended for a period of 10 years, there ought to be a full inquiry into the whole matter, and particularly into the different industries which come within the Schedule—for instance, into such matters as whether, sheltering behind Protection, these industries have inflated their prices; whether consumers have had any justifiable complaints; and whether there have been any proper research and improvements in matters of production? It is precisely because there has been that inquiry, and because all those questions have been answered by the report of a committee appointed by the Board of Trade—it is in Cmd. Paper 5157—that this Clause is introduced into this year's Finance Bill.


When was the report published?


In April, 1936. The report, which is an extremely interesting document and ought to command the attention of every Member of this Committee, deals precisely with the very matters which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw very properly has in mind. The committee found, after taking elaborate evidence of manufacturers, consumers, and defence services, that we are dealing here with a group of industries, special in themselves, of essential importance to the country, that they are industries in which skilled labour is short and in which it takes many years to develop research. They found, speaking generally, that adequate research has been made, that continued research is being maintained and that prices have not been inflated. These are, in effect, quotations from the committee's report. The whole effect of Clause 5 of the Bill is to give in legislative form the conclusions of this committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade for the express purpose of making the investigation referred to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said that in 1921 these duties were introduced. The problem was examined by the Committee of Commercial and Industrial Policy after the War. Learning from the result of a period of emergency of the gaps in our industrial manufacture, the committee was appointed to indicate what should be done. Among the conclusions to which the committee then came, was the following important one: Industries which have already been described as key or pivotal should be maintained in the country at all hazards and at any expense. No ordinary economic rules apply to the situation of these minor, but important industries, they must be kept alive either by loans, by subsidy, by tariff, by Government contracts, or, in the last event by Government manufacture. They will necessarily be subject to Government supervision. That was the position in 1921. In 1926 the question of continuation came before a Departmental Committee. A review was undertaken, and another review has now been undertaken because of the expiration of the 10 years from the period recommended in 1926. On 19th August this year these duties would expire, and these industries, built up for the nation's benefit in the way I have would indicated, be unprotected by the Key Industry Duties if we had no further legislation. The legislation proposed by the Government is to implement the report of a full, thorough and adequate investigation into the whole of the circumstances. That committee, which was presided over by a Member of this House, and included Sir Harold Hartley, Mr. Benton Jones and Sir Allan Powell, was a very representative committee. The Government can do no other, in their opinion, than implement the conclusions to which the committee had come. This particular Amendment, which seeks to reduce the period of 10 years to one year, would go contrary to the whole basis of the committee's report. The committee reported expressly that these are industries which ought to be put outside the category altogether of industries to which there is a possibility of an alteration of the rate of duty. They are industries which are of essential national importance and in which it is more important to concentrate upon research regardless of the economic return.

By giving a 10-year extension the object is to enable those in charge of the industries, the chemical, optical or whatever the industry may be, to lay down a long-term policy of research, to incur expenditure on plant and to engage and train suitable skilled labour. The whole of these improvements would be jeopardised by the shortening of the 10-year period to one year. None of that research would be embarked upon with anything like the same degree of security, capital would not be made available and labour could not be trained. To cut down the period to one year would defeat the committee's recommendation. With that explanation, I hope that we may be allowed to proceed to deal with the other detailed points of subsequent Amendments. To accept the present Amendment would be to go in the teeth of the recommendation of the committee which was appointed expressly to consider this one point.

6.16 p.m.


Before the Minister parts from the subject, I would ask him whether he can give the Committee an assurance on one point? He has based most of his speech upon the report of the Committee apponted by his own Department. He will be aware that in some particulars, especially on the question of research, that Committee pointed out that there is a lack of co-operation in research among these particular industries. Paragraph 11 says: In no industries are research and development of more vital importance than in those upon which the country is specially dependent for its defence; we have, consequently, paid particular attention to this part of the problem. Later, they say: We have noted that in some industries there is a lack of co-ordination in research among the producing units and it appears to us that if there was closer co-operation between them in this respect, the money devoted to research could be spent more effectively by planning the work on a more comprehensive basis and making the results more widely applicable. I should like an assurance that some notice is going to be paid by these industries to these criticisms. There is no evidence that these criticisms have been taken notice of, and when we have passed this Clause we part with it until 1946. In paragraph 17, the report refers to salesmanship, and says: It is only fair to state that some of our witnesses did not altogether appreciate that their salesmanship lacked both method and intensity. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the attention of these industries has been or will be called to these remarks, and that he will get their observations and their guarantees that they will meet these criticisms, on the basis of which this Clause is now being passed.

6.19 p.m.


I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling attention to the paragraphs to which he has alluded. I had, not unnaturally, anticipated that he would probably desire to deal with this side of the matter, and in preparing myself for to-day's Debate I have investigated this matter, and am glad to be able to tell the Committee that, broadly speaking, the research has been found to be satisfactory. In some of the smaller industries the amount set aside for research was not up to expectation and was not spent perhaps to the greatest advantage. There was lack of co-operation. It has been found that the smaller industries where that criticism applies are precisely the industries where the Defence Departments are most likely to have some measure of suggestive influence: some measure of control. It is precisely in some of these smaller firms, spread over rather wide classes of industry, where it is possible for the Defence Departments to have a much closer contact, and by that closer contact to encourage a better expenditure of the money for research. The attention of these departments has been called by the Board of Trade to this matter and any possible steps that can be taken to stimulate informal co-operation in the research departments of the particular industries to which the paragraphs quoted refer, will be taken. The matter has already been dealt with Departmentally. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will accept my assurance that that side of the matter has already been dealt with by the Department.

6.21 p.m.


I am afraid that the speech of the Minister is not such as will persuade me of the virtue of giving ten years further protection to these industries. He was compelled to admit, when my right hon. Friend called attention to it, that the report of the committee appointed by his own Department states that a good deal of disorganisation and lack of co-ordination exist in research, and he has admitted that the particular industries affected by the lack of research are those industries which are most primarily concerned with defence organisation.


indicated dissent.


The hon. Member said that, quite definitely. That may not be what he meant to say, but it is certainly and definitely what he said. His words were, that it was perfectly true—he himself had examined the matter—that in certain small industries there was lack of co-ordination in research and that those industries were particularly connected with the defence industries.


I said they are particular industries in which the Defence Departments can have an influence and can have some measure of supervision. I do not want the hon. Member to misquote me by suggesting that they are the principal industries which are of importance to national defence. That is twisting the argument in exactly the opposite way. These are industries, scattered industries, in which the Defence Departments will be able to exercise an influence.


I was not trying to twist the hon. Member's words. I was pointing out that in certain industries which are intimately connected with defence—he will not deny that—although they have already had 15 years of protection, disorganisation still continues. When these particular duties were first introduced a special protective period was given in which it was thought that they would be able to establish themselves and institute a long-term policy of research, but in those industries in direct contact with the defence services that has failed to be done. What the condition is in other industries I do not know.

The Minister drew a pessimistic picture of what would happen if these industries were given the normal annual protection that other industries have. He said that it would be impossible to arrange programmes of research, that capital would not be available for development and that labour could not be trained. What about the industries that have not 10 years protection? Is there no research in those industries? Is labour not trained and is capital not available in those industries? Is there something particular which makes the wireless valve industries incapable of training this labour, incapable of obtaining capital and incapable of organising research in the same way that any other industry which has not a 10 years protection can do? If there is, if the people in charge of those industries are so much less capable than the people in industries which have only an annual protection, then sooner or later, and the sooner the better, the method of nationalisation of the industry should be adopted. We shall vote against this extension to 10 years and in favour of our Amendment. We had hoped that the Government would accept our Amendment, but the statement of the Minister on this Clause and the earlier statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that protection for protection's sake is the policy of the Government, makes us realise that we shall get nothing from the Government except the pleasure of voting against them.

6.26 p.m.


The Opposition must be in profound difficulty when their only attack on this Clause is based on quotations which have been made, I will not say maliciously, but incompletely from the report of the committee. The committee in their report did indicate the possibility of some improvement in research. They said: We are satisfied, with some minor exceptions, that research is being continuously undertaken, and that large sums of money are being annually expended for the purpose. That is their main comment. No attention has been drawn to that statement by the Opposition. The report goes on to say: We have noted, however, that in some industries there is a lack of co-ordination in research among the producing units and it appears to us that if there was closer co-operation between them in this respect the money devoted to research could be spent more effectively, etc. They have drawn attention to the minor cases. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) argues that those cases were in particular those concerned with the Defence Departments.


I was merely quoting the Minister.


Why not read the document? It is in the Vote Office. I asked a few minutes ago that they should obtain a supply of the report, because it would appear that some hon. Members need education. The committee's reference to defence is this, that where the minor exceptions happened to be in industries where the Defence Departments were concerned there was an easy solution of the problem, because the Defence Departments as purchasers of these goods were in the obvious position of being able to bring about necessary co-ordination. It was not in the slightest degree a suggestion that the lack of co-ordination was in particular among those concerns supplying goods to the Defence Departments. Therefore, it might have been just as well to have read the document before making a speech on it. The report also says: Taking the key industries as a whole, we are definitely of opinion that the protection afforded to them has encouraged research and fostered development to an extent that would not otherwise have been possible. That statement might have been quoted, but it was not quoted. Instead, a sentence torn from its context is taken from one paragraph and upon that is based a charge against these duties and the suggestion that they should be voted against. These duties had their origin in the mind of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). It was very largely his experience at the Ministry of Munitions that led to the introduction of these deliberate protective duties, and they were made Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The McKenna Duties were an application of protection during the War and were allowed to go on afterwards. These were the first deliberate protective duties and the list of goods then drawn up was the result of the experience of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when he was at the Ministry of Munitions and later at the War Office.

What has been the result? Have these goods become dearer as the result of this protection, or cheaper? Anyone who has read the report of 1926 of the committee presided over by Sir Burton Chadwick will remember that the general body of evidence was in regard to the remarkable cheapening of those products which we were producing, cheaper than when we were compelled to import them. In the meantime prices have fallen still further. We are buying things at less than prewar prices, and are liberating ourselves from the position which the War suddenly revealed that we were not producing many of these things at all. In regard to some of them the Departments I believe were engaged in smuggling them from Germany through Holland during the War, although I am unable to prove that statement. Surely, it is folly to suggest that these duties should not be continued. The right hon. Gentleman said that if we pass them we lose control for 10 years. That is not correct. One Parliament cannot bind a subsequent Parliament. Ten years is a declaration of intention, and when Parliament does that no succeeding Parliament lightly upsets it but, nevertheless, constitutionally Parliament does not lose control. If it were found, in the case of any particular commodity, that the producers were exploiting the community a Clause could be put into the Finance Bill modifying the duties, although Parliament would be reluctant to do so. It is not a contract; it is a unilateral intention of Parliament which any subsequent Parliament can vary, although I admit that Parliament would be reluctant to take such action.

Then with regard to research. What is research? It is one of those words which people use when they cannot think of anything else. In some factories you will find no research room at all; the drawing office is practically the research department, working in conjunction with the foundry and engineering works and with the management and productive departments. Their whole work is research; it is part of the general job. People with no scientific knowledge think of research as something separate and apart. It is going on continuously in every firm. We are always producing new designs and new models. Anyone with a knowledge of the engineering world knows that research is continuous. There are many kinds of research. There is the purely abstract form of research in the universities, which some people are perfectly satisfied is of no use to anyone except as pure intellectual curiosity. But sometimes abstract research leads to more practical branches of research, and when you get into the workshops it very often happens that you get people who are following the developments which are taking place in the scientific world and who apply the results without themselves carrying out any research. I hope that people without any scientific knowledge will cease to think that by saying "scientific research" over and over again it solves some political issue.

6.35 p.m.


It may be that some hon. Members have been able to follow the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), but I confess that I have not been able to do so. The last part of his speech was in flagrant contradiction to the middle part, where he poured scorn on what he called "abstract research." In the latter part of his speech he paid a high tribute to the abstract research which was being carried on. If the hon. Member for South Croydon had informed himself a little more he would have found that many of our industries, aviation in particular, have benefited enormously from research not carried out by industries producing aircraft but by Government research departments, while there are some which entirely owe their success to laboratory experiments carried on in the universities. The whole development of wireless is due to what the hon. Member calls "abstract research," from which the practical man is divorced. The hon. Member who talks so arrogantly of hon. Members speaking without any knowledge of scientific developments showed himself also woefully ignorant on the matter. If the hon. Member's ignorance is in proportion to his arrogance, he should be one of the most useful Members of the House. The hon. Member quoted a catalogue as a description, gave figures without any intelligibility and a large number of facts without any insight. Really the hon. Member ought to intervene after having informed himself not only about the facts but about the principles underlying the facts. He quoted from the report of the committee and suggested that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) had misrepresented the position when he said that the lack of development was to be found in those industries immediately connected with the Defence Services. I will read a sentence which the hon. Member for South Croydon omitted to read: In particular we feel"—


Read the previous sentence.


I will read the whole: We have noted, however, that in some industries there is a lack of co-ordination in research among the producing units and it appears to us that if there were closer co-operation between them in this respect, the money devoted to research could be spent more effectively by planning the work on a more comprehensive basis and making the results more widely applicable. In particular we feel that where firms are of necessity brought into close contact with the Defence Departments it should not be difficult to ensure better co-ordination. In other words, Defence, which is supposed to be the particular pre-occupation of the Government at the moment, is presumably suffering because co-ordination is not as good as it should be. Does the hon. Member for South Croydon accept that interpretation?


The point at issue is this. The hon. Member for Chesterfield said that the difficulty had occurred in particular with the Defence Departments. The words "in particular" here do not imply that. They imply that there is an easy method of conciliation in those cases where the Defence Departments are concerned.


Hon. Members who can approach this piece of English language without the prejudices of the hon. Member for South Croydon will realise that the inference is clear. They say: In particular we feel that where firms are of necessity brought into close contact with the Defence Departments it should not be difficult to ensure better co-ordination. It is associated with the Defence Departments.




I will read it again: In particular we feel that where firms are of necessity brought into close contact with the Defence Departments it should not be difficult to ensure better co-ordination. Co-ordination of what? Co-ordination in research, in the spending of the money provided for research. There is a clear inference which should be obvious to hon. Members who regard themselves as the appointed custodians of national defence. The answer is that if we do not give these industries the guarantee of protection over long periods of years, they will not be able to spend money in capital development. That argument did not appeal to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in respect of an industry where millions of pounds of capital have to be spent—the steel industry. They specifically limited the first protection of the steel industry in, order to bring about an improvement in the industry. Does the hon. Member for South Croydon deny that?


I do not deny it, but the committee realised the blunder they had made because they abandoned the proposal.


They did it a second time, and it was only after the committee itself had appointed a committee and had made concrete proposals to the President of the Board of Trade and given what we considered to be inadequate guarantees in the matter, that the tariff was made permanent. On two occasions the committee limited the period of the tariff in the case of an, industry where millions of pounds have to be spent, because the Government felt it was necessary to keep a whip over the industry in order to guarantee that protection would not result in inefficiency and in the maintenance of obsolescent plant. We have had disclosures in the last two months as to the incompetence and frivolity with which the Government have regarded the Defence Services. A statement was made the other day by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence on behalf of a Government which is supposed to be the special custodians of national defence, and much more competent to deal with the question than we on this side of the Committee. We were informed that if we were landed in hostilities we could not make sufficient shells. Therefore, hon. Members opposite cannot expect us to listen with complacency to them when they say that everything in the garden is lovely. As we are now overhauling our Defence Services, I submit that it is a good piece of business to say that we do not propose to continue this protection for more than a year, that we propose to examine what they are prepared to do to put themselves right and to answer the criticisms which have been made, and that if they do put themselves right we will consider continuing the preference but not for 10 years, because that sense of security has in the past proved inadequate to spur them to their best efforts. If you are going to operate a tariff intelligently that is what you would do. The Committee will be well advised to ask the Government to reconsider this matter and bring in a new Clause limiting the period.

I remember listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the tariffs were introduced in 1931. The Chancellor said that the Government regarded all those matters as experimental. They would take the line that in no circumstances would they permit inefficiency to grow up behind protection. They would not permit in any way the consumers of products to be mulcted by the producers of goods. They regarded the whole matter not from a doctrinaire angle but empirically, judging each case on its merits. It is not possible to do that if protection is to be handed out in slabs 10 years at a time. It can be done empirically only if there are short periods of protection and a reexamination at frequent intervals. I submit that the Government in this matter have not made out a case which ought to satisfy the Committee.

The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) amazed me when he said we ought to continue these preferences for 10 years because the unemployment figures are falling. I suppose the hon. Members meant that protection for these industries is to have the credit for some of the rise in employment, but, I would point out that they were protected in 1931 when we had 3,000,000 of unemployed. The hon. Member did not make out his case that this tariff, which has been in existence for 15 years with varying fortunes, with unemployment up to 3,000,000 and then falling to 1,700,000 is responsible for the rise in employment. Of course, that is entirely irrelevant, as the hon. Member ought to realise. We are not now dealing with the question of tariffs in particular, but with the wisdom of the Government in handing out protection for a period of 10 years.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 136.

Division No. 216.] AYES. [6.46 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Erskine Hill, A. G. Nail, Sir J.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Flldes, Sir H. Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P G. Fox, Sir G. W. G. O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Albery, I. J. Furness, S. N. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Ganzoni, Sir J. Palmer, G. E. H.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Penny, Sir G.
Apsley, Lord Gledhill, G. Petherick, M.
Aske, Sir R. W. Gluckstein, L. H. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Radford, E. A.
Atholl, Duchess of Goodman, Col. A. W. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Gower, Sir R. V. Ramsden, Sir E.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Gridley, Sir A. B. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Grimston. R. V. Rayner, Major R. H.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Blair, Sir R. Guinness, T. L. E. B. Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Blindell, Sir J. Guy, J. C. M. Remer, J. R.
Boothby, R. J. G. Hannah, I. C. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Bossom, A. C. Harbord, A. Ropner, Colonel L.
Boulton, W. W. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Bras, Sir W. Holmes, J. S. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Salmon, Sir I.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hopkinson, A. Salt, E. W.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Horsbrugh, Florence Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Bullock, Capt. M. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Selley, H. R.
Burghley, Lord Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Shakespeare, G. H.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Burton, Col. H. W. Hulbert, N. J. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hume, Sir G. H. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Cartland, J. R. H. Hunter, T. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J
Cary, R. A. Jackson, Sir H. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Cautley, Sir H. S. Jarvis, Sir J. J. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Smithers, Sir W.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Somerset, T.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Lamb, Sir J. O Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Channon, H. Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. Spens, W. P.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Latham, Sir P. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'i'd)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Chorlton, A. E. L. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Storey, S.
Christle, J. A. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Colfox. Major W. P. Levy, T. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P. Lewis, O. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Lindsay, K. M. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Lloyd, G. W. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Loftus, P. C. Sutcliffe, H.
Craddock, Sir R. H. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Craven-Ellis, W. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Crossley, A. C. McCorquodale, M. S. Titchfield, Marquess of
Cruddas, Col. B. MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) Touche, G. C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Train, Sir J.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) McKie, J. H. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Dawson, Sir p. Maitland, A. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
De Chair, S. S. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Turton, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Markham, S. F. Wallace, Captain Euan
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Drewe, C. Maxwell, S. A. Warrender, Sir V.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Dugdale, Major T. L. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Wells, S. R.
Duncan, J. A. L. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Dunglass, Lord Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Dunne, P. R. R. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sh- A. T. (Hitchin)
Eales, J. F. Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Eastwood, J. F. Moreing, A. C. Withers, Sir J. J.
Eckersley, P. T. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Entwistle, C. F. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Errington, E. Munro, P. Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
and Dr. Morris-Jones.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Ammon, C. G.
Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple) Adamson, W. M. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Adams, D. (Consett) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Banfield, J. W. Hopkin, D. Pritt, D. N.
Barnes, A. J. Jagger, J. Riley, B.
Barr, J. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Ritson, J.
Bellenger, F. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Benson, G. John, W. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Bevan, A. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Rothschild, J. A. de
Bromfield, W. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Rowson, G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth) Salter, Dr. A.
Buchanan, G. Jones, J. J. (Silvertown) Seely, Sir H. M.
Burke, W. A. Kelly, W. T. Sexton, T. M.
Cape, T. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Shinwell, E.
Chater, D. Kirkwood, D. Short, A.
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Silkin, L.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lathan, G. Silverman, S. S.
Compton. J. Lawson, J. J. Simpson, F. B.
Cove, W. G. Leonard, W. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leslie, J. R. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Daggar, G. Logan, D. G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lunn, W. Smith, Rt. Hon. H B. Lees- (K'ly)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Smith, T. (Normanton)
Day, H. McEntee, V. La T. Sorensen, R. W.
Dobbie, W. McGhee, H. G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) McGovern, J. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) MacLaren, A. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Maclean, N. Thorne, W.
Gallacher, W. MacNeill, Weir, L. Thurtle, E.
Gardner, B. W. Mainwaring, W. H. Tinker, J. J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Marklew, E. Vlant. S. P.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Marshall, F. Walkden. A. G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Maxton, J. Walker, J.
Grenfell, D. R. Messer, F. Watkins, F. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Milner. Major J. Watson, W. McL.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Montague, F. Westwood, J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) White, H. Graham
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Whiteley, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Oliver, G. H. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Hardie, G. D. Owen. Major G. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Harris, Sir P. A. Paling, W. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Parker, J. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Parkinson, J. A. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Pethick- Lawrence, F. W. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Hills, A. (Pontefract) Potts, J.
Holland, A. Price, M. P. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

6.57 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, at the end, to insert: not being activated and decolourising carbons, not of animal origin, in granular form. The object of this Amendment is to exclude from the operation of the Bill all powdered carbons. The users of the various types of powdered carbons were surprised to find that these products, which are of great importance in the fat-refining industry, the sugar-refining industry and other industries where liquids have to be decolourised, were included in this Bill among the products which are to be covered by the new duties. Their inclusion was not recommended by the Board of Trade Committee, and the users were not consulted, nor had the representations which they made either to the Treasury or to the Board of Trade any further acknowledgment than a mere message to the effect that their communications had been received. I think it is very unfortunate that no opportunity was given to the representatives of the industries concerned to state their case and their reasons why these products should not be included. If a case could be made out for the inclusion of any of these products, it would be for those used in the manufacture of gas-masks, but there is no reason that I can discover why the other products should be included. It may be indicated that there may be some administrative reason why they should be included, but if that is the only argument I would point out that administration exists for the benefit of industry, and that an industry is not there merely for the purpose of administration. It might be possible for the manufacturers to make application for the total exemption of these products from the duty, but it would be far better if they had not been included, or, if they had to be included, that the ordinary procedure of the Import Duties Advisory Committee should have been followed. That committee is charged with the impartial duty of taking a wide view in the national interest. It is possible to conceive a case in which the national interest would not be served by the complete exemption of these products but rather by a moderate duty. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment.

7.2 p.m.


Carbon is a very common substance. It can be of animal or vegetable origin. The first point I wish to make is that carbon of animal origin is excluded from this Clause. Vegetable matter from which other substances are given off by heat will result in a residue of carbon being left. The carbons referred to in this Clause are of two kinds —activated carbon and decolorising carbon. For the purposes of the Committee I will inform them at once that activated carbon is a carbon substance where the porosity is increased in order that the maximum surface of carbon may be available. Activated carbon is used for taking out of a gaseous vapour the obnoxious part. Carbon which is treated in this way, either by having an energiser chemical added or by some other means to increase the surface in contact with which gas may come, is an activated carbon. A decolorising carbon is simply a filter. Granules of this carbon or the carbon in a block are inserted into a liquid and have the effect of taking out of the liquid every vestige of colour.

If the hon. Member will make inquiries he will find that the carbon used in the decolorising of sugar is of animal origin, and so is outside this Clause. The Committee is being asked to exclude from the recommendations of the committee carbon in granular form. The committee appointed by the Board of Trade recommended that there should be added to the list of trades coming under safeguarding the trades in the substances known as activated and de-colorising carbons. Why? Because at the moment in which there is a discussion of attack from the air gas masks are of primary importance. Carbon used for gas masks is an activated charcoal substance similar to that which I have here. As the hon. Member says, there is no substance for which a stronger case could be made out for the maintenance of a safeguarding duty than a substance connected with gas masks. Here is the substance—activated carbon in granular form such as would be used in gas masks.


If the hon. Gentleman is contending that these carbons will be used in gas masks, we are at cross purposes. In this Amendment we have no wish to exclude that, nor have those for whom I am speaking. There is a mis- understanding somewhere, and I should like to have it put right.


I am endeavouring to introduce my speech of resistance to the Amendment by a discussion on carbon generally, and I am pointing out that respirator charcoal for gas masks is, as a rule, in granular form. The purpose of the Amendment is to leave out from the operation of the safeguarding duty all carbon in granular form not of animal origin. The Key Industries Committee foresaw that it might be impossible to administer a key industry duty on granular activated carbon alone, and they indicated that it might be necessary to include granular decolorising carbon within the key industries duty as well, for the two kinds of carbon are difficult to distinguish. Owing to the difficulty of deciding where the granular form ceases and the powdered form begins it is desirable from the point of view of the Customs to include the powdered as well as the granular. Powdered activated carbon is produced along with the granular in crushing the lumps or pieces of carbon from the retorts where it is made. If the higher duty were imposed only on the granular above a certain specified size, and not on the powdered, that granular form might find itself insufficiently protected. The manufacture of activated and decolorising carbons is economically interwoven. That is an additional reason for treating the activated and decolorising carbons in the same way. So far as the lump form is concerned, it clearly would be undesirable that continental manufacture should be in a position to send activated carbon in lump form to this country merely to be ground up into granular for the manufacture of gas masks. It is absolutely essential that the manufacture of these carbons in all their stages and in all their forms should be made in this country, and the key industries duty imposed on the lump material as well as on the granular, on the granular as well as on the powdered, and on the powdered as on the lump. With that clear explanation the hon. Member may wish to withdraw his Amendment.

7.12 p.m.


It is incumbent on me to express the gratitude of the Committee to the Parliamentary Secretary for his lucid explanation of this very difficult subject. At the beginning of this discussion I had no idea what this Amendment was about, and until the Parliamentary Secretary produced that bottle I did not know what the substance was that we were discussing. If this substance is an important part of gas masks it should not be dealt with in the manner suggested to-night. It is so important a part of our national defence that it should not be in private manufacture.


Whether this Amendment is carried or not could not possibly affect that position.


That is another illustration of my ignorance of the subject. I hope the hon. Member will not press this to a Division now that we have had the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary; otherwise I should not know into which Lobby I ought to go.

7.14 p.m.


My hon. Friend is still rather confused in spite of the scientific lecture of the Parliamentary Secretary. It shows the danger of the House of Commons trying to interfere with the ordinary channels of trade. We are agreed on the necessity of carbon for gas masks. It is one of the tragedies of the present age that we should have to make provision for emergencies and aerial warfare and the protection of the civil population. The point my hon. Friend is pressing is that in order to achieve that desirable end we should not needlessly interfere with commodities essential to industry. I understand that this decolourising carbon is not essential for industrial purposes and the only reason why it should be included is the convenience of the Customs officials. I am anxious to study the interests of the Customs officials and to make their difficult and responsible work as light as possible, but when we consider the ramifications of industry and how important it is, in an experiment of this kind, to interfere as little as possible with industry, it seems a very weak case to put up in

favour of including this category of carbon. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the administration ought to be not the master but the servant of industry and I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to snake this small concession at the request of a considerable industry which will, we are informed, be inconvenienced and handicapped—


Would the hon. Member be good enough to indicate which industry it is?


There are sugar decolourisation, glucose decolourisation and other processes concerned and my hon. Friend would, I am sure, be willing to give full information on that matter. The hon. Gentleman's Department has already been approached by the industries concerned, but unfortunately owing to pressure of business or perhaps owing to the intervention of the Whitsuntide Recess, instead of receiving the usual courtesy and consideration all they received was a formal reply. Before the Department makes a final decision, I think the hon. Gentleman ought to undertake at any rate to receive representations as to why this kind of carbon should be excluded. It is well to remind this Committee and the Board of Trade that when this elaborate machinery was set up by Parliament, industries were given the right to go to a tribunal set up by Parliament but in the present case that right is excluded. Instead of being introduced through the ordinary channels this taxation is brought within the purview of the key industries legislation although it is admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary that the article concerned does no properly come within the four corners of that legislation. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be willing to make a concession in this respect.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 214.

Division No. 217.] AYES. [7.20 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Barnes, A. J. Cape, T.
Adams, D. (Consett) Barr, J. Chater, D.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Bellenger, F. Cluse, W. S.
Adamson, W. M. Benson, G. Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Bevan, A. Cocks, F. S.
Ammon, C. G. Broad, F. A. Compton, J.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Bromfield, W. Cove, W. G.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Banfield, J. W. Burke, W. A. Daggar, G.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Kirby, B. V. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Kirkwood, D. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Rowson, G.
Day, H. Lathan, G. Salter, Dr. A.
Dobbie, W. Lawson, J. J. Sexton, T. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Leonard, W. Shinwell, E.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Leslie, J. R. Short, A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Logan, D. G. Silkin, L.
Gallacher, W. Lunn, W. Silverman, S. S.
Gardner, B. W. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Simpson, F. B.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) McEntee, V. La T. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) McGhee, H. G. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Grenfell, D. R. MacLaren, A. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Maclean, N. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) MacNeill, Weir, L. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Mainwaring, W. H, Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth. N.)
Groves, T. E. Marklew, E. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Marshall, F. Thorne, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Mathers, G. Thurtle, E.
Hardie, G. D. Maxton, J. Tinker, J. J.
Harris, Sir P. A. Messer, F. Vlant, S. P.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Milner, Major J. Walkden, A. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Montague, F, Walker, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Watkins, F. C.
Hills, A. (Pontefract) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Watson, W. McL.
Holland, A. Oliver, G. H. Westwood, J.
Hopkin, D, Owen, Major G. White, H. Graham
Jagger, J. Paling, W. Whiteley, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Parker, J. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Parkinson, J. A. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
John, W. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Potts, J. Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Price, M. P. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Pritt, D. N. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown) Quibell, D. J. K.
Kelly, W. T. Riley, B. TELLERS FOR THE AYES —
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Ritson, J. Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Acland
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Craven-Ellis, W. Hopkinson, A.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds. W.) Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Howitt. Dr. A. B.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Albery, I. J. Crossley, A. C. Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Cruddas, Col. B. Hume, Sir G. H.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Hunter, T.
Aske, Sir R. W. Dawson, Sir P. Jackson. Sir H.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) De Chair, S. S. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Atholl, Duchess of Denman, Hon. R. D. Jones. L. (Swansea, W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Drewe, C. Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Lamb, Sir,' J. Q.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Dugdale, Major T. L. Lambert. Rt. Hon. G.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Duncan, J. A. L. Latham. Sir P.
Blair, Sir R. Dunglass, Lord Law. Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Blaker, Sir R. Eales, J. F. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Blindell, Sir J. Emmott, C. E. G. C. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Boulton, W. W. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Levy, T.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Entwistle, C. F. Lewis, O.
Boyce, H. Leslie Errington, E. Lindsay, K. M.
Brass, Sir W. Erskine Hill, A. G. Liewellin, Lieut.-Co J. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Fildes, Sir H. Lloyd, G. W.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Findlay, Sir E. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Browne. A. C. (Belfast, W.) Fox, Sir G. W. G. Loftus, P. C.
Burghley, Lord Furness, S. N. Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Ganzoni, Sir J. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Burton, Col. H. W. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Gledhill. G. McCorquodale, M. S.
Cartland, J. R. H. Gluckstein. L. H. MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Cary, R. A. Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C. Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Goodman, Col. A. W. McKie, J. H.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Gower. Sir R. V. Maitland, A.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Channon, H. Gridley. Sir A. B. Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Grimston, R. V. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Chorlton, A. E. L. Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.) Markham, S. F.
Christie, J. A. Guy, J. C. M. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Colfox, Major W. P. Hannah, I. C. Maxwell, S. A.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Mayhew. Lt.-Col. J.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk. N.) Harbord, A. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Haslam. H. C. (Horncastle) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Mills, Sir F. (Leyton. E.)
Courthope, Col. Sir G, L. Holmes, J. S. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Craddock, Sir R. H. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Moreing, A. C.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Rowlands, G. Strickland. Captain W. F.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H, Runciman, Rt. Hon. W. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) Sutcliffe, H.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Tasker, Sir R. I.
Munro, P. Salmon. Sir I. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H. Salt, E. W. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham) Touche, G. C,
O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Selley, H. R. Train, Sir J.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Shakespeare, G. H. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Shaw, Major p. S. (Wavertree) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Penny, Sir G. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Petherick, M. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Warrender, Sir V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Smithers, Sir W. Wells, S. R.
Radford E. A. Somerset T. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Ralkes, H. V. A. M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Ramsden, Sir E. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H. Withers, Sir J. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper Spens, W. P. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Rayner, Major R. H. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Wragg, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Remer, J. R. Storey, S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. Mr. James Stuart and Captain
Ropner, Colonel L. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) Waterhouse.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

7.30 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out paragraph (c).

The object of the Safeguarding of Industries Act was primarily to see that adequate supplies of particular articles were made in this country. Its object was not to give a practical monopoly to a small group of manufacturers, closely linked together in a ring, in an industry which is growing and expanding, but that is what paragraph (c) attempts to do. There might have been some argument 10 or 15 years ago in favour of including parts of wireless valves in the Schedule to the Act, but circumstances have no entirely changed and there is no justification whatever to-day for including those articles in the Schedule, or even for retaining wireless valves in it.

What are the changed conditions? I ask the Committee to consider the market which the valves manufacturer had when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was passed. The vast majority of wireless valves were then sold to the home constructor, to the man who made his own wireless set. In those days wireless sets, for the most part, were built out of component parts, which were bought separately. Except as components of the set, they had little or no relationship one with the other. One part was bought from one manufacturer and another part from another and, as far as the valves were concerned, it did not matter whether you bought British or foreign valves—they were both bad.

That was the condition of the market when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was passed and applied to valves. In those days the cheap foreign valve was a temptation. High tension was not quite as well disciplined as it is now. When the home constructor, who was the main purchaser of wireless valves, could go and pick a foreign valve or an English valve, according to his purse or his taste, there might have been some argument for the protection of the English valve manufacturer, but circumstances have changed entirely, and two very important factors have entered in. First of all, there is the development of the wireless set itself. In the old days one used to spend laborious nights trying to get America on one valve. Nowadays the wireless receiving set is so complicated that it is practically outside the scope of the ordinary home constructor, who used to be the main purchaser of valves. The development of the all-mains superheterodyne has made home construction an impossibility.

Another factor is that the manufacturers of wireless sets, who are mainly valve manufacturers also, have introduced mass production into their set manufacture, and you can to-day purchase the wireless set complete, in a handsome mahogany case or whatever case you may choose, at about half the price at which you can buy the individual components of the set. The result is that the majority of sets now are sold complete with valves, and there are only about half-a-dozen different important manufacturers. The result is that the manufacturer of valves, who is very largely also the set manufacturer, has practically a monopoly of the market to-day. Because of the development which I have outlined, he does not require protection for his valves, because, selling the set, he sells the valves, and so he has a guaranteed market.

A little earlier in the evening the Minister stated that there had been no undue prices charged. I do not think that that applies to wireless valves. It is true that the price of valves has gone down. For instance, to compare one type of valve with a similar, though not quite identical, type, the old B.T.H. B4, for which you paid 22s. 6d., with a modern super-power valve, you pay 15s. to 17s. 6d. That is roughly the price that you pay for an English valve, but that is wildly above the cost of manufacture. There is a very close monopoly. The Valve Manufacturers' Association controls prices. They are so closely linked up that there is practically no competition now, except in advertisement. There is an interchange of inventions. You can buy a particular valve or a particular set, and it does not matter to which valve manufacturer you go, it is an identical valve so far as characteristics are concerned. There is no competition now between the small, close ring of valve manufacturers in this country, except a competition of advertisements, and although they may have reduced prices, as undoubtedly they have, there is still a very large margin by which they could reduce them still further. You pay about 15s. for a super-power valve, and you can buy a foreign valve which has paid 33⅓ per cent duty at half the price. If the foreign manufacturer can jump the 33⅓ per cent. tariff and sell his article at half the price—and a good article too—that the English valve ring are charging, it is no use telling this Committee that prices are not excessive.

The proposal to include parts of wireless valves is an attempt to keep down competition to a bare minimum. What else is it for? It is an attempt to exclude parts of valves which are made up in this country. The vast majority of valves sold in this country are of British manufacture, and there is not a very large number of foreign valves sold. The English manufacturers have a practical monopoly of the market, and they are charging monopoly prices. For this reason we propose to oppose this little bit of added protection that is being given to them, because we can find no justification for it whatsoever.

7.37 p.m.


I wish to support the Amendment, and I must say that I am rather puzzled to know what arguments my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will bring forward to justify the inclusion of parts of wireless valves and similar apparatus in the Key Industries Duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said that the price of valves was out of all relation to the cost of manufacture. It is a fact which I have often heard stated that there are valves being sold in this country at 15s. and 17s. 6d., the cost of which to manufacture is half-a-crown. You can never predict what an hon. Member of this House is going to say, but I am confident that the Parliamentary Secretary will not get up and say from that Box that an article which costs half-a-crown to manufacture, and which can be sold, and is being sold in large quantities, at from 15s. to 17s. 6d., requires protection. I cannot anticipate that that is what he will say. Neither will he tell us that the exclusion of these articles is required on the ground of national defence, because we know that the British manufactures of these particular parts and of the valves themselves are equal to any which can be produced anywhere. There is no excuse for the prices which are being charged for these valves.

Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee whether he has consulted with those concerned to see that the wireless industry is being spread and that an effort is being made by the Board of Education to see that wireless is introduced into the schools, where it can be a powerful adjunct to the spoken word? One of the difficulties in regard to spreading the use of wireless reception in the schools is the cost of the sets. The local authorities will not grant the necessary money, and what happens in many cases is that the head teacher, being interested in the matter and thinking it of importance to have the advantages of science in his school, and that his teachers should have the aid of wireless sets, goes among his friends, and by private effort or by hold- ing some sort of sale of work he gets a set installed. It has been suggested that the British Broadcasting Corporation should produce a standard set for use in schools. I do not think it is in the public interest that these articles should be included in this Schedule of key industries. I think, on the contrary, that it is in the public interest that this paragraph should be withdrawn until the matter has been further considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said something about competition. There is a British Valve Manufacturers Association. I do not know whether or not they control prices—I have no information on the point—but it is said that they exchange research ideas and information and that they act as a sort of mutual assistance club, but I should be surprised if I were told that they did not take into consideration the question of the prices to be charged.


Prices for valves of identical characteristics are the same for all manufacturers.


I see that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is in his seat, and I shall be glad to know whether he has been consulted with regard to this duty, the effect of which will be to keep up the cost of wireless apparatus and to make it more difficult to extend the work of setting up wireless reception in the schools, which is a matter of great concern to my right hon. Friend's Department.

7.42 p.m.


We listened to an extremely interesting speech by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and, as an amateur wireless technician, I greatly enjoyed his account of the early days of trials with a screw-driver and a piece of wood, when, with the assembled parts, we tried to get America on one valve; they were enough to tax the patience of Job. The hon. Member seemed to think that conditions had all changed for the improvement of the market of the wireless valve manufacturer, but I want to suggest that they have changed in another degree. I suggest that they have made the wireless valve an absolute essential to the defence of this country. One of the greatest factors in defence is communication, and one of the most efficient methods of communication in modern times is the use of every type of wireless valve.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) followed the hon. Member for Chesterfield, and talked as if this were a mere economic proposal, as if all that we had to consider was the question of price and whether valve manufacturers were selling their commodities at proper competitive prices. Both hon. Members seemed to suggest that the British manufacturers were selling all British valves. I do not know whether it will surprise the Committee to know that there is a widespread importation of parts in order that those parts may be assembled here—parts bought from abroad. My concern, as the Government spokesman, is to call the attention of the Committee to the essential fact that valve parts should be manufactured in Great Britain, and I want by means of this inducement of the inclusion of parts in the Safeguarding Duties to see that every part of a valve is made in this country, so that we are not caught napping in times of emergency. With that object in view, these matters of price, although to be taken into account and although matters of relevance, are trifling compared with the essential importance of the fact that no part of a wireless valve should not be manufactured in this country. The two hon. Members who addressed the Committee spoke as if the wireless valve and the parts of the valve ought to be treated on a different footing. What is the logic of treating all the parts that go to make up the whole on a different basis?


I suggested treating them on an equal footing and bringing the valve outside the scope of the key industries duties.


I can deal only with the Amendment, which will have the effect of leaving the whole valve subject to safeguarding duties and leaving the parts not subject to those duties. I do not think that that is a proposition that will commend itself to the Committee. To have the entire manufactured article subject to a high duty and the parts allowed to be imported on a lower duty in order that they can be assembled here will not commend itself to anybody. The Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade which looked into this matter found that there was a, wide-scale practice of importing parts from abroad. I will not say whether it is laziness or what the reason is, but it is a fact that large numbers of parts of valves are imported by British manufacturers from foreign sources and that they are then made up into British valves. I want to see that the duty on the whole valve and on the parts is the same. That is the principle we have consistently adopted, namely, that the whole and the parts that make up the whole should be put on a similar basis.

I would call the attention of the Committee to one other point. The hon. Member for Chesterfield was right in stating that, whereas in the old days the real expense was the valve, you can nowadays purchase a complete set standardised at less than you would pay for the individual valve and resistances that go to make up the entire set. There is, therefore, nothing in the argument that the duties on the parts of the valve will increase the price of the set. It will do nothing of the kind. I do not agree with the descriptions that have been given of this small ring. Hon. Members might inquire who is outside the ring and who is in it, and their relative numbers. The price of a wireless set is within the range of almost anybody to-day. By all means let the methods of manufacture be proved, by all means bring down the prices and do anything that service can do to benefit the general user, but with the valve bearing a duty, do not tell me that it would increase the price of the set if a similar duty were put on the parts of the valve. For these reasons I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment which seeks to leave the entire valve covered by a duty, but the parts of it without a duty.


May I raise a further point? The Committee gathers that practically the only reason for including the parts of wireless valves under the key industries duties is that they are important for military reasons. These things are now being classed practically as munitions. That being the case, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will say that the Committee which is considering the question of profits on munitions will have regard to the fact that valves which cost 2s. 6d. to manufacture are being sold for 17s. 6d.

7.50 p.m.


As the Parliamentary Secretary is not making any response to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), there are one or two other things that should be said about this question. I was interested in the last part of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in which he said in effect that there was effective competition in this industry. I subscribe at once to the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) that to-day the wireless receiving set is very largely manufactured by those who are also valve makers. The movement with which I am connected is not without some experience in the matter. We have seen exactly what happens once the process to which my hon. Friend referred becomes established; you have actually set up a ring in regard both to the manufacture of the valve and to the manufacture of the set. The 1,100 or 1,200 co-operative societies with which I am usually accused of having some connection were subject to a complete boycott by the ring dealing with wireless sets, and they were forced in self-defence to go into the production of sets themselves. They have, therefore, now to collect the various parts for building the sets.

It is really burking the whole issue before the Committee to say that the question of price is irrelevant. It ignores the point made by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead in regard to schools. It ignores, too, the case we have always put up on these benches that the poorest householder is as entitled as those who are better off to have a reasonably priced set, and to have access to the stations that are required to be picked up with more than one valve. The Parliamentary Secretary has made no answer to the objections that have been made as to the enormous margin which exists between the cost of the manufacture of valves and their list price. I do not know whether that is an admission—


I made no admission whatever that any valve selling at 17s. 6d. costs in labour or material as little as 2s. 6d. The whole idea is quite fantastic.


Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the price of manufacture?


I will tell the Committee, what is the fact, that in fixing the cost price of a set the actual cost price of the valve is taken.


I admire the cleverness of the answer, but I am not any more informed in trying to get at what the hon. Member for East Birkenhead was asking. The cost price of the valve has been compared with the selling price of the valve, but the last answer made by the Parliamentary Secretary was that the cost price of the valve is that which is charged in the cost of the set. That is an entirely different matter. Let me quote from the report of the Ullswater Committee on Broadcasting, on which the hon. Member for East Birkenhead and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition were members: It is not easy to make an exact comparison between the prices of receiving sets in one country and in another, but it seems fair to say that the average price for a set of medium quality in this country is somewhat high. They were fairly modest in the way they put it. They go on to make a contrast: We are informed that in Germany, by co-operation between the broadcasting authority and the wireless trade, a standardised receiver has been designed and is sold at a low fixed price, and that this procedure has enabled a larger proportion of the population to become listeners. In relation to the point that the price is somewhat high, I would like to have the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary.

7.55 p.m.


I am most anxious to give the Committee all the information in my possession and to deal with all the arguments put forward. I can only deal with one argument at a time. I want to make the point that there is no connection between the list price of a valve and the price at which that valve is sold to the maker of the set. Secondly, I wish to make the point that the price of the receiving set is fixed by the manufacturer at a figure which includes the cost price to the manufacturer of the valve, but not the list price. Consequently, nothing that I am proposing in this part of the Finance Bill affects the price of the set. Those who are suggesting that the parts of the valve should be excluded have sought to adduce the argument that I am standing in the way of broadcasting in schools and of the millions of people who would like to be listening with a three-valve set when they have not that facility now. I want to clear all that away by saying that it is a delusion. The competition between valve manufacturers to supply valves to makers of sets is extremely keen, and the price at which valves are sold by manufacturers to the makers of sets includes a very small percentage of profit. Valve manufacturers who manufacture their own wireless sets include the cost price of the valves, whatever that cost may be, in the cost of the set. There is no justification for the suggestion that the cost of the valve results in an undue increase in the price of the receiving set. I have put the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) to valve manufacturers that valves listed at 17s. 6d. are produced at 2s. 6d., and the manufacturers emphatically deny it.

7.58 p.m.


We are still without information of what is the cost of the valve to the manufacturer. The Parliamentary Secretary has been most careful in his presentation of the case, but he has been lacking in the information which has been specifically asked for. I am even more concerned when I remember the Minority Report of the Ullswater Committee, which was signed by Lord Elton, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). In this they said: There are strong trade organisations although there is Still a considerable amount of competition. Evidence has been given that there is a combination in the manufacture of valves"— they only admit the competition in the case of the manufacture of sets— which keep prices unnecessarily high. There are obviously further possibilities of the formation of other associations. In the light of that carefully considered finding of three members of the committee, two of whom are respected Members of this House, and one of whom is a respected Member of the other place, who had an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses who came before them, I say that the case that has been put up by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is, failing a further answer from the Parliamentary Secretary, adequately proved. With regard to the question whether you can logically leave out of taxation the parts of a wireless valve when you are taxing the whole valve, I would, for my part, remove the tax on the valve itself. When it comes to the question of defence, who can say in the light of the evidence given before the Ullswater Committee as to the actual experience in production of the valve manufacturers that, we are not already adequately equipped for the production of valves for war purposes? I do not believe there is the slightest doubt that that is the case.

With regard to price, the Parliamentary Secretary says that there are still a number of manufacturers of wireless valves who from some cause or other—I think he suggested laziness—are using imported foreign parts for the manufacture of their valves. If that is so can there be any possible ground for saying that a tax on those parts will not raise the price of the valves? How can he argue that? In view of his well known championship of the principles of Free Trade I should be delighted if we could have an explanation from him on that point. If firms are manufacturing valves with imported parts I should like to know how a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on those parts is going to lower prices?


I rarely rise to a bait that is displayed before me quite so obviously, and before I reply may I correct the right hon. Gentleman in a matter of detail? These parts are already subjected to a duty of 20 per cent. and all we are talking about is the rise from 20 to 33⅓ per cent. One part of his argument falls, on whichever foot he stands. If his argument is that the price which the valve maker receives is so great that he is already getting an exorbitant profit, obviously to increase the duty by 13⅓ per cent. will not do anything at all. If, on the other hand, the manufacturer is only getting a fair price, then the additional 13⅓ per cent. on the imported parts, if he continues to use them, will undoubtedly slightly raise the price. But the whole idea of including the parts in this legis-

lation is to make him manufacture the parts here, in which case the result will be that he will, we hope, sell the whole article at, if anything, a slightly lower price.


Let us see where that reply takes us. If the manufacturer is not making a very large profit, the extra tax of 13⅓ per cent. may possibly raise the price a little, but if, as we charge him with doing, he is making a large profit already, it will not raise the price. At any rate, the duty will help to arrest a reasonable and urgently needed decline in prices. I suggest that that is the real object of the duty. There are other people in the field, and we know that the manufacturers of wireless valves and of electric lamps in this country are not merely in a national but in a Continental combine. We know that in Sweden the organisations of such manufactures of co-operative origin have been able to stand up against the combine. We know that the people here who are advocating further protection by this duty do not want the possibility of such competition here. That is the real position. We say the proper line to be taken, especially if the question of defence is involved, is the line taken in the minority report of the Ullswater Committee. We say that if defence is involved, in addition to the great and urgently-required public service of broadcasting, there ought to be a national basis of ownership for this industry, rather than that it should be a question of giving high protection, over long, stabilised periods, to combines of a monopoly character which are already making undue profits at the expense of the community. I hope that we shall get a wide support for that point of view in the Lobby to-night.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 133.

Division No. 218.] AYES. [8.3 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Bernays, R. H. Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Albery, I. J. Blair, Sir R. Burton, Col. H. W.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Blaker, Sir R. Campbell, Sir E. T.
Aske, Sir R. W. Blindell, Sir J. Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Atholl, Duchess of Boulton, W. W. Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Bower, Comdr. R. T. Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Brass, Sir W. Channon, H.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Chorlton, A. E. L. Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L. Ramsden, Sir E.
Christie, J. A. Horsbrugh, Florence Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Clydesdale, Marquess of Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Rayner, Major R. H.
Colfox, Major W. P. Hulbert, N. J. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Hume, Sir G. H. Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Hunter, T. Remer, J. R.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Joel, D. J. B. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Ropner. Colonel L.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Craddock, Sir R. H. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Rowlands, G.
Craven-Ellis, W. Kirkpatrick, W. M. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Groom-Johnson, R. p. Latham, Sir P. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Crossley, A. C. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Salmon, Sir I.
Crowder, J. F. E. Levy, T. Salt, E. W.
Cruddas, Col. B. Lewis, O. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Lindsay, K. M. Selley, H. R.
Dawson, Sir P. Liewellin, Lieut.-Col J. J. Shakespeare, G. H.
De Chair, S. S. Lloyd, G. W. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Loftus, P. C. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Smithers, Sir W.
Drewe, C. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Spens, W. P.
Duggan, H. J. McCorquodale, M. S. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Duncan, J. A. L.. MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Dunglass, Lord Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Storey, S.
Dunne, P. R. R. McKie, J. H. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Eales, J. F. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Eckersley, P. T. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D, R. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Markham, S. F. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Errington, E. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Erskine, Hill, A. G. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Fildes, Sir H. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Sutcliffe, H.
Findlay, Sir E. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Tasker, Sir R. l.
Fleming, E. L. Moreing, A. C. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Furness, S. N. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Touche, G. C.
Gibson, C. G. Morrison. G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Train, Sir J.
Gledhill, G. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Turton, R. H.
Gluckstein, L. H. Nall, Sir J. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Goodman, Col. A. W. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Grattan-Doyie, Sir N. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Gridiey, Sir A. B. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Warrender, Sir V.
Grimston, R. V. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wells, S. R.
Guy, J. C. M. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G, Wlckham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Hannah, l. C. Orr-Ewing, l. L. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Palmer, G. E. H. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Harbord, A. Penny, Sir G. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastie) Perkins, W. R. D. Withers, Sir J. J.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Petherick, M. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Pilkington, R. Wragg, H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Hoimes, J. S. Radford, E. A. TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Commander Southby and Captain
Hopkinson, A. Ramsbotham, H. Waterhouse.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Compton, J. Harris, Sir P. A.
Adams, D. (Consett) Cove, W. G. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Henderson,. J. (Ardwick)
Adamson, W. M. Daggar, G. Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Dalton, H. Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ammon, C. G. Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Holland, A.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Davles, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hopkin, D.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jagger, J.
Banfield, J. W. Day, H. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Barnes, A. J. Dobbie, W. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Barr, J. Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) John, W.
Batey, J. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Bellenger, F. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Benson, G. Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Bevan, A. Gallacher, W. Kelly, W. T.
Broad, F. A. Gardner, B. W. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Bromfield, W. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Kirby, B. V.
Brooke, W. Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Kirkwood, D.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Grenfell, D. R. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Burke, W. A. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Lathan, G.
Cape, T. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Lawson, J. J.
Chater, D. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Leonard, W.
Cluse, W. S. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Leslie, J. R.
Clynes, Rt, Hon. J. R. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Logan, D. G.
Cocks, F. S. Hardie, G. D, Lunn, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince) Potts, J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
McGhee, H. G. Price, M. P. Thorne, W.
MacLaren, A. Pritt, D. N. Thurtle, E.
Maclean, N. Quibell, D. J. K. Tinker, J. J.
Mainwaring, W. H. Riley, B. Viant, S. P.
Mander, G. le M. Ritson, J. Walkden, A. G.
Markiew, E. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Walker, J.
Marshall, F. Rowson, G. Watkins, F. C.
Maxton, J. Salter, Dr. A. Watson, W. McL.
Messer, F. Seely, Sir H. M. Westwood, J.
Milner, Major J. Sexton, T. M. White, H. Graham
Montague, F Shinwell, E. Whiteley, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) short, A. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Silverman, S. S. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Oliver, G. H. Simpson, F. B. Williams, T. (Don Vailey)
Owen, Major G. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Paling, W. Smith, E. (Stoke) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Parker, j. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Parkinson, J. A. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.

8.15 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, after "time," to insert "or at a reasonable price."

The object of the Amendment is to bring in the factor of price as well as the factors of time and abundance of quantity. The Clause is designed to protect the importer against the possibility that the article protected will not be available within a reasonable time or in sufficient quantity. While those two provisions are probably sound and reasonable, we think a third provision should be added, and that the importer should be safeguarded in the matter of price. It is unreasonable that he should be assured that there is an abundant supply only to find that it is obtainable only at an exorbitant price. There should be an assurance that the importer can obtain what he wants, if it is produced in this country, at a reasonable price. We are asking for a small and justifiable concession, and I hope that we shall get it. The governing word of my Amendment is "reasonable," and we think that the Amendment is a very reasonable suggestion. I, as the Member moving it, am a reasonable Member, and we appeal to the Government to accept it as a reasonable proposition.

8.18 p.m.


I beg to second this Amendment. I do so because I have felt the effects of such an omission in the past. It is said that a fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind. If hon. Members will look at the Clause, they will see these words: If the Board of Trade are satisfied, on the application of the importer of any consignment of instruments or apparatus imported after the passing of this Act… I happen to know that such things as hypodermic) needles are imported into this country, and that there is a tax on them, and that, as a result of the tax, people are suffering for want of the needles because they have not the wherewithal to pay the additional tax. It is an unreasonable tax. Through those hypodermic needles people are injected day by day with insulin, and a tax of 33⅓ per cent, has been put upon them. For the sake of those poor diabetic people, those needles ought to be sold at a reasonable price. I can afford to pay for needles now, but before I came to this House, through 10 months I drew 110 days' unemployment benefit; that was 3s. 10½d. a shift for the wife and me, and that was all my income. I was lucky in those days to be able to get my needles for nothing, through Lloyd George and the public health, but I knew people who, when they went to Boot's Cash Chemists, where they once used to get a needle for 4½d., had to pay 6d. for it. That is not something from a book; that is practical knowledge, and that is why I am seconding the Amendment that the needles should he sold at a reasonable price.

There are some things made in foreign parts—I do not like to think this, mark you, but we have to face facts—which are better than the British-made articles. Nor do I like to make this statement, but we must face facts, and it is that the German needle to me now, as I am putting it in twice a day, feels a lot better when I get it in my thigh, two and a half inches, and I can get the German needle in quicker than an English needle. That is something which I know every day of my life. I feel that the tax on the needles for those poor people is too much. There are a lot of them who are not getting insulin, needles, iodine and wadding free, because they are outside the Act. Some 400 of them are outside the Act of 1935, which was passed in the last Parliament, and they have to buy their own tackle, their insulin and often their own needles, and their own stuff. I do not want to go on taxing them. Tomatoes are not in this Clause, nor is lettuce and that kind of stuff, but I am asking the Government that they will make at least this change, for the sake of those people, some of whom are living a dying death, as you might say, and putting the matter in round figures, as it were. I beg the Ministers concerned, with their hearts and their heads, to accept this Amendment that there should be a reasonable price as well as a reasonable tax.

8.24 p.m.


We have listened to a very moving appeal, and I wish it were within my power to accede to the request made. I am not sure that what the hon. Member asked for in seconding the Amendment and what was asked for by the Mover cover the same ground. I have every sympathy with the diabetic and those who have to have recourse to the treatment which has been so graphically and movingly described, but I am not sure whether this is the place to provide the relief which is asked for, arid whether the Amendment would be the appropriate method of doing it. I hope some method can be found of doing what is desired by the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, but the Committee must realise that this Clause is not intended to cover the case which was put by the Seconder.

Certain extremely costly, highly technical precision instruments have been found by experience to be needed, sometimes in laboratories, sometimes in research associations, sometimes in industry, and can, perhaps, only be procured by loan; there may be only one or two, or a small number, in existence in the world. Without some such Clause as this, they could not be brought into the country at all except on payment of a duty, and, by the machinery, the duty must be on their cost—on their selling price. This Sub-section, therefore, is an enabling Sub-section, to enable a high-priced scientific instrument of that kind to be brought into this country provided that the Board of Trade are satisfied on certain points. The importer has to prove that the consignment is wanted for his own use, and that goods similar to the article imported are not for the time being being made, or likely within a reasonable time to be made, within His Majesty's Dominions.

The question of price is another consideration altogether. If a scientific instrument is not made here, and one is to be ordered, the price at which that one can be made will be out of all proportion to the price at which the article is being imported from the country where it already exists. The price level is maintained by the fact that the article can always be imported, without the permission of the Board of Trade, on payment of the duty. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that it was a reasonable Amendment, and that he moved it as a reasonable man in a reasonable way. All that is quite true, but what is the reasonable price between the cost of the article and the cost plus 33⅓ per cent.? Where does the reasonableness come in?


May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the paragraph which I am seeking to amend, the term "reasonable" is used? It speaks of "a reasonable time." There is no definition of the word "reasonable" in the Bill, but we presume that it can be defined in reasonable terms. It is on the same basis that I am suggesting that there should be a reasonable price.


I am much obliged to the hon. Member; I quite appreciate his point, which, so far as it goes, is a perfect argument; but I am pointing out that here the ceiling is merely the duty—the article can be obtained by paying the duty, without the permission of the Board of Trade. The hon. Member is seeking to provide that it should be possible to obtain the article without paying the duty of 33⅓ per cent., provided that it can be obtained in this country at some price below its cost plus 33⅓ per cent. I am asking him how he thinks that that can be secured? I venture to think that the Committee, while feeling great sympathy with the argument about the hypodermic needle, will accept my assurance that the object of the Subsection is to cover high-priced scientific instruments of a very different character, and to enable their importation in circumstances where the price would have no direct relevance, and where the price figure is controlled by the fact that the article could be imported by paying the duty of 33⅓ per cent.

8.31 p.m.


I think the Parliamentary Secretary has made a good case for the part of the Clause which we are discussing, and which, so far as it goes, makes possible a concession to importers; but I was glad that he was impressed, as we all were, by the case made out by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), and, as one who also uses a hypodermic needle, sometimes eight or 10 times a day—not for diabetes but for asthma—I happen to have had a fairly long experience of these instruments, one of which I have in my hand at the moment. Until only a few months ago one could not get a really first-rate British hypodermic needle made of rust-less steel. That makes all the difference in the use of them, because, if you can avoid blunting their very delicate tips—which you cannot always do, having to use them in the rough and tumble of

ordinary life—you can use the same rust-less needle for weeks, but if it is not rustless the expense to which one is put for fresh needles is quite considerable.

I happened to make some inquiries from dental friends and associates of mine, and I have no doubt whatever that now there are two sorts of absolutely first-rate British-made hypodermic needles, and that the makers of them would be the last people to want to be protected in the matter of price by high duties against foreign needles. I believe that we are beating—indeed, that we have beaten—the foreign needle on merits, and I should be very glad to give my hon. Friend some of the English needles which I now get. But their price is 6d., and I cannot believe that the makers of them, having now succeeded in their enterprise of making first-class goods, depend upon a high protection against the foreign article. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister will pursue his researches in this matter, and will see if he can give some relief.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 192.

Division No. 219.] AYES. [8.35 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple) Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) McGhee, H. G.
Adams, D. (Consett) Gallacher, W. MacLaren, A.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Gardner, B. W. Maclean, N.
Adamson, W. M. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Marklew, E.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Marshall, F.
Ammon, C. G. Grenfell, D. R. Mathers, G.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Maxton. J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Messer, F.
Banfield, J. W. Griffiths, J. (Lianelly) Milner, Major J.
Barnes, A. J. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Montague. F.
Barr, j Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y. S.)
Batey, J. Hardie. G. D. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Bellenger. F. Harris, Sir P. A. Oliver, G. H.
Benson, G. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Owen, Major G.
Bevan, A. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Paling, W.
Broad, F. A. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Parker, J.
Bromfield, W. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Parkinson, J. A.
Brooke, W. Holland, A. Potrick-Lawrence, F. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Hopkin, D. Potts. J.
Buchanan, G. Jagger, J. Price. M. P.
Burke, W. A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Pritt, D. N.
Cape, T. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Quibell, D. J. K.
Chater, D. John, W. Riley, B.
Cluse, W. S. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Ritson, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Cocks, F. S. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Rowson, G.
Compton, J. Kelly, W. T. Sailer, Dr. A.
Cove, W. G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Seeiy, Sir H. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kirby, B. V. Sexton, T. M.
Daggar, G. Kirkwood, D. Shinwell, E.
Dalton, H. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Short, A.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lathan, G. Silverman, S. S.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lawson, J. J. Simpson, F. B.
Day, H. Leonard, W. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Dobble, W. Leslie, J. R. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Logan, D. G. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedweilty) Lunn, W. Stephen, C.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Walker, J. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Watkins, F. C. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Thorne, W. Watson, W. McL. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Thurtle, E. Westwood, J.
Tinker, J. J. White, H. Graham TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Viant, S. P. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.
Walkden, A. G. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Gridley, Sir A. B. Perkins, W. R. D.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Grimston, R. V. Petherick, M.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Guy, J. C. M. Pilkington, R.
Albery, I. J. Hanbury, Sir C. Ponsonby, Col. C, E.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Hannah, I. C. Radford, E. A.
Apsley, Lord Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Aske, Sir R. W. Harbord, A. Ramsbotham, H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Ramsden, Sir E.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Rayner, Major R. H.
Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet) Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Blair, Sir R. Holmes, J. S. Remer, J. R.
Blaker, sir R. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Blindell, Sir J. Hopkinson, A. Ropner, Colonel L.
Boothby, R. J. G. Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Boulton, W. W. Horsbrugh, Florence Rowlands, G.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Russell, A. west (Tynemouth)
Brass, Sir W. Hulbert, N. J Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hume, Sir G. H. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Hunter, T. Salmon, Sir I.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Jarvis, Sir J. J. Salt, E. W.
Burton, Col. H. W. Joel, D. J. B. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Selley, H. R.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Shakespeare, G. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Channon, H. Kirkpatrick, W. M. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Chorlton, A. E. L. Lamb, Sir J. Q Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Christie, J. A. Latham, Sir P. Smithers, Sir W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Lawson, J. J. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Colfox, Major W. p. Lees-Jones, J. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Levy, T. Spens, W. P.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Lewis, O. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Lindsay, K. M. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Craddock, Sir R. H. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Storey, S.
Craven-Ellis, W. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Loftus, P. C. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Crossley, A. C. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Strickland, Captain W. F.
Crowder, J. F. E. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Cruddas, Col. B. McCorquodale, M. S. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Sutcliffe, H.
Dawson, Sir P. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Tasker, Sir R. I.
De Chair, S. S. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Markham, S. F. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Touche, G. C.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Tree, A. R. L. F.
Drewe, C. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Tufneil, Lieut.-Com. R. L,
Duggan, H. J. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Turton, R. H.
Duncan, J. A. L. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Walker-Smith, sir J.
Dunglass, Lord Moreing, A. C. Ward, Irene (Walisend)
Dunne, P. R. R. Morgan, R. H. Warrender, Sir V.
Eales, J. F. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Wells, S. R.
Eckersiey, P. T. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.,
Errington, E. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Fildes, Sir H. Munro. P. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Findlay, Sir E. Nall, Sir J. Withers, Sir J. J.
Fleming, E. L. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Furness, S. N. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Wragg, H.
Gibson, C. G. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Gledhill, G. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gluckstein, L. H. Orr-Ewlng, I. L. Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert
Goodman, Col. A. W. Palmer, G. E. H. Ward and Captain Waterhouse.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Penny, Sir G.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 131.

Division No. 220.] AYES. [8.42 p.m
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Albery, I. J. Aske, Sir R. W.
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Apsley, Lord Baldwin-Webb. Col. J.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Radford, E. A.
Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet) Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Ramsbotham, H.
Blair, Sir R. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Ramsden, Sir E.
Blaker, Sir R. Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey) Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Blinded, Sir J. Holmes. J. S. Rayner, Major R. H.
Boothby, R. J. G. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Boulton, W. W. Hopkinson, A. Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Remer, J. R.
Brats, Sir W. Horsbrugh, Florence Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Ropner, Colonel L.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Hulbert, N. J. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Hume, Sir G. H. Rowlands, G.
Burton, Col. H. W. Hunter, T. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Campbell, Sir E. T. Jarvis, Sir J. J. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Cayzer, Sir H. R, (Portsmouth, S.) Joel, D. J. B. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Salmon, Sir I.
Channon, H. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Salt, E. W.
Chorlton, A. E. L. Kerr. J. G. (Scottish Universities) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Christie, J. A. Kirkpatrick, W. M. Selley, H. R.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Lamb, Sir J. O. Shakespeare, G. H.
Colfox, Major W. P. Latham, Sir P. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Lees-Jones, J. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Shute, colonel Sir J. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.) Levy, T. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Lewis, O. Smithers, Sir W.
Craddock, Sir R. H. Lindsay, K. M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Craven-Ellis, W. Llewellin, Lieut. Col. J. J. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Loftus, P. C. Spens, W. P.
Crossley, A. C. Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Crowder, J. F. E. Lyons, A. M. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Cruddas, Col. B. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Storey, S.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Mac Andrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Dawson, Sir P. McCorquodale, M. S. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
De Chair, S. S. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J A. F. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Markham, S. F. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Drewe, C. Mayhew, Lt.-Cot. J. Sutcliffe, H.
Duggan, H. J. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Tasker, Sir R. I.
Duncan, J. A. L. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Dunglass, Lord Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Dunne, P. R. R. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Touche, G. C.
Eales, J. F. Moreing, A. C. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Eckersley, P. T. Morgan, R. H. Turton, R. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Errington, E. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Fildes, Sir H. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Warrender, Sir V.
Findlay, Sir E. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Wells, S. R.
Fleming, E. L. Munro, P. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Furness, S. N. Nail, Sir J. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Gibson, C. G. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Gluckstein, L. H. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Goodman, Col. A. W. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Wise. A. R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Withers. Sir J. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Grimston, R. V. Palmer, G. E. H. Wragg, H.
Guy, J. C. M. Penny, Sir G.
Hanbury, Sir C. Perkins. W. R. D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hannah, I. C. Petherick, M. Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Pilkington, R. and Captain Waterhouse.
Harbord, A. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple) Buchanan, G. Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Adams, D. (Consett) Burke, W. A. Gallacher, W.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Cape, T. Gardner, B. W.
Adamson, W. M. Chater, D. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.) Cluse, W. S. Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Ammon, C. G. Cocks, F. S. Grenfell, D. R.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Compton, J. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Cove, W. G. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Banfield, J. W. Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Barnes, A. J. Daggar, G. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Barr, J. Dalton, H. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Batey, J. Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Hardie, G. D.
Bellenger, F. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Harris, Sir P. A.
Benson, G. Day, H. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Bevan, A. Dobbie, W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Broad, F. A. Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Bromfield, W. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Brooke, W. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Holland, A.
Hopkin, D. Messer, F. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Jagger, J. Milner. Major J. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Montague, F. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Stephen, C.
John, W. Morrison. R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Oliver, G. H. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Owen, Major G. Thorne, W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Paling, W. Thurtle, E.
Kelly, W. T. Parker, J. Tinker, J. J.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Parkinson, J. A. Vlant, S. P.
Kirby, B. V. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Walkden, A. G.
Kirkwood, D. Potts, J. Walker, J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Price, M. P. Watkins, F. C.
Lawson, J. J. Pritt, D. N. Watson, W. McL.
Leonard, W. Quibell, D. J. K. Westwood, J.
Leslie, J. R. Rlley, B. White, H. Graham
Logan, D. G. Ritson, J. Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Lunn, W. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Macdonald, G. (Ince) Rowson, G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
McGhee, H. G. Salter, Dr. A. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
MacLaren, A. Seely, Sir H. M. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Maclean, N. Sexton, T. M. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Marklew, E. Shinwell. E.
Marshall, F. Short, A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mathers, G. Silverman, S. S. Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.
Maxton, J. Simpson, F. B.
  1. CLAUSE 6.—(Power to remove or reduce additional duties in respect of certain iron and steel goods.) 13,870 words, 1 division
  2. cc175-88
  3. CLAUSE 7. —(Power to add or remove goods to or from free list, and to charge certain duties for periods.) 6,790 words, 3 divisions
  4. c188
  5. ADJOURNMENT 16 words