IMPORTATIONS FROM OVERSEAS.

HC Deb 02 February 1938 vol 331 cc239-305

3.46 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson

I beg to move, That this House is of opinion that in negotiations for trade agreements with the Dominions and with foreign countries His Majesty's Government, while doing everything possible to assist the export trade and promote the prosperity of the country as a whole, should have especial regard to the effect upon particular industries in this country of imports from countries with low standards of wages, especially where the industries in question are concentrated in a limited area in the United Kingdom; and urges that the need for safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry against the competition of Indian jute goods should be placed in the forefront of the resumed negotiations with the Government of India. I endeavoured when announcing this Motion yesterday to give notice to bring it forward this day week, but the genial persistence of hon. Members on both sides of the House compelled me to put it forward to-day. I take that as an indication of general support for such a Motion. Indeed, I cannot doubt that were it put forward in the form of a petition we should have had no difficulty in collecting a number of signatures, even more impressive than that which was appended to the petition presented to the House an hour ago, for the matter is one which is deeply exercising the minds of a very large body of industrialists and of workpeople. I count myself fortunate in having the opportunity to put forward this Motion, which appeared on the Order Paper on 10th November in the name of my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), but was not discussed owing to the lamented death of a former Prime Minister, to whom we owe, more perhaps than to any other single man, the fact that a tariff policy was introduced into this country in 1931. I have had little time to study the question, and I must ask the indulgence of the House if I rely more than usual on notes. May I begin with a brief declaration of faith?

I believe that self-sufficiency, more particularly in the matter of manufactured articles, is a good thing, and that we should seek to maintain, within our own borders, as much as possible of the manufacturing activity necessary to meet our own needs. I want to see tariffs as high as is necessary to equalise the difference between our own standard of living and that of potential importers, but not so high as to exclude a fair element of competition. Individual freedom, which it is our duty in this House to maintain, and which we so greatly prize, depends largely on the ability of every man and woman, in whatever walk of life, to choose freely by what type of employment they will earn their living, and, in particular, on what types of skilled employment are open to them. We are rightly proud that in this country, as perhaps in no other, there is a wide choice of skilled occupation open to every man and woman. If we regard that freedom as worth having, we must foster it by a deliberate tariff policy.

Economics is in the ultimate resort a branch of aesthetics not merely a matter of cash. We can have what we like provided we want it sufficiently and are willing to go without other things. Our social services cost us £500,000,000 a year. I want to see them extended, developed and improved, but it is impossible to do that unless we protect ourselves against the uncontrolled, and sometimes catastrophic, importation of goods from countries overseas, whether British or foreign, with lower standards of social obligation, which is not quite the same thing as a lower standard of living. Our social services assume a fair regularity of employment and short periods of unemployment. There is a popular song in Germany, which, being translated, reads: Our land and homes our children shall inherit, We by our work their gratitude shall merit. We must look beyond the present. Our children have a greater claim upon us than our contemporaries. We have but a few years to live; they have to carry the burden in the future. We should not seek an extra pair of boots, an extra garment or an extra meal for ourselves by a policy which will prejudice the future of our children. Our tariff policy, framed in 1931, has now been in force for six years. Every depression that has hit this country has originated abroad and one wave after another has struck us. We have been, to a large extent, immune, and we have recovered from that depression mainly because of the tariff wall—not anything like as strong as many of us would wish—which we then erected. We ought to have the power to insulate ourselves, as far as is possible, from hurricanes originating abroad—the consequences of political incapacity or commercial greed, and particularly the latter—in other countries.

The tariff policy of 1931 has been an immense success. It is not a high tariff. The junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), addressing this House on 22nd December, 1937, suggested that it was higher than that of most foreign countries, and averaged no less than 26.9 per cent. He was quoting figures—not his own—but they misled him. They consisted of a comparison of total Customs revenue relatively to the retained imports of 1935, but, in point of fact, the vast proportion of those Customs duties were upon petroleum, tobacco, beer, and wines and spirits, which are not, in fact, protective revenues at all. They are really straight revenue-producing taxation which we should not modify under any Free Trade policy whatever.

Our tariff revenue resulting from a protective tariff policy does not amount to more than £49,000,000 a year, that is to say, approximately 7 per cent. of our retained imports of £702,000,000, a figure probably lower than that of any country in Europe. There were other duties which the hon. Member mentioned such as tobacco, sugar, tea, coffee, which are really not protective but primarily revenue-producing duties intended as a direct tax upon the consumers. A tariff revenue of £49,000,000 is not, in my submission, under present conditions, sufficiently high.

I have said that our tariff policy has been a success. In 1931, our exports were £390,000,000; in 1937 they rose to £521,000,000. In 1931 our exports of manufactures were £292,000,000; in 1937 £404,000,000. Employed persons in 1931 numbered 9,500,000, and by 1937 they had risen to 11,500,000, and of these my impression is that at least 600,000 were directly employed in manufacturing goods which are being protected by a moderate protective tariff. In 1931 our production of coal was 220,000,000 tons, and in 1937, 247,000,000 tons. The gloomy prophecies of which so much was heard in this House in 1931 when the tariff was introduced have been falsified at every point. In spite of the rise in prices, the food index figure stands to-day at 45 points above 1914, as compared with 59 in 1929. It is true that it was as low as 32 in 1931, but at what a cost of misery. Is there anybody who would wish to go back to 1931, with its low prices and low employment?

Imperial Preference has been a resounding success. Exports to British countries are up £78,000,000 since 1931; imports from British countries, £158,000,000 since 1931. Yet we have maintained and increased our foreign trade. Our foreign exports are up by £65,000,000 since 1931, and our imports by £10,000,000. But our retained imports of competitive manufactures in 1937 were 32 per cent. higher in volume than in 1935, and higher than in 1924. Is this the moment for weakening our tariff against the cold winds which will come, I fear, against us with hurricane force? The answer is to be found in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. With 1,500,000 persons unemployed we can afford to take no risks, so long as our recovery has not reached the point at which we can reduce our unemployment below that figure.

The fundamental reason for exports is to purchase what we cannot ourselves produce or make. Great Britain, with the exception of coal, has nothing to export except the skill of her people. Our capacity for trading abroad consists of our ability to export coal and manufactured goods, assisted by invisible exports such as shipping services, which are being steadily undermined by half-a-dozen governments, led by the United States of America, who are subsidising their shipping and seeking to drive our shipping off the ocean so far as they can. The French Government are also considering further great subsidies, and there are other States—Russian, German, Italian, and others—all determined, unless we can take counter measures, or enter into mad competition, to reduce still further our invisible exports. If we import more competitive manufactures than are absolutely necessary, we are wasting our buying capacity and adding to our costs. The annual cost of supporting 1,500,000 unemployed in decent penury—and we do not suggest that it is more than that—is £75,000,000. The real cost in misery and in the waste of human material is not to be calculated in terms of money. Men and women cannot—and even less to-day than formerly—quickly transfer their acquired skill from one industry to another. Each smitten industry leaves a long trail of distress behind it. Against these violent fluctuations the tariff wall we have is small enough, and there are great anxieties abroad among the commercial community lest we should be led by distributors and financiers and those of the community to whom production is of no particular account, to lower that wall, in the vain hope that other nations will imperil their own slender degree of prosperity in order to encourage ours.

I have spoken of invisible exports. The shipping service is one of them. Another is the produce of our loans abroad. Sir Robert Kindersley has recently drawn attention to the steady shrinkage of the sums which we may expect to receive, and which we have received in the past few years, from this source. If I remember aright he said that last year our available receipts from that source were £76,000,000 less than in the previous year, and they are likely to go down yet further. I see no likelihood of any considerable recovery. In these circumstances it is doubly dangerous for us to seek to encourage an import trade for which we may soon be unable to pay—extra imports, which, I would add, tend in time of relative prosperity to consist largely of luxury goods. We paid £175,000,000 in 1937 for competitive manufactures. Add to this £75,000,000 paid for unemployment, and you have a total of £250,000,000, four-fifths of the total value of all the raw materials imported into this country for the purpose of our industry.

These figures indicate that the situation, while it is far better than it was, is still dangerous, and that it is most unwise for us to contemplate any considerable reduction of our tariffs or any considerable increase of our imports. Let me give a few examples. We purchased in machinery £11,000,000 more in 1937 than in 1935. That is more than double as much. The imports of carpets increased by 1,500,000 square yards in the last two years at an additional cost of nearly £1,000,000. Carpets from India rose by 150,000 square yards. I have spent years in India. I know how those carpets are made, under what conditions, and I do not like them. I do not envy those who would seek to bring the level of our industries down to the level under which only too many of those carpets are made. In 1937 the total of paper and cardboard of all sorts imported was 26,000,000 cwts., 5,000,000 cwts. more than in 1935, at an increased cost of nearly £4,000,000. All of that paper and cardboard could have been made in this country, with advantage to our own trade.

For rubber footwear, a comparatively small item but with a very large factor of personal employment, the figures are astounding. In 1937 we imported 915,000 dozen pairs, an increase of 400,000 dozen pairs compared with 1935. We imported 2½ pairs for every boy and girl between the ages of five and fifteen, almost all from Canada and Hong Kong. We could and should have produced them in this country. I see little value in a foreign trade which consists of bringing rubber shoes from Hong Kong, where wages are based on the very lowest price of labour payable to Chinese, who are themselves living largely outside our control in conditions which we could not for a moment consider for our own people.

On the agricultural side our imports of eggs, every one of which we could produce better ourselves, are larger than ever, and they come for the most part from countries with a standard of living far lower than that I should like to see here. We are apt to regard Denmark as a country with a relatively high standard of living. Let those hon. Members who wish to see how far Denmark has that higher standard go to a Danish farm and see the conditions under which agricultural labourers live. Those conditions would not be tolerated here for a moment. Our imports of cream leaped from the prewar figure of 8,700 cwts. to 75,000 cwts., and less than half of it came from the Empire. Butter imports, pre-war, were 4,000,000 cwts.; in 1935 imports reached 10,000,000 cwts. Condensed skimmed milk, of little food value, represented 600,000 cwts. pre-war, and in 1935 1,500,000 cwts., and less than 5 per cent. came from the British Empire. Yet our cow population has gone up by less than 2 per cent. since the Milk Marketing Board was established.

The agricultural industry is still suffering depression. There are fewer men on the land year by year, and fewer acres under cultivation, and yet the agricultural industry is one in which, although the wages are unduly low, there is greater permanence of employment than in any other branch of industry. Farmers, far from making profits, can barely make both ends meet. What a different story they have to tell from that of the great distributors and the great wholesale importers of foodstuffs for farmers, who in their annual reports regard a profit of 25 per cent. on the year's working as something about which not to boast, and express the hope it will be more next year. I doubt whether the farmers of any 10 counties of England make as much profit on the year's working, allowing £5 a week for their own services, as is made by one large importing firm with a tenth as much capital as the farmers have invested.

We can buy abroad only by exchanging goods or services. Of services I have spoken—shipping going down, invisible exports from our loans going down. The profits of insurance and similar services seem unlikely to increase, for restrictive legislation is being imposed in almost every country, making it more difficult for firms to develop that very valuable form of business; and I see no likelihood of royalties on patents, or books, etc., increasing.

May I say a few words regarding particular industries? I have some connection with the embroidery trade. It employs, I suppose, 6,000 or 8,000 hands, mostly young women. It is highly competitive. It has been protected for the past five years by a moderate tariff, on the strength of which firms engaged in the business have extended their factories, have spent large sums in purchasing machinery, and have trained girls and men in what is a highly skilled and delicate and thoroughly good type of employment. Their industry is now under a cloud, for they hear of negotiations with Switzerland and of attempts to procure a reduction of our tariffs. Is it in the interest of this country that a trade of that sort, already on a highly competitive basis, should be imperilled? It is a comparatively small thing, no doubt, if 8,000 women are working only half time or their number is reduced to 4,000 or 5,000, but there are few trades better suited for women in industrial areas, and it gives them a choice of occupation which on the social and the aesthetic side I regard as of great value. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) will deal with the question of fabric gloves, and I have no doubt that the Seconder of the Motion will deal with the industries of her own constituency, in particular with jute.

We hear rumours in the Press and elsewhere that one of the bases of the proposed trade agreement with America is that our market will be made more accessible than at present to the products of American motor factories. America already sells to us four times as much as she buys. What likelihood is there that our exports can be increased even to cover the value of the increase of cars imported? Do we really want more or cheaper cars? What will be the effect on the motor industry of this country, concentrated as it is in a very few localities? A public works policy will not help Coventry or Cowley, or Luton or Leicester. I earnestly hope that the interest of these great industries will not be imperilled. Our textiles, the luxury trades, the high-class goods trades, may or may not benefit by a change in tariff, but the 100,000 or 120,000 young men engaged in the motor industry cannot be readily transferred to the highly technical and delicate operations of the textile and leather industries, and the like.

Having reached the position we have done, and trade having become more or less stabilised, it is, in my submission, far better to keep what we have got now, when trade has become accustomed to the tariff, than to enter into adventures which are causing grievous anxiety and are partly responsible for the present recession of trade, however slight it is. The threat of increasing importations is just as important a factor to-day as are the importations themselves. It is having the worst effect upon those very industries which have conduced most notably to the recovery of our trade in the past five years. It is the new trades which are going to be affected, not the old ones, and it is the new trades which have done so well—as is shown by the evidence given on behalf of the Ministry of Labour today before the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of Population—which will particularly suffer if, as we fear, there is to be a substantial modification of our tariffs. I believe this to be above all the case in agriculture the plight of which is widely regarded by persons with no particular political views as being a real danger to our national welfare.

Whether in peace or war we must depend as far as we can on what our own soil will produce with our own hands, on what we can get from our own mines, and above all from our technical knowledge and skill, the character and health of our fellows. These are great assets. No country in the world has better soil, better mines, no people has a higher character or greater skill. They are enjoying more protection than we realise from the tariff wall which was erected around this country by the wisdom of the Government of 1931. I see storms ahead in the new world as well as the old. No one can be unaware of the anxieties that beset the Government in many directions. I earnestly hope that in the negotiations to which they have put their hands they will bear in mind the terms of this Motion, and that they will remember that, having reached our present position, we desire, above all, stability. The safeguard which we need is not a lower but a higher tariff, and an assurance that those tariffs which we already enjoy will not be altered.

4.16 p.m.

Miss Horsbrugh

I beg to second the Motion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) on the very able speech to which we have listened, and I add to my congratulations my gratitude that he has given the House an opportunity to discuss this Motion. I can assure him that my gratitude will be echoed by many people outside this House who fear that their employment is in danger and that trouble is ahead for them unless the Government realise the difficulty and act quickly. Having expressed my congratulations, I should like to express my disappointment that certain hon. Members who have put their names to an Amendment have not been able to be present this afternoon. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), and the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I am particularly disappointed that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and the right hon. Member for West Stirling could not be present.

Mr. Lees-Smith

May I say that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy was in the House earlier, but has had to go away on account of illness.

Miss Horsbrugh

I regret the reasons for his absence, more particularly as the jute industry is connected with the industry of Kirkcaldy. I am still disappointed about the absence of the right hon. Member and I hope that my sadness will not be increased by hearing that the right hon. Member for West Stirling is ill, and that consequently cannot be here. The right hon. Gentleman is a great expert on this subject. He has been to India and has studied the jute trade. Above all, he has occupied the proud position of being Member of Parliament for the City of Dundee. He, therefore, knows the position of that trade, about which he has spoken over and over again, and I should have liked to have heard from him why he supports the proposal that has been put down in the terms of the Amendment. No doubt the hon. Member for Dunfermline will explain. If there is one thing which the Amendment makes clear it is that it is an Amendment of delay. I should have liked to have asked the right hon. Gentleman, who has represented the citizens of Dundee, whether he thinks that it is right that while he endeavours to raise the standard of living of people in other parts of the world we should stand by and wait while the standard of living and of employment of the people in this country go down?

When my hon. Friend was moving his Motion he spoke of Empire trade and Imperial Preference, and directed our attention to the necessity of looking to the future. I speak as a supporter of Empire trade and Imperial Preference, and I ask the House to look to the future and take note of what is happening. We know only too well from the many Debates that we have had on the subject that there are areas in this country where there are misery and unemployment, areas which have become derelict because trade has left them. We know of the efforts of the Government to bring new factories and to bring trade to areas from which the trade has gone. I would ask Members of the Government to consider whether they are looking on the factory problem with a one-way mind? Will their only consideration be how best to get new factories into the derelict areas, or will they begin from to-day to consider how they are to keep factories going in areas where they are situated at the present time but are threatened with extinction?

I am a supporter of Empire trade and Imperial Preference and I believe that our Empire trade must be built up on a complementary basis. It would be wrong for this country to endeavour to extinguish a trade built up in any part of our Dominions. Our Dominions have a perfect right to build up their own industries and a perfect right to develop new industries, and to get all the information they can to help their trade and to make them efficient. We have no right to come between and to spoil the success of those particular industries. While we wish it to be understood distinctly that we would not do that in regard to the Dominions, we also maintain that in the complementary spirit it shall be made clear to all the Dominions and every part of the Empire that they should not seek to spoil or extinguish industry in this country.

I want to speak particularly on the jute trade and the difficulties that are being experienced through the competition of India. At the outset I should like to say that what we are proposing would not damage the jute trade of India. We do not suggest that the jute trade of this country could take up the enormous production of the jute trade of India. It would be ridiculous to suggest that. What we do say is that the trade in India cannot be allowed by its exports to extinguish the jute trade in this country and to throw our people into unemployment. I do not think that I need stress the difficulties that naturally arise from different costs of production. The difference in wages and costs as between this country and India are well known. The hon. Member for Hitchin has already referred to them. We want to keep up our standard in this country. We have protected the standard of hours and wages of our people and we ask that their work should also be protected.

I am informed that in the jute industry the labour content is about 65 per cent. of the cost price. When we are dealing with jute, the raw material of which is cheap, we realise that the enormous difference in price must be as to wages and costs of production. I need not stress that point. We cannot in this country, with our standards of living, produce jute goods at the price at which they are produced in India. I am told that the jute trade of the United Kingdom has always been in difficulties, that there has been one crisis after another, and they have always got out of them. I agree. The history of this trade has been one difficulty after another. They have planned and negotiated to get out of their difficulties, but in each case their plans and negotiations have broken down and they have found themselves worse off than before.

The case is urgent to-day. The difficulty has been growing for years. Anyone who has any information or knowledge about the jute trade will agree that the bad year for the jute trade in Dundee was 1920, when 109,000,000 square yards of jute cloth were imported into this country, with a consequent sharp rise in unemployment. The jute trade of this country got together with the jute trade of India to see what could be done, and an arrangement was made. The Jute Mills Association in India agreed to limit hours and production. Then an improvement came. We saw the imports drop by 50 per cent. 1928 was the best year Dundee has ever known. The imports of 109,000,000 square yards dropped to 28,000,000 square yards and we were able to produce and sell in Dundee as cheaply as the selling price in India, because they had brought down their hours and had put up their prices. The result was that other people went into the jute industry in India. Prices were high, for which we were thankful because we could compete at a margin of profit; but new mills were put up in India. They did not work the hours agreed upon by the Jute Mills Association and we saw the same process happen over again. Prices came down and imports of jute into this country increased.

In 1930 a further agreement was made with regard to hours. Again, more new mills were erected. Again, attempts were made to cut the hours down to 40, and 15 per cent. of the looms were sealed. Once more there was a breakdown. More mills were put up in India and the hours of work went from 54 to 108. We saw what happened. We have seen the increase in imports into this country and proportionally with that increase we have seen the difficulties of Dundee. Not only did we see increases of imports of goods produced in India but we saw Dundee trade being driven out of the markets of the world. They had to fall back more and more upon specialties, which India did not make. The National Government by trade agreements helped our export industries. The agreements with Denmark and to an extent with the Argentine were helpful, but the latter is of less help now than before, because the price of the Indian goods has gone down, and we have seen the exports from India begin to rise again. In 1935, when control of hours and looms was taken off, we saw 71,000,000 square yards of jute coming into this country. In 1936 that figure had increased to 140,000,000 square yards, and in 1937 to 177,000,000. It is not merely that an increase in imports has taken place, but what is alarming is the increase in the increase.

We are looking ahead. Can any hon. Member suggest one scheme whereby we can check that position except by some scheme of protection? Except in that way is there any hope for this trade and for the employment of 30,000 people—the industry used to be much larger—7,000 of whom are now unemployed.

Mr. Gallacher

They need protection against capital.

Miss Horsbrugh

I would protect them, and I hope the hon. Member will join me in protecting them, against any form of goods that are produced under terms and arrangements that are entirely unequal with theirs. I want to protect them—and I do not care whose capital is in the business, whether abroad or in the Dominion—against goods made under conditions from which we have protected the workpeople in this country. Unfortunately, we have not protected their work, whilst protecting their conditions.

The imports in 1936 went up to 140,000,000 square yards. I would ask hon. Members to note that while there has been the enormous, increase in imports between 1928 and 1935, an increase of 375 per cent., in other countries there was a decrease of 5 per cent. What had happened? The enormous increase in products in India had been pushed out of the markets of the world because of their tariffs. Every other manufacturing country had a tariff against manufactured jute goods. The last country to put on a tariff was the Irish Free State, a tariff of 50 per cent. Therefore, our market was the only market open to receive—to quote a Scottish term—the full spate of that extra production in India. Between 1935 and 1936 the imports of jute goods into this country went up by 92 per cent. while the increase of imports to other countries was only 30 per cent. The position is that ours is an open free market, while we have to meet competition in the markets of the world.

The jute trade has been existing during the last few years because of certain fortuitous circumstances. At present Calcutta does not manufacture wide hessian for the linoleum trade, and other things which we call specialities. I should like to say a word about that. The industry of India has been gradually encroaching on work that in the past has been done in the United Kingdom. At one time we were told that certain types of cloth could never be manufactured in Calcutta, but it has in fact been done. Ninety per cent. of the imports into this country are of the standard width made in Dundee, but gradually they have reached more to what we call specialities. Only last year experts from India were in this country studying the production of linoleum hessians, and I am told that certain samples from Calcutta are already on the market. I do not think we can or that we ought to suggest that Calcutta should not manufacture particular types of goods. They will manufacture them, and it seems to me that we shall have to do something to protect our own industry. Sometimes the fact is overlooked that India has made sure of protecting her industries. I had not realised until a little time ago that India has a 25 per cent. duty on manufactured jute goods. The position to me seems strange. There is no preference for us, while we provide India with an open market. The same revenue duties are levied on the raw jute which comes to Britain as to any other country. A 25 per cent. import duty on jute goods by India, a free market here; and no preference.

That is not really the best way of building up a really complementary Empire trade. We shall have to get together more, and I would appeal to the people in India, and point out to them that this enormous export from India to us means so much to us and is so trivial to them. We talk about the 8 per cent. of India's total export coming to Britain. It was previously only 2 or 3 per cent. that came. I would point out that this 8 per cent. of India's export trade is 34 per cent. of the whole of the United Kingdom production. I suggest that if some restriction was made on this 8 per cent. of the export trade of India it would not strike a very bad blow at the jute industry of India but would make all the difference to the industry in the United Kingdom. It would give us in Dundee a better chance of prosperity and more hope for better times than we have had for many years past. The reasons why we have been able to keep going during the last two years—last year was a better year—are two. The first is that during four months of last year there were strikes in Calcutta and orders which would have gone to Calcutta came to the United Kingdom. The second reason is that after the time of the floods in the Mississippi Valley those people engaged in the linoleum business received phenomenal orders in order to replace the loss. We in Dundee came in for large orders, as will be seen by a reference to the Board of Trade returns. There was a large increase in the exports of the United Kingdom to the United States of America during that short period.

Many people who have been interested in this trade have watched the difficulty during the past years. They have spoken about it and have always hoped that we might be able to have something more stable in our complementary trade with Calcutta; but all efforts have proved useless. Things cannot go on in the state in which they are at present. We are thankful that we are receiving orders from the Government for sandbags. It has given employment in the jute trade; it is keeping up, shall I say, a minimum standard of nutrition in the jute trade. I know that these orders are given with the clear understanding that they are a palliative to help us during this time of distress. This trade is vital to the country. We must never forget what part the jute trade must play in our defences in time of war, and a trade which is vital to the interests of this country cannot be allowed to go down. Nor can an area be allowed to become derelict, and men and women be deprived of their means of livelihood, for the want of a small measure of protection.

Having put the position of the jute industry, let me now deal with the efforts which have been made to deal with the situation. Last summer the Indian delegates who were in this country could not see their way to meet the views of members of the United Kingdom jute trade who put forward various suggestions to them. I have taken deputation after deputation to the Board of Trade, and I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for receiving those deputations, and his predecsesor in office as well. I introduced a deputation of employers and employed, and last July there was a deputation which I think is unique in the history of the City of Dundee. It was a deputation which consisted of the Lord Provost, members of the town council—and at that time a majority of the town council were members of the Labour party—members of the employers' organisations, and the employes, led by the Labour trade union secretary, a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and both Members of Parliament representing the City of Dundee. That was a unique deputation.

We went there to put forward a united appeal for protection for the jute trade of the United Kingdom. The suggestion was made that there should be a quota. Previously we had put forward a scheme for a quota or a tariff, but we were united in saying that there must be some form of protection, otherwise the industry would go down. I should like to point out that the danger is not only to a single industry which employs 30,000 people in Dundee and the surrounding district, but to the City of Dundee, with a population of 170,000. About 41 per cent. of the insured population are employed in the jute trade. There are 15,000 unemployed in Dundee to-day, and 7,000 of these are jute-workers; mills are closing and looms are idle because we cannot compete with the standard of living in India. The distributive trades and other trades are also affected, and, indeed, if the jute trade of Dundee goes down the city and the district go down also. We have tried to improve our housing accommodation and we have educational centres and technical colleges for those who are being trained to do work in the jute industry.

We have a statement from the Harbour Trust, pointing out that 38 per cent. of their revenue comes from dues on the shipment of Indian jute. We boast in Dundee that the biggest ship which goes through the Suez Canal can be docked in the harbour of Dundee and sheds and wharves have been built in connection with the jute industry. About 300 people are employed directly by the Board and there are another 450 regularly employed in the docks and an extra 450 during the jute season. That is 1,200 people altogether. Dundee and the whole district depend on the jute industry and there is no reason to suppose that if the manufacturing industry goes down the harbour will ever be the centre of the gunney trade. I am told that 60 per cent. would have to be added to the dues which are now paid if the raw jute imports ceased. What will that mean to Fife and Perth, Angus and Dundee? These ships have to go elsewhere, and what will be the result to the harbour? The whole district would be affected. When the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin was speaking I noticed that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) was interested in the point of view of the hon. Member who shares with me the representation of Dundee.

Mr. Kirkwood

I was interested in the fact that a Liberal Member was also being interested in protection.

Miss Horsbrugh

I was going to point out that the matter is so urgent that even fiscal principles have to give way to practical facts. I appreciate that the leaders of the Labour party in Dundee and Liberals who oppose the National Government have got together on this subject and are united in asking for protection for the jute trade. The strands of jute have bound us all together. There have been many occasions on which we have differed and there will be many occasions in the future when we shall differ, but on this occasion we are not putting forward any party point of view, but are appealing to the Government on behalf of a trade and industry which is threatened with extinction. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) in the autumn gave a message to the people of Dundee through the local Press which expresses the view I have tried to make this afternoon. He said, speaking of the Indian trade agreement: If it can be obtained I want to see a Clause determining the extent to which India is to supply the United Kingdom with jute goods, during the currency of the agreement. The question is not a simple one or an easy one, but I shall continue to do anything I can to urge on those responsible how necessary it is to arrive at a solution on this point along the lines of my suggestion. I agree with that entirely. To-day my hon. Friend can urge the Government and those responsible for the agreement to include in it a Clause defining the extent to which jute goods shall come into the markets of the United Kingdom, and by such an agreement I believe we can bring to this area of Scotland some hope for the future and more prosperity than the jute industry has known for a long time. The prosperity of the jute trade is very necessary for the district. I plead for this protection because I know the anxiety and misery in the city of Dundee. Many of the people there are now unemployed. They are my friends and I know how much they want to work. They are skilled workers, and I plead that their opportunities for work shall not be taken from them and given to those who are working under conditions which we do not allow to exist in this country.

I am surprised to see the Amendment on the Order Paper, and I should like to hear how long the hon. Member for Dunfermline thinks his scheme would be in working out. Would it be carried out in one year or two years or three years? Will he tell us how soon this international conference can meet and how soon we may look for a decision? Will he tell us exactly what is meant by a "minimum standard of labour"? I ask him whether he realises how desperately urgent is the question for the jute industry to-day. I would point out to him and to my right hon. and gallant Friend who is, I believe, to reply for the Government, that we have now an opportunity to do something for this industry which in the past has tried to come to an agreement with India. A new trade agreement with India is being negotiated, and in the Motion we ask that the difficulties of the jute trade and its welfare should be kept in the foreground.

I would also remind hon. Members that recently the Jute Mills Association, and those connected with other mills outside the Association, have been meeting and discussing the problems of the industry. I am told that they wish to reorganise the trade in India. When, in conversation, I asked what part of the trade it was thought would be allotted to the United Kingdom in their reorganisation, it seemed to me that they considered that the mills in India would have to fight out their own battle and that there would be economic warfare between one mill and another. I pointed out that surely, in the reorganisation of the trade, it would make things more clear and simple if the British Government made quite clear at the beginning that we insist that some part of the trade should be left in this country, that we claim some part of it as our own, that we stake out our right to some part of the home market and our right to the employment of our people, and that we insist on the necessity of keeping a jute industry in this country. If that were made clear when the reorganisation was beginning, surely less time would be wasted. I am told that there is to be an annual meeting of the Jute Mills Association on 18th February, and I hope that what is said here to-day will re-echo in India, and that they will realise there that we do not grudge their expansion in the jute trade, and that all we say is that some portion of that trade must still be carried on by us. The consumption of jute goods may be growing, but everybody in India knows that there is over-production; exports have increased, but stocks have increased also. We are told that the trade realises that reorganisation must take place. In the reorganisation of the trade in the Empire, both India and the United Kingdom must take their proper place.

It is for those reasons, and because I believe that hon. Members sympathise with the difficulties of the district, which I have tried to describe, that I ask every hon. Member to support the Motion. I ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline whether he does not think that the scheme which we put forward in the Motion is better than that contained in the Amendment. By showing that we will not compete on equal terms with goods manufactured on unequal terms, should we not be doing something to help to bring up the standard of life of the people in that country? Because of that, and because I believe it is our first duty to save the standard of life of the people in this country, I ask the hon. Member not to press the Amendment, but to allow the Motion to be passed unanimously; and I appeal to the Government to accept the Motion, to save the jute trade of the country, and to bring prosperity to Dundee.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson

I beg to move, in line I, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: taking note of the effects of the exploitation in the jute industry in Bengal by British and other capital, calls upon the Government to promote an international conference for the purpose of fixing minimum standards of labour conditions and imposing an international prohibition of imports of goods produced under conditions below those standards so long as there is an alternative source of supply of such goods produced under fair and reasonable conditions. No one regrets more than I do the absence of my two right hon. Friends this afternoon. As has already been explained, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) is unable to be present owing to illness. I very much regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) because, as the hon. Lady the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) said, my right hon. Friend has studied this question very thoroughly, not only in this country but in India. Unfortunately, a very urgent engagement has prevented him from coming to the House up to the moment, although I am not sure whether he may not arrive before the close of the Debate.

I listened to the closing appeal of the hon. Lady the senior Member for Dundee, but I intend to press the Amendment. I maintain that the Amendment contains an entirely different proposition from that contained in the Motion, and it is in support of that proposition that I shall address the House. Had I ever been a tariff reformer, I might have agreed with the senior Member for Dundee, and have withdrawn the Amendment; but I have never been a tariff reformer, although I do not deny that I have been a protectionist, for I have been a protectionist since the day on which I started to work. When I started to work I became a member of my trade union, and I remain a member of it, and as a trade unionist I am a protectionist. I am all for the protection of labour and the conditions under which I and my fellow workers have to work. Therefore, the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) need not have been directed to me. He does not need to try to convert me to Protection, for I have been more or less a protectionist since I started work—not a protectionist for the capitalists, but for the workers. I want to protect the workers' interests from the capitalists, whether the capitalists be British or foreign.

The hon. Member for Hitchin, in moving the Motion, made a typical tariff reform speech, which was very loudly cheered by hon. Members opposite; but I would point out to the House that there is in the Motion an aspect of the subject which has not been emphasised by either of the hon. Members who have addressed the House, that is to say, the relationship of the tariff reformer here to our own Dominions. So far, that matter has been skimmed over as lightly as possible by the speakers, but I hope that before the Debate closes we shall hear definitely from Protectionist Members opposite whether or not those in our Colonies and Dominions are to be treated as belonging to the Empire or as foreigners. I know that there is a section of opinion in this country which regards Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as being as much foreigners as Germans, Italians or Japanese. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate we shall see before the Debate closes whether or not they are prepared to take up the same attitude towards those in our Dominions as they do towards foreigners.

The hon. Member for Hitchin said something with which I entirely agree. He said that every depression of recent years has originated abroad. I suppose that that applies to the depression which began in 1931, as well as to those before and since. Therefore, the 1931 depression was not caused by the Labour Government, and I hope that when the Labour Government of 1931 is being blamed for certain things, hon. Members opposite will remember that even that depression originated abroad, and that this country was simply caught in it, as were other industrial nations. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Hitchin in his arguments in favour of a tariff policy to safeguard the industries of this country. I was much more interested in the speech of the hon. lady the Senior Member for Dundee. The hon. Member for Hitchin certainly indicated that he is very well satisfied with what has been achieved by the policy pursued by the National Government since 1931. He said that he is satisfied up to the present time, but that he sees certain dangers ahead and wants certain other improvements to be made. On the other hand, the hon. lady the Member for Dundee is not quite as satisfied, because things have not gone very well in the industry in which she is specially interested.

Miss Horsbrugh

I would like to make the position clear to the hon. Member. Things are better even now in the jute industry, for they have 15,000 unemployed instead of 26,000 before. I was considering the future, and I want things to be still better.

Mr. Watson

I suppose that, like many other places in Great Britain, Dundee has benefited from the rearmament programme of the Government. It has also benefited from the tariff policy of the Government, because it has been laid down that bacon, meat and other imported foodstuffs should be wrapped in jute cloth manufactured in Dundee. More recently, as part of the Government's rearmament programme, 1,000,000 sandbags have been ordered from Dundee.

Miss Horsbrugh

45,000,000.

Mr. Watson

I was a long way out in my figure. As part of the rearmament programme, 45,000,000 sandbags have been ordered from Dundee, and naturally the result is that there are more persons in employment and more prosperity in Dundee than there would have been but for the rearmament programme of the Government. Therefore Dundee is not quite as bad as it might be at the moment, but apparently, the outlook appals the hon. Lady, and I agree with her in that respect. As a close friend of Dundee, I do not want to say a word which would worsen the position in that city. I have known that position for a considerable number of years. I deplore the industrial conditions which have existed in Dundee for a considerable time. I agree that Dundee has had and is likely to have a very hard struggle to keep going. I remember the representations made by the deputation to which the hon. Lady has referred. That deputation certainly made it clear that the prospect of the industry in Dundee was very black indeed. As a matter of fact, but for that order which was given by the Government some months ago, the position in Dundee at this moment would be bad enough in all conscience.

I have, as I say, considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady because I represent a constituency which has made a name in the world for another product, just as famous as the name made by Dundee for its jute. The town of Dunfermline has been associated with the linen industry for generations. It has produced some of the finest linen that ever was produced. It is still producing some of the finest linen that can be produced, but the industry has almost vanished. Factory after factory has been closed and the thousands of workers who used to be engaged in the linen industry have dwindled to a few hundreds. The competition which has told so hardly on Dunfermline has not been from India. It has come mainly from Czechoslovakia, but it has also come from some places in the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland and Lancashire. I put this to our tariffist friends opposite. In order to protect the linen industry in Dunfermline would they advocate putting on tariffs against Northern Ireland or Lancashire? Do they consider that that would be the cure for that disease?

It may be true that, to a certain extent, the linen industry has suffered because of change in fashion. Not so much linen is demanded nowadays as in byegone days. Silk has come in and taken the place of linen. More silk is being manufactured and less linen goods are being produced. But I ask my hon. Friends opposite, what would they propose in the case of a town like Dunfermline suffering from the competition of other places within the United Kingdom. How would they propose to solve that difficulty? It is true, as I say, that the Dunfermline manufacturers have suffered as the result of competition from Czechoslovakia but they have also suffered from the competition of places here in our own country—Belfast, Londonderry and places in Northern Ireland especially, and places in Lancashire as well.

This Amendment in the first place draws attention to the effects of the exploitation of the jute industry in Bengal. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire would, no doubt, have reminded the House had he been here, a, great deal of the capital sunk in the Bengal jute industry was British capital—Dundee capital. It was British capital which set up the mills in Bombay and in India generally. That is where the trouble began and how it began. Not only was there British capital but there was British machinery, and there were managers from Dundee, technicians from Dundee, workers from Dundee, teaching the Indians how to operate these jute machines. That was the beginning of the trouble in Dundee. My right hon. Friend would also, I am sure, have told the House that the process had been so successful from the business point of view that some of those firms were at one time paying up to 400 per cent. in dividends.

My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of the Textile Workers' Union in Dundee visited India and issued a report in 1926 in which they showed what had been going on before that time. My right hon. Friend was interested then in the welfare of the jute industry in Dundee. He was so interested that he went to India to inquire into the position there, and the information which he secured was published and can be read to this day by those who are interested in this subject. He showed that enormous profits were being reaped by these industrial concerns in India. There was less consideration then about the position in Dundee or anywhere else in this country. Attention was being devoted to building up this industry nearer to the sources of supply of the raw material. To-day we have the doleful speech of the senior Member for Dundee and the plea that something should be done to safeguard the jute industry here.

I want to tell the hon. Lady that I am moving this Amendment because of the experience which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire had while he was in India. He saw the difficulties which would, inevitably, beset the British workers if they were brought into competition with workers employed under conditions such as he found in India. It was in order to get a cure for that disease that something along the lines indicated in the Amendment has been adopted by the Labour party as its policy for dealing with this problem. The hon. Lady asked me a very direct question. She asked me when I thought the scheme proposed in the Amendment could be brought into operation—could it be done at a year or in two years or in three years? I propose to ask her how long she thinks it will be before the President of the Board of Trade is able to provide the protection that she wants for the workers in Dundee. Will it be in one year?

Miss Horsbrugh

I hope so.

Mr. Watson

The hon. Lady on her own confession went to the Board of Trade several times last year. I do not know what the answer of the Board of Trade this afternoon will be, but I shall be surprised if the hon. Lady gets any more encouragement than she got when she introduced her deputations last year. In all probability the present state of things will go on for some years, because in dealing with the subject of this kind the Government are up against difficulties. Their hands are tied by the Ottawa Agreement. They have tariffs against the foreigner and they allow manufactured articles and certain other goods to come in free from the Dominions. The question upon which they have to make up their minds is whether or not they are prepared to treat our own Dominions as they treat the foreigners. That is what the hon. Lady is asking this afternoon—that either by the process of a tariff or by quota, there should be a restriction on the amount of jute goods imported into this country.

There is nothing surer than that there will be trouble between the Government of this country and the Government of India if any such step is taken. The Government of India will want to know why this line should be adopted by the Government of this country and there will be trouble should any such proposals be put into operation. Therefore, I shall be very much surprised if the senior Member for Dundee has not to continue to argue for two or three years along the lines on which she has argued this afternoon before the Government face the problem which she has placed before them. I am afraid they will allow the jute industry in Dundee to die, as they have allowed the linen industry in Dunfermline and elsewhere almost to die. The tariff policy of the Government has not in the slightest degree assisted the town which I represent. Had our very expert workers not been able to turn from the manufacture of linen to the manufacture of silk, we would be in a parlous position in Dunfermline to-day. But by the adaptability of our workers and the enterprise of certain firms which have come to that town, a good silk industry is being built up there, and I would like the Government to say when they propose to give a little more assistance to the silk industry in this country by taking off the duty on the raw materials of that industry—duties which are being imposed in the name of tariff policy.

The hon. Lady has asked me to withdraw this Amendment in order that there should be a unanimous Resolution of the House to-day on the question of tariffs and quotas. I have never been in favour of tariffs or quotas. The Amendment expresses the attitude which I have always taken on the question of Protection. It asks for an international conference. The hon. Lady asked how long it would take before such a conference could meet. Our policy has been to work through the machinery of the League of Nations, to use the International Labour Office for dealing with problems of this kind and to have a conference of the kind suggested, which would lay down minimum standards in labour conditions. In connection with the jute industry, we would propose to go along the following lines: First of all, we would deal with the problem of hours, to get hours unified as between Great Britain, foreign countries, and our own Dominions. All the countries represented at the League of Nations meeting would be asked to agree upon a minimum standard of hours. That is the first question that would be tackled and settled, and we would then deal with the very important question of child labour, the conditions under which children shall be employed in mills and factories. Only after these two questions were settled would we deal with wages, which, I agree, is the most vital of all the questions with which we can deal in a matter of this kind.

The wages earned in India, Japan, China, Czechoslovakia, and this country show wide variations, and undoubtedly the question of wages would be the most difficult to settle, but our plan is that a conference of that kind should lay down minimum standards that should be observed by all these countries, and in the event of any country refusing to carry out these conditions, the penalty is also laid down in this Amendment. It is not the imposition of a quota, not saying that you would allow a certain quantity of goods from that country to come into our country; the penalty is prohibition. If goods are manufactured in a foreign country or in our own Dominions under worse conditions than those in which they are produced here, the cure is not tariffs, which simply bring money into the coffers of the Government. Quite recently the Secretary to the Treasury was telling us of millions that have come to the Treasury because of the imposition of these tariffs—a fine way for the Government to raise revenue, out of the indirect taxation of our people. We have never agreed with this tariff policy, and our policy is not tariffs, not even quotas, but direct, absolute prohibition.

Mr. H. G. Williams

Do I understand that the hon. Member would totally prohibit the importation into this country of goods coming from any country where the wage rates were lower than ours? Is that the proposal?

Mr. Watson

That is what I am saying. I have already been explaining that we are proposing to work through the machinery of the League of Nations, the International Labour Office, and after the nations represented at that conference had agreed to a minimum standard, goods coming from any country where they were produced under worse conditions than at home, it would not be a question of tariffs, but of prohibition; and that is clearly stated in our Amendment. That is the policy of this party, in contradistinction to the policy that has been advocated from the other side. It is a policy that I myself have advocated in the constituency that I represent. I have told the linen workers in the city of Dunfermline that the cure for the ills from which they have suffered for years is neither tariffs nor quotas, but the prohibition of goods coming into this country from countries where they are produced under conditions worse than those obtaining here.

That is the substance of our Amendment, and I want to assure the hon. Member for Dundee once again that I have no antipathy towards the workers in Dundee. As a matter of fact, I have the very greatest sympathy with them, and I am prepared to say to them, as I said to the workers in Dunfermline, that if they want a cure for the ills from which they are suffering, it is a question, not of tariffs or quotas, but of the prohibition of Indian goods coming into this country when they are produced in India under worse conditions than in Dundee or other parts of this country. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire is not present to-day, because in that book that he wrote, following his visit to India, he explained very clearly the conditions under which the workers in India work. In India we have seen the same sort of policy adopted as we have had in our own country—first of all enormous profits being earned, the expansion of the industry there, certain troubles facing that industry which have had to be got over, and several remedies tried; and at the moment it seems as if the manufacturers in India were busily engaged in cutting each others' throats in order to get as much of the home and foreign markets as they possibly can. We see the struggle going on in India for all the markets they can possibly secure, and as the hon. Member for Dundee rightly said, they are very pleased indeed when they can get a good share of the market in our country.

The annoyance of the hon. Member for Dundee and the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin is that the jute goods that we require in this country cannot be produced here, by British labour. As far as that is concerned, I am with them, and I believe that as far as possible we ought to produce the goods that we require in our own country. I am very pleased indeed that we are having this discussion, because it brings out very clearly the difference between the policy that has always been advocated by the Government side and the policy that has been advocated by the Labour party. Occasionally we are regarded as a sort of wing of the Liberal party—a rather strong wing, I should say, considering the size of the bird. We are sometimes regarded as in some way associated with the Liberal party because somehow or other they look upon us as a Free Trade party. We are not a Free Trade party, and we have never been a Free Trade party. If we had been, we should have been in the Liberal party and we should never have had any reason to dissociate ourselves from that party. Fortunately, before I began to take an interest in politics we had got a definite Socialist organisation established in this country, and I was able to associate myself with the Socialist party right from the beginning, and never had any connection or any sympathy with the Liberal party.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned—and I dare say so far as the great bulk of the Labour party are concerned—we never have been a Free Trade party, and the policy which I am advocating and that is embodied in this Amendment is the policy that our party has accepted as the only policy for dealing properly with this question of sweated goods coming from foreign countries. The protectionist policy means a certain amount of governmental interference, governmental organisation, and occasionally perhaps governmental assistance, but that does not worry us on this side, because we are looking forward to the time when the Government of the country will interfere a great deal more in industrial matters than they have done up to the present time. We want to see our industrial system nationalised, socialised—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne)

The hon. Gentleman is now getting very wide from the question.

Mr. Watson

I have no wish to go outside the terms of the Amendment, but in those terms there is clearly indicated the time when the trade and commerce of this country will be more or less under governmental control—call it socialisation, nationalisation, or anything you care. At any rate, in our Amendment is a definite step towards the time when there will be a change in our industrial system. As it is, we are at the moment trying to make his capitalist system work smoothly a little while longer, and the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin and the hon. Member for Dundee have come to us today and asked us to believe that this tariff and quota policy that they have been advocating will give us all the security and all the trade and all the prosperity that we really desire. We, on the other hand, say that neither tariffs nor quotas are going to give us the prosperity that we ought to enjoy in this country. We say that it is the business of the Government of the country to make sure that we have no unemployed to deal with. The Government may say that they are doing their best to cure the unemployment problem, but we say that the Government have a responsibility for the unemployed in this country and that the policy of tariffs and quotas will neither solve that problem nor yet deal with the situation that has been represented to us this afternoon by the mover and seconder of the Motion.

We are requiring a much more definite policy than that, and in this Amendment we are wishing to tell other countries, no matter what countries they are—we make no distinction as to whether they are Germans, Italians, Indians, or Canadians—that if the goods imported into this country are produced under worse conditions than here at home, the cure is prohibition, that they must be manufactured here and produced here, giving British labour to British hands, which was supposed to be the policy of the Government at the last election. "British work for British hands" was what we had from every platform at the last two elections. As a matter of fact, as the hon. Member for Dundee has demonstrated, the policy which the Government have pursued has not given us the amount of work or prosperity that they expected. I am prepared to press the Amendment to a Division if only to demonstrate that our policy is definitely opposed to the policy of the Government in regard to tariffs and quotas.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Leonard

I beg to second the Amendment.

When a few minutes ago I was asked to second the Amendment, it was my intention to do so formally. I would have confined myself to that but for the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh). I was surprised to hear her object to the terms of the Amendment because, if I read aright the Motion which was so ably seconded by her, it is a protest against low wages and bad conditions. I am surprised, therefore, at her opposing an Amendment which deals with the same subject.

Miss Horsbrugh

I think I made it clear that I oppose it because I consider that it is a delaying Amendment, and that while you are trying to get up the standard of the people in India and elsewhere and trying to get an agreement through the International Labour Office, the standard of the people of this country and of Dundee in particular will go down. My Motion is quicker and more likely to succeed.

Mr. Leonard

It remains a matter of opinion as to which is the most expeditious method. I was also interested when the hon. Lady lectured the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and stated that fiscal principles must under certain conditions give way to practical facts. Fiscal principles must give way also to basic facts, and the basic fact is that Dundee is involved in difficulties because of low wages in India. Until those low wages are attended to fiscal expedients will not save the position. They have been tried in other industries and countries for many years without effect. Just as bad money chases good money away, low wages undermine good wages, and there has never been found an expedient of a fiscal character that will beat low wages.

We are of opinion that ultimately the adoption of the Amendment will more expeditiously bring relief to the people of Dundee than the method proposed by the Motion. In India there is the possibility of improvement under guidance from this country. We are sometimes inclined to run away with the idea that the people of India are a backward type and would not respond sufficiently quickly to efforts to bring up the standards by any appreciable degree. I remember an ex-Speaker of this House, Mr. Whitley, speaking here a number of years ago, giving a good description of the type of persons in India. I specially remember him stating that in the works and factories there he saw a good type of manhood and womanhood and that that was caused by an ample supply of fresh labour. That ample supply of fresh labour, however, was wasted and killed by the horrible conditions in the mills. The wastage of manhood and womanhood, he said, was enormous.

This Amendment deals with the wastage of manhood and womanhood by international agreement to set up standards. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) endeavoured in his interruption to make us adopt the attitude that all imports would be stopped through this method if we insisted on the wage rates and conditions of this country. That is not what the Amendment says. It urges that standards should be agreed to for all countries. It does not, as he suggested, say that if other countries did not come up to the standards of wages and conditions of this country their goods would be prohibited. It asks that there should be brought into being standards of wages and conditions in each country suitable to each country, and that if those standards were not complied with the countries concerned would not be allowed to send goods to this country. I remember Mr. Whitley also said that illiteracy was very great in India, but, notwithstanding that, justice was understood and independence valued. The men and women of that country will respond if they are given the chance to better conditions. He said that caste did not eliminate the desire of men and women to respond in the full sense of the term to efforts to improve their conditions.

We recently passed through this House the India Bill, and the House will recollect that many Amendments were moved in a long-drawn-out fight from this side of the House in an endeavour to get introduced into the Bill the possibility of Labour legislation in India becoming as federal subject. We fought hard for it, and from statements that were made from the other side of the House it was obvious that much of the opposition was prompted by the States of India that are ruled by the Princes. The reason was that those States have practically no labour legislation, and hours and conditions are never discussed, while factory legislation does not appear in their laws. If these things are discussed or do appear in India, it is in the British section of India and not in the States ruled by the Princes.

If we put a stop to bad conditions where we can put a stop to them in India, what will happen if the parts of India under the jurisdiction of the Princes start to take part in the production of jute? If Dundee is involved in difficulties because of competition from places where labour organisations can to some extent function, what will happen if capital is attracted to places in India where there is freedom from legislation of a restrictive character, such as factory legislation? The worst that India can do is not being done at the present time, and the only way to stop it is to anticipate the position, and to get, as far as we can, agreement on conditions. I feel sure that this method will give greater satisfaction to the people of Dundee, and in other industries. It can improve the position as expeditiously as any fiscal tinkering can.

5.42 p.m.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman

We have heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) and the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) give very fine academic expositions of fiscal theories, but I do not believe that, if the Amendment were carried, there would be a trade union left in Dundee because, by the time the theories could be put into effect, Dundee would be shut up. I am talking from intimate knowledge of the trade and personal acquaintance with many people in it, and I know what the conditions are. The hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) was lucky when she drew the first number in the Ballot, but unfortunately the House was adjourned because of the death of Mr. MacDonald. The state of Dundee was very bad then, and if the Board of Trade had done what we wanted then I believe that Dundee would have been in a better position now. If the Motion had been moved then, we should have made our case so well that the Board of Trade would have realised that they had to act. There is nothing political in this question, so far as I am concerned. I am interested in it because for years I have worked with the people in Dundee and I know them intimately. You can ask any of the people who have worked in our place what sort of employers we were. We got on first rate with them.

I want to make my position clear before I develop my argument about the jute trade. I sit for a Lancashire seat. Since 1922 their export of cotton yarn to India has gone down from 35,000,000 lbs. to 8,000,000 lbs., and piece goods have gone down from 1,200,000,000 yards to 351,000,000 yards. This decrease has been entirely caused by the increase in the tariff which India put on. We have Lancashire getting worse and worse, and the poor people there going out of employment through no fault of their own. Since I came to this House in 1923 I have done everything in my power to prevent those tariffs being increased. Every year I used to go to whoever was at the head of the India Office and say "Look here, I hope there will be no further increase in the Indian tariff this year." The reply would be, "I am so sorry, but you are a day late. We have just made an agreement." The next year when I went I would be told "Oh, no, it is perfectly all right, there is no change in the tariff." The next year I should be told "Do not raise this in the House just now, old chap, because political events in India are difficult."

I was pretty young in those days and did not realise that if one believed in anything one had to come out in face of all opposition and say exactly what one thought. That is what I am going to do to-day. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for India in the Socialist Government is not here, because he was most unblushing in what he said. He stated that he was not going to interfere at all. We all know what the fiscal convention was—at least we found out what it was. I learned a great lesson from that. The Government here, if they had had the courage, or if the political position had not been put forward, could have prevented that rise in tariffs by simply saying, "No, it is not to be. It is a unilateral agreement."

I know that I am dealing here with the Indian agreement in regard to the cotton trade, which is not quite pertinent to this discussion, but one wonders whether the political gain has made up to Lancashire for all the misery which has been caused to her people. I do not think so. If our Government had said, "No, you are not to put on tariffs," there would not have been that enormous increase of production in India, and I do not believe the Indians would have been any worse off. I have been told that if anything were done now in the way of putting restrictions on the jute goods coming here from India it might wreck some chance of a lowering of the tariffs upon cotton goods from Lancashire. I should need to have very good proof indeed that Lancashire was going to benefit to any extent as against the prospect of affairs in the jute industry of Dundee being worsened still further, because I do not think that India cares a rap about this country. We have "the 26th of January meetings," and all that sort of stuff, but India is not so very fond of us, and knows perfectly well that it can pretty well go on as it likes.

I spent the bigger part of my life in Dundee, among the jute mills, and I know that to-day there are simply no orders coming in, absolutely none. They are working there from hand to mouth. The orders that come in one day can be delivered within a week. It takes about a week to get a beam out of the looms. The loss at present is about £5 a ton—a pretty excessive loss to be met. As we all know, it is quite impossible for Dundee labour to compete with the labour of the Indian coolies. I am very sorry that the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) is not here to give us his experience. I know how he talks about it. He would tell us that the conditions are not comparable at all, and that it is impossible for us to compete. Dundee is now being reduced to the manufacture of specialities. One of the specialities is linoleum hessians. It is the principal export. Of the jute goods exported from Dundee, 66 per cent. are linoleum hessians. All the warehouses in Dundee are chock-a-block with linoleum hessians, because deliveries, not only in this country but to our chief export market, America, have been stopped. There may be a few orders for linoleum hessians on the books. Manufacturers cannot continue to carry over a million yards of linoleum hessians in their warehouses. The difficulties of storing those huge rolls of goods are enormous, and it is probably easier for them to leave the stuff in the form of jute.

The same thing is going on in the carpet trade. I am sorry that there are no representatives of Kidderminster here to talk about that aspect of the matter because I hear that all the places are now running half-time on account of the imports of very cheap jute rugs from India. A few cheap rugs have also come in from Belgium, but I believe a duty is being used to correct that position a little. The basis of the cheaper carpet trade is jute twist, and if the carpet trade is knocked on the head it means more short-time in Dundee. Take the case of linoleums themselves. The orders for them are not coming in. There was a big rush of linoleums for America, but in this country the linoleum manufacturers are not nearly so busy, because there is not so much building going on. That is a serious thing.

Sir Patrick Hannon

I would remind the hon. Member that the increase in the duty on carpets from Belgium is 3d. a yard, or 20 per cent., whichever is the higher, and that would be a legitimate claim for Dundee.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman

As I have said, the trade in Dundee has been bad for a great number of years. The reserves of firms are in many cases eaten up, and they are beginning again to borrow from the banks, which is a bad thing. If something is not done by the Government we shall have another black area there, as surely as night follows day. All the people there will lose heart, and we shall see their chests falling in. They will not as now, be able to look themselves in the face. They will have to draw the dole, and nobody in this country likes doing that. We are not a dole-drawing people The hon. Member for Dundee talked about the position of the harbour there. That will be seriously hit, and there will be higher harbour dues and higher rates, and we shall see Dundee trying to borrow money but unable to borrow it as cheaply as some other towns.

What is the good of having Protection in this country if we do not use it? I wish the Minister of Labour were here, because I do not know what he will say if he is to have another black area to look after. He has been getting on very well with his work, and will not like to have a setback of that character. We can all help to prevent such a setback by bringing enough pressure to bear on the Board of Trade to get them to put on quotas at once, in order to save the life of Dundee. It could be done by a stroke of the pen, and we should see 30,000 people, with probably 130,000 dependants, filled with hope once more. I wonder what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say about it. In the old days Chancellors of the Exchequer used to draw an enormous revenue from Dundee. The jute mills used to make a lot of money, and had to pay-their Income Tax, etc. I know that the hon. Member for Dunfermline hates revenue coming in from taxation, but where should we be without the revenue? We must get revenue for our Social services, if for nothing else.

I should also like to know what the fighting services are going to do. In the old days the Admiralty and the War Office used regularly to place contracts in Dundee for large quantities of goods. It has been said that further supplies essential in time of war could easily be got from Calcutta. My answer to that is "How long will you have to wait for them"? In the Great War it was a case of "Get us a million sand bags by the end of the week if you can." We should not get them so quickly from Calcutta. During the Great War 75 to 80 per cent. of the whole production of Dundee was concerned with essentially necessary war goods. Dundee always holds in its warehouses a nine months supply of jute, the raw jute, which can within a week's time be turned into whatever goods are wanted for the Army or the Navy. The goods could not be got from Calcutta anything like as quickly. It is all very well to say "What about the supplies of raw jute"? As I have said, we should have at least nine months in which to replenish the stocks of raw jute; the existing nine months stocks would be enough to keep the Army going in the meantime. Nine months gives us good time in which to bring over fresh supplies of jute.

I am told that the trade was asked to make an agreement with the Calcutta mills. The Calcutta mills simply took up a non possumus attitude. They thought they could get away with it. I saw several people in Calcutta and I said, "We will take this matter to the House of Commons and press our case for all we are worth," and one of them said, "I am not surprised that you should do so. That is the proper thing to do if you have an interest in your people." Now, I think, they have rather "got the wind up," because I hear they are getting together. How did the present position out there arise? There were two lots of mills, those of the old combine, who had so many of their looms sealed, and the new native-owned mills, and these, as long as the combine kept looms sealed, were making fine profits. But the combine did not think that was good enough, and so they unsealed their looms, with the result that an enormous extra quantity of jute goods was manufactured in Calcutta, and nearly all of them found their way here. We were only a dumping ground. It looks to me as though the poor people in Dundee, who have an interest in this trade because it is their only means of livelihood, are to be sacrificed to a domestic squabble in Calcutta, and that we are going to agree to it.

It is not a question of high policy at all. If the Government would now put on a quota they would be doing the jute trade in Calcutta a great deal of good, because the manufacturers there would have to come to some arrangement for curtailing their production to what they could sell. They do not want to stock their products, any more than we here do. Further, it might compel the Government of India, over whom we have no control in domestic matters, to pass legislation reducing the hours of labour in the Calcutta jute mills. I am pretty certain that might happen. I should remark that no native works in the mills for more than nine months on end. After that he goes up country, because he is a country-bred man and likes working in his field far better than in the mills. He could do that, and I should think he would be far happier, and be living a far healthier life. But there is no going back to the land for our poor people in Dundee. There is not the land, and they are not land born; they are born industrialists.

I beg the Government to exercise some courage in this matter not simply to turn the whole thing down and say, "You must make some agreement with Calcutta to stop the heavy import of goods." I cannot bear to think of the 30,000 people in Dundee being put out of work because we are afraid politically to act. It is a mean attitude for this country to take up towards decent people. They are our own people, our own flesh and blood, and we must look after them. We owe them a duty. Some Members may think there is a lot of difference between a diehard Conservative and a red-hot Socialist, but on many points there is entire agreement. All my life I have stood rather for the under-dog, according to my own political creed, and I hope that we have the same end in view.

A lot has been made of the sandbags; it was stated that 45,000,000 of them have been made in Dundee. That was the estimate, but it is only 4 per cent. of the annual production of Dundee and is not very much to be going on with. A great many of the factories in Dundee do not make that class of goods at all and will secure nothing. The sandbags go to the people who are in the light end of the trade. Who in this country will score by this huge importation of Calcutta goods? A few hundred people may be employed upon sandbags but as the bags are needed anyway those people can be employed in sewing Dundee cloth into bags. The other people who will score are the speculators and the merchants. All I can say is that I hope they are paying good Income Tax on their profits. At least that will be helping the revenue.

I have heard it said also that Dundee has not made out a good case. I have heard that said time and again, yet I think Dundee has a good case. I have gone into it personally very closely with my friends, and from what they tell me I am certain that that is so. I would say to the Board of Trade that if they do not think Dundee has a good case surely the livelihood of 30,000 people merits the sending of a small deputation to Dundee in order to inquire. From the report of such a small committee I am sure the Board of Trade could take their courage in their hands and do what is absolutely necessary, put on some sort of quota to prevent this huge dumping of goods here from Calcutta. Delay is absolutely fatal, because I believe mills will shut down and not open within the next three or four months, unless the Board of Trade can at once take the necessary steps.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot

The Motion which is before the House falls into two parts. The first part calls attention generally to increasing importations from overseas and the second refers specifically to the jute industry of the United Kingdom. As one of the representatives of the City of Dundee I am naturally more concerned with the second part, but I should like to take a moment to answer what was said by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) in moving the Motion. He referred to some observations of mine during the Debate in this House last December upon the cost of living, and suggested that the figures I gave regarding our own tariff wall were misleading. It is true that he did not question the accuracy of the figures, and that the percentages I quoted included duties imposed purely for revenue purposes as well as duties imposed for protective purposes. I quoted those figures for purposes of comparison and I gave the House comparable figures for other countries, whose revenue duties would also be included in those figures.

He went on to suggest that our tariff wall was rather more moderate than that of any other European country and that it was approximately 7 per cent. of our retained imports. I know that he did not intend to do so, but I think he gave an entirely false picture with those figures. The incidence of a tariff is exceedingly difficult to work out. I would go to the highest authority I could find, Mr. Leake of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, who gave an address to the Royal Statistical Society on 15th June last, and said: The incidence of duties imposed under the Import Duties Act, 1922, on manufactured goods rose from 18.5 per cent. to 19.4 per cent. between 1933 and 1934. He went on to say that it fell to 19.1 per cent. when the iron and steel duties were reduced recently. Later in his address he said that the reduction in some of the duties as a result of trade agreements had been offset by increases in other duties. It is therefore impossible to rely upon that figure of 7 per cent., which has also been given in the Press. I would just make one comment upon the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin. The Board of Trade are at the moment engaged in negotiating for trade agreements with India and the United States. A few days ago the governments of the world, including our own Government, received the Van Zeeland Report putting forward certain suggestions for clearing the channels of trade. If the principles advocated today by the hon. Gentleman were adopted, we could cease at once negotiating for commercial agreements. We could put the Van Zeeland Report on the scrap-heap, because practically all international trade would immediately come to a standstill.

The same thing would be true if the governments of the world were to adopt the principles of the Amendment which was proposed from above the Gangway. It seems to me that that Amendment is utterly fantastic. I gathered that the hon. Member who moved it had certain countries in mind, and that they were Japan, China, India and Czechoslovakia. I understand that the procedure was to be something like this: all those countries and others were to be invited to an international conference. They were then expected to fix standards of labour and wages in excess of those which now obtain in their countries, knowing that that would immediately lead to a cessation of their export trade. That is what the Amendment means, if it means anything at all. If the principles of the Amendment were adopted they would lead in any case to a complete embargo, for instance, of Indian imports. That is going very much further than anybody, even in Dundee, has suggested. I would add a further comment about the Amendment. We are told that we must keep out goods from any country with a lower standard of living, but that seems an extremely difficult comparison to make. I do not believe that you can make an exact comparison between standards of living in an Asiatic country and in a European country, because you have to take into account not only the wage rates, but the very much lower needs and cost of living of the workers in Asiatic countries.

Having said that about the general aspect of the subject, I would like now to refer to what has occupied most of our time, the difficulties of the constituency for which I am the junior Member in this House, and of the district around it. It is true that we are dependent to a remarkable degree upon one industry. I hope that that will not always be so and that the workers of Dundee will not always have so many of their eggs in one industrial basket. I do not think anybody would deny that the collapse of that industry at the present time would mean that Dundee would immediately become the most derelict of depressed areas. My hon. Friend the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) has already given the figures of Indian imports. The situation does not appear so very desperate if you look at the employment figures, which are higher now than they were a year ago, although they are lower than they have been in similar times during the last seven or eight years. As she pointed out, that position is very largely due to certain temporary causes, and to a large extent to the fact that increases in imports have, during the past year, been offset to some degree by an increase in exports. That is due to the temporary stimulus of the demand in the United States, which we cannot expect will recur.

My hon. Friend and other speakers have been good enough to refer in the course of the Debate to my fiscal views, and I want to make the position clear. I do not go back upon any vote that I have given in this House. I voted against the Import Duties Act, 1932, and against the Ottawa Agreements Act, and I should do the same again. I do not think that the principles to which my hon. Friend referred have lost any of their validity. What I have said, and what I say now, is that while we have a protective system I would not deny to my constituents their share in any advantages that that system may bring. At present they have all the disadvantages and none of the advantages. Like people in other parts of the country they have to bear the burden of the rising cost of living. The various fiscal devices of the Government have contributed, in the view of myself and my hon. Friends, in some degree to that rise. It will always be a matter of controversy in this House, when we are dealing with tariff questions, whether the burdens outweigh the benefits, or vice versa, but the position of the people whom I represent is that they are getting all the burdens and practically none of the benefits.

Why is that? Why are they placed in what I think all hon. Members will admit is a position of extreme difficulty? It is not an accident. It is due to the deliberate policy of the Government, adopted five years ago. It is due to the policy of Ottawa, which amounted to this: In return for certain concessions in the tariffs of the Dominions we bound ourselves first of all to maintain certain tariffs against the rest of the world, and secondly, to permit the free entry of goods consigned from Empire countries. It followed, as it was bound to follow, that industries competing with foreign manufactures received protection against their competitors, but industries competing with the Dominions did not. The situation of which complaint has been made arises directly from the policy of the Ottawa Agreements, and was bound to arise as a result of those agreements. We have heard a number of speeches to-day, and I was rather struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin when he complained of imports not only from India, but from other parts of the Empire as well. He complained of the imports of rubber shoes from Canada—a rather remarkable thing, if I may say so. Not a single speaker in this Debate has raised the tattered banner that used to be known as Empire Free Trade.

With regard to the jute industry, it has already been made clear that the disparity in prices is due, not to anything that has happened in this country, but to events in Calcutta. It is due to the breakdown of any agreement between the two sections of mill-owners in India. In my opinion, for what it may be worth, that is not necessarily a permanent state of affairs, and if, as may happen in the future, agreement should be re-established between the mill-owners of India with regard to hours and with regard to the sealing up of looms, there would inevitably be a rise in prices; and of that rise in prices the United Kingdom industry would feel the benefit. But, apart from events of that kind, over which we can have no control, which may take place in India, it seems to me that ultimately a satisfactory solution of this question can only come from an agreement between the industries themselves. The difficulty is that at the present time it does not appear to be possible to find any organisation in India which would be in a position to speak for the whole jute industry, and, therefore, at the present time the only possible agreement is one between the Governments.

If I may quote one precedent, when the Ottawa Agreement was made with New Zealand there was an annex to that agreement in which the New Zealand Government estimated their exports of frozen meat to this country for the next 12 months, giving an implied undertaking that that would be the quantity which they would send and which they would not exceed. I hope that the Board of Trade, in the negotiations with India, will consider whether it is possible to get a clause somewhat on those lines in an agreement with the Indian Government in relation to jute imports. I desire to emphasise this point. As the House may know, I have advocated it elsewhere. My hon. Friend was good enough to quote a speech which I made in Dundee last autumn, and I was very gratified to hear her quote it with approval, because, if I remember rightly, when she herself was speaking on a platform in Dundee she did not approve of it quite so strongly.

It seems to me that in this matter we have to consider, not only the present situation, but also the future of the jute industry. As many Members know, the great bulk of Indian imports at the present time is in the narrower cloths, but, as has been pointed out by more than one speaker, an important part of the Dundee trade is in the wider class, the linoleum hessians. I think it is correct to say that that represents now about 40 per cent. of the Dundee output. My hon. Friend has pointed out that up to the present time India has scarcely competed at all in that branch of the trade, but that there is no particular reason why she should not do so in the future, and the information that all of us who are interested in this matter receive is that attempts are being made in India to enter this branch of the industry and manufacture linoleum hessians. One would like to see some kind of agreement, preferably, of course, between the industries, but, if that be not possible, between the Governments, that India will abstain from breaking into that branch of the industry, in which she has not hitherto competed. I am doubtful whether an agreement covering the whole world could be made between the two Governments, but might it not be possible to have an agreement between the two Governments that the Indians would not send here during the currency of the agreement any of these wider widths to which I have been referring? I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that that would make a great deal of difference at the moment; I think the effect on the present situation would be almost negligible; but I think an agreement of that kind would be of considerable value to the industry in the future. Of course I am not saying that this in itself would be sufficient.

The position of the jute industry has been, of course, a matter of very great concern to the people in and around Dundee during the last 12 months. Personally, I have always deprecated, in the speeches I have made there, the idea of using the big stick towards India, firstly because I do not believe in methods of that kind, and, secondly, because I think that, if all kinds of restrictions were put on by us in default of agreement, we ourselves would offer a very broad flank to retaliation. That may not be a matter of particular interest to people in the East of Scotland, but it is bound to be a matter of interest to the Board of Trade. That is why, in all the remarks I have made in Dundee on this subject, I have always endeavoured to emphasise the importance of reaching agreement if agreement can possibly be obtained. We appreciate, and I think the people in Dundee and district appreciate, that in these negotiations with the Indian Government the Board of Trade have to bear in mind, not only the interests of one industry, but the interests of a very large number of industries, some of which may compete with Indian goods in this country, but some of which are looking for a wider outlet in the Indian market. We appreciate that all these things have to be borne in mind by the Board of Trade, but I would like to conclude by expressing the hope that those who are in charge of these negotiations with the Indian Government will constantly have regard to the peculiar position of the community of Dundee and the surrounding district, and their dependence in such a singular degree upon one industry.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

I am sure the House will have observed with satisfaction the marriage of ideas which has been demonstrated this afternoon between the two hon. Members for Dundee. The consummation of that marriage has taken a long time to come about. Those of us who are neighbours of Dundee have watched it with interest, I would almost say with rapt attention. The first approaches in this matter were made by the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) in 1931. It has taken the hon. Member opposite many years to respond, but I am sure all of us are very pleased that agreement has now been reached. The hon. Member made the statement that in a country with a protective system he would not deny to his constituents the advantages of that system. That is exactly the proposition that I and my hon. Friends on these benches have put before the House when we have pled the case of the farmers. I myself have emphasised the necessity for some greater protection against the importation of oats, potatoes, vegetables, and other agricultural produce. We have said that here is a vital industry in our land which is suffering from the dumping of foreign produce, and we have pleaded for some kind of protection on the ground that, as this country has adopted a protective system, our constituents should not be denied the benefits arising from it. On those occasions the hon. Member has consistently opposed us, but I am glad to observe to-day that, when it comes to a commodity on his own doorstep, he takes a completely different view, and turns round and says he would certainly give to his constituents the benefits of this system. We are all very happy to see his conversion, and I should not be surprised if he finds himself with us on this side of the House in a very short time, for, at last, he has been set upon the right path.

In these matters I have always acted upon the advice given by a very well known Liberal, for whose views the hon. Member will have great respect. He was talking to a meeting of farmers—I think it was a meeting of the Farmers' Union—and he told them this: Your movement, I know, is not a party one, and therefore you will be the more ready to allow me to point out, in fairness to those who, like myself, are convinced Free Traders, that it is no part of the Free Trade doctrine that we in this country are to sit helpless and inactive in the face of subsidised imports from foreign countries. I think that that was an excellent statement. It was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), the hon. Member's leader. I regarded it as such an admirable statement that I have followed it ever since. He went on, however, to advocate a policy which even the National Government has never had the audacity to suggest. It was never suggested by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State when he was responsible for these matters and took such important steps. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland went on to say this: When it can be proved that imports of oats or any other commodities are being brought into this country below the cost of production, we believe, not in tariffs "— and, I should suppose, not in quotas— but in absolute prohibition. At that time, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to keep out all those potatoes, vegetables, and so on that came in and undercut our products.

The hon. Lady put the point very wisely when she said that fiscal principles had to give way to hard facts. The hard facts on this matter are that in 1931–32 this country was made the dumping ground for the spare products of every nation under the sun, and we were obliged, in accordance with the very principle expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, to take steps to protect our workers and our industries. Hon. Members on these benches, the National Liberals, never had the slightest hesitation in supporting the Government in those protective measures. We regarded them, and we still regard them, as emergency measures. We look forward to the day when the great walls that separate countries one from another will be lowered, and when free exchange of goods will prevail to the utmost extent. But in present circumstances we are bound to see that great damage is done in many cases by imported goods. Let me illustrate with one or two words with regard to jute. I am interested in it because, as the hon. Member knows, many men and women who work in the jute mills in Dundee live in the salubrious air of the neighbouring county of East Fife; and, indeed, we have one or two small mills ourselves in that district. We know at first hand the great depression that exists in Dundee to-day, and we realise, as the hon. Member so eloquently said at the end of his speech, that Dundee and jute are peculiar in that jute is not only the major industry of Dundee, but is almost the sole substantial industry of the city. There are one or two other small trades, but jute really dominates the life of the Dundee people. Remove jute, and you will turn Dundee into the most depressed Special Area you can find anywhere in the country, for in so doing you will remove from Dundee the vital element in its life.

We do not ask that all exports of jute from India should stop; we ask for no prohibition; we recognise that there must be a continuance of trade between India und ourselves. We ask only that there should be some diminution of the flood of imports that has brought so much damage in recent years. The hon. Member speaking for the Labour Amendment would, as I interpret him, stop all exports from India. We do not ask that. In a normal year, like 1928 or 1929, the quantities of imports did not upset our market, and we invite the Government to bring imports back to that level. That is not a revolutionary proposal; it is not going to upset Indian trade. We ask the Board of Trade to take immediate steps, by agreement—I think that would be certainly the best way—or in some other way, to limit this flood, and control it so that we may pursue our trading life in Dundee. Dundee is a great city, with great traditions. It has around it a multitude of people: farmers, industrialists and others. A score or more of leading trades are dependent upon the prosperity of that city. If the Government refuse to give it the protection it requires they are going to injure all those trades. We feel, therefore, that we are entitled, not only to plead for, but to demand, protection for it chief industry from the Government of this country.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Duncan

I intervene in this Debate because I happen to be a life governor of the Dundee Institute of Arts and Technology. Recently, we sent a letter to the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this jute question. Depression of the jute trade in Dundee affects us in the educational sense, because technical education in Dundee is built up on the jute industry. If that industry is not prosperous, the whole of the senior technical educational system suffers, and buildings, colleges and equipment will go to waste, while students who have attended the college courses and learned the technical part of their trade in Dundee will have to start again in later life in another trade.

The Junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that one of the best ways to solve this problem would be by agreement, if that were possible, between India and Great Britain; but I venture to put various points to him which will go to show, I think, that India holds all the cards, so that it will be extremely difficult to get agreement. They have the advantage, first, in regard to wages; secondly, in regard to their hours of working, which are unlimited at the moment; and, thirdly, they hold the raw material. The whole of the raw material for the jute industry comes from Bengal, and there is an export tax imposed in India on the export of raw material to Dundee; so anybody who attempts to negotiate an agreement from this end is going to [...] in a weak position. If there is to be an agreement, it must be between the Government; and only by taking the whole range of trade between India and this country can a satisfactory arrangement be made. I want to emphasise from my local knowledge of Dundee the vital necessity of coming to an agreement with India on this matter at the earliest possible moment.

In a way, this is a new problem. Our old conception of the Dominions and Colonies was that they were mainly raw material producers, and that we and other Continental countries were the manufacturing nations. But this is one of the few cases where a Dominion product competes with European products. The question affects also, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), the rubber boot industry, and in future it may affect other industries. For instance, I believe that Indian locomotives are competing in the markets of the world on equal terms—and, in some cases, unequal terms—with those in European countries. This is a problem which future Governments will have to look into much more closely, because it affects the whole question of Asiatic competition with European standards. The sooner a general line of policy is laid down on this question, the better it will be for this country and the Asiatic countries. It has been said that we should arrange it by tariffs, but I do not think that the imposition of tariffs without agreement with India would be effective, because India could easily raise the existing tax on raw materials to a point at which it would meet any tariffs we put on. In the same way, India could reply to any form of quota. Therefore, I think that agreement with India, which can be done only by the Government, covering the whole field of trade, is the only way in which satisfaction can be given to Dundee.

I will mention one other point. Dundee is not a Special Area, and any attempts that Dundee has been making in the past to attract other industries are being somewhat neutralised by the Government's efforts to attract industries to distressed areas. Therefore, this problem of a one-industry city like Dundee should have the greatest sympathy of the Government Dundee will be quite happy with a prosperous jute industry. It is purely a local and domestic problem for Dundee. We appeal with confidence to the Government to effect a settlement at the earliest possible moment.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Lyons

I intervene in the Debate because of the twofold character of the matter. My hon. Friend the Junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said he wanted to devote little time to the more general question of manufactured foreign imports, and more time to the other part appertaining to the jute industry which so particularly affects Dundee. I want to detain the House only a few moments on that part of the Motion, and to make some further observations on the other part, which deals with importations in general. On the jute industry it seems manifest from the speeches of all hon. Members this afternoon that a joint appeal is being made to the Government. There is a confluence of opinion on this from hon. Members who differ on most other matters. Before I leave this specialised topic, I would ask my hon. Friend the Junior Member for Dundee, when he says that we should let negotiations take the place of what is recommended in the Motion, how long he suggests that this trade, surrounded by these difficulties, should wait for those negotiations? Does he or does he not support the Motion, in asking for help for an industry carried on in the constituency which he represents?

Mr. Foot

The Motion itself refers to negotiations, and what should be done in negotiations.

Mr. Lyons

And urges the need for safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry against the competition of Indian jute goods.

Mr. Foot

Read on.

Mr. Lyons

Certainly I will read on. It urges that the need for safeguarding the United Kingdom jute industry against the competition of Indian jute goods should be placed in the forefront of the resumed negotiations with the Government of India. And, as I said, every speaker has pleaded for some immediate action. As one who represents a constituency which has in many ways been largely helped by protective duties, but could be, and should be, helped still more, I would ask my hon. Friend, is it his political philosophy that protection should be given merely to the industry which is the mainstay of the constituency he represents, or should we introduce a system of protection which would be of benefit to all industries, many of which have already benefited during the six or seven years of National Government? Or would he abolish all such safeguards?

Let me turn to the other part of the Motion, in which the hon. Gentleman began by calling attention to the increasing difficulties of certain industries in this country owing to increasing importations from overseas. We have had since 1932 a new and different fiscal system in this country. I suggest to the Government, while fully appreciating the benefit industry as a whole has derived from that changed system, that the time has arrived when we might survey the whole position and the procedure and machinery which exist. Every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon has, in good, robust, protectionist spirit, supported the home trade and demanded a continuance of protection for workpeople engaged in industry in this country. I suggest to the Government that industry as a whole, in face of the importations that now exist, does not get that measure of protection which could be obtained. It is perfectly idle not to protect the finished product of every industry after you have protected the workers in those industries stage by stage throughout their whole course of work. We have the Workmen's Compensation and Factory Acts and all kinds of social services and pensions and trade union and legislative machinery for protecting the worker right through the processes, and it is perfectly idle at any time to allow the result of all that effort and safety to be at the mercy of sweated competition from anywhere and everywhere.

Many of us took the view in 1931 that this was no longer a matter of mere political principle. It was a question of economic expediency, and those who supported the view then, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), and who support it now, can look back with every satisfaction at the course which they took. If ever a thing was justified in the fiscal system, it was the change which the present Government introduced and the benefit which they now see accruing through it. Those of us who want to see that machinery tightened, and still more protection in view of the realities of the situation, do not put the suggestion forward in a carping spirit of criticism, but because we believe that in face of the unemployment we still have, and the knowledge that we can produce the finest craftsmen in the world working under conditions which are without doubt the best in the world, and which we want to maintain and to improve, we think it is grossly wrong that there should be that vast amount of imported goods coming into this country which interfere with our home market and with our own industries. It is preserving unemployment where a proper system of tariffs would reduce unemployment, and it is really interfering with the whole system which was introduced in 1932.

The city which I represent has a worldwide fame for its hosiery. It makes hosiery under conditions which are the pride of the country and a finished article, which I say without any hesitation at all is the pride of the world. Yet I find a year ago to-day, when I asked a question of the President of the Board of Trade as to the quantities of hose, stockings and knitted underwear imported into the United Kingdom from Japan for the year ended 31st December, 1936, in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd February, 1937, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Transport gave this statement: Statement showing the quantity of certain descriptions of hosiery imported into the United Kingdom and registered during the year 1936 as consigned from Japan (including Formosa): Knitted, netted or crocheted goods (hosiery): Stockings and hose of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton, 905,197 dozen pairs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1937; col. 1431, Vol. 319.] I would ask my right hon. Friend who represents the Board of Trade to-day whether he would go into the city of Leicester and offer any justification for that quantity of goods coming into this country to the detriment of the British worker who is protected under conditions that do not exist either in Japan or anywhere else abroad? I was told at the same time that of underwear of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton, 622,800 dozen pairs came into this country during that one year. What is this doing? It is allowing goods made in a foreign country at a labour cost of something like 1s. 6d. sterling a day to undermine the trade and industry and the safeguarded conditions of the workers in this country. Those of us who have seen the wonders that have been worked in our trade and employment at home by the operation of a control of imports express every appreciation that we can for the result that it has given us. When we see this kind of thing happening, and one trade after another adversely affected, and we see goods sold in Leicester market place, made under appalling conditions abroad, at a price less than the costs of production in this country, we say to ourselves "We can do better with the tariffs that we have; we can so overhaul our machinery in the light of six or seven years' experience as to put an end to this unsatisfactory condition." We believe that we should make marked inroads into the amount of unemployment that now exists. Such goods are not cheap. Before the tariff system was introduced one industry in my constituency—the British typewriter industry—was at a very low ebb. To-day behind the tariff wall a better machine, sold at a lower price, is made under the nicest conditions that can be found in industry and with a very large employment of persons having a spending capacity in the city of Leicester. They are still meeting competition which is far too great.

These are all matters that ought to be surveyed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee who have power on their own initiative, under the Act which established that body, to survey any of the conditions to which I have referred, and any industrial questions that create a need for investigation, and attention should be directed to many of these matters. I hope that it will not be said that I am trying to say a word of criticism against the gentlemen who form that tribunal and the work which they are doing. After all, the real basis and intent of the tariff must be the responsibility of this House. We can say, quite properly, that we will give authority to an outside tribunal in a position almost of judicial independence to hear the case and to hear the opposition and come to a decision on merits outside any Parliamentary pressure. But the basis of the tariff, whether it be one for revenue purposes or one that is going to be of real vital use in protecting trade, must be the responsibility of this House, from which there can be no abdication by the machinery that now exists. Policy must be the policy of Parliament. When the employers in the industry or the employed go to that tribunal and ask for an increased tariff, they may be hedged and beset by all kinds of difficulties. We find that the case they present and the details which they give are at once open to foreign manufacturers who are opposing the tariff in order to have their observations upon the case that has been put. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the fairest way and one which would work and operate most efficiently in the interests and protection of our home trade and employment would be to shift some of the onus from the British employer and put it more upon the foreign manufacturer who wants to oppose British industry in British markets. Let him show why a tariff should be kept low or should be reduced. Let it be a speedy and efficient safeguard and let the British maker have every reasonable opportunity in that home market. Let the real burden of proof that the tariff should be reduced or lowered be put upon the foreign importer rather than upon the British industrialists to refute.

It is a remarkable thing that when you look at the figures for imports and exports, and the various ways in which the importations are composed, you see a very substantial increase in raw materials. That is a very satisfying feature and speaks a great deal for the trade of this country working behind the machinery of protection provided by this Government. Nothing that I am saying now or that I say hereafter I hope will minimise my appreciation of that. It is a remarkable feature that there is a vast increase in the importation of raw material for home trade. It is also remarkable that, notwithstanding what was said by those who do not hesitate to criticise matters of which they knew so little, under the tariff British exports increase year after year, and that Empire trade has increased enormously. These are some of the incidents of the tariff, but it is not so satisfactory to see the big rise in imported manufactured goods at a time when we have a block of unemployed in this country, fit, ready, trained and willing to do the work and make the very articles that are coming into this country from foreign lands where they have no such conditions and safeguards that we have here. And all increased production means lower costs.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment urged a system of prohibition. The spirit underlying that good, sound, protective argument is not one with which I and my hon. Friends wish entirely to be dissociated, but we have to ask ourselves whether it is a practical policy which can now be adopted as against the more easy and ready policy suggested in the Motion. My hon. Friends, I believe, would join with me in saying that with the opinion put forward by the hon. Member who moved the Motion we would agree. I suppose that everyone of us believes, in the profoundest sense of the word, in free trade. We would all like to see free trade throughout the world with the complete elimination of all tariff barriers and restrictions. What we do not want to see is a return to a system of one-way traffic in trade; all the goods coming in and barriers against any goods going out. We have to face the realities and say, though we should like the things I have just indicated, at the moment they are not possible. No one else will do this. We lead every time in reducing tariffs and trying to increase the channels of trade between one country and another. While we have to face the difficulties of the day we must give reasonable protection to those industries upon which the whole of our trade and employment and social service must depend.

May I remind the House of what is happening to one industry in particular? It is an industry which is not new to this country but one which has been the subject of many political differences. I refer to the fabric glove industry. It has been the sufferer of a great deal of political discord. It has had safeguarding duties put on and safeguarding duties taken off, but it is the fact that while it had a duty the industry improved and employed a considerable number of hands, and was making headway. It was a very severe shock when the duty was taken off. It has tried to get the duty back. It has gone before the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Questions have been asked in this House as to the refusal of the duty and the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was" The Import Duties Advisory Committee gave a decision against it, and I cannot tell you the reasons why. It is not the practice. "When the Tribunal says in effect" We have heard your case but we are not going to give you a tariff, although without it you suffer, "is it too much for the industry to say to the Tribunal, "Will you indicate the reasons which prompted you to give this decision, so that we can put our house in order and put ourselves in possession of the qualifications so that we can come to you in three months' time knowing that we have made good the difficulty?" What can we do to put ourselves right with the only answer we get in this House from the Board of Trade that it is not usual for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to give any reasons for the decision which they take? That is not the kind of thing which tends to help British industry, to re-establish itself.

The industry of which I am speaking has never had a real chance. In 1925 it had a duty imposed for five years. Then there came the general strike followed by an avowedly free-imports Government, and next came the end of the duty. It is now in a parlous condition at a time when similar foreign products are being sold in large quantities in this country. We feel that while these circumstances exist our machinery is not being utilised to the best advantage. It should be reviewed. We believe that inside the limits of the machinery which now exist a good deal could be done. It is no good saying, as one hon. Member suggested, that this system is protection for capital. That is nonsense. The protection of an industry is a protection of all the people engaged in the industry. When we make all the conditions that we do make, and which we want to maintain and to improve upon, for safeguarding the standard of life of those who work in an industry, we want to pay some regard to the safeguarding of the products of their work in that industry.

I make this appeal. I have quoted only a few instances, but there are many others. The Government showed their good will in granting a tariff by the Act of 1932. They imposed a larger duty temporarily in 1931 by the Abnormal Importations Act. I appeal to them still more to co-operate with industry and to let it be clearly known that no duty will be reduced without consultation with the industry. Let the industry know when and for what reason the Import Duties Advisory Committee comes to a decision against its proposals; and above all, assure to British industry and those who work in British industry a more immediate, and if I may say so, a more general measure of protection from what is the unfair competition, reconsidered in the light of experience in the years when so much has been proved.

7.1 p.m.

Sir Charles Barrie

In supporting this Motion I do so as one who has been intimately associated with the trade of Dundee all his life, particularly on the shipping side. There is one aspect of this matter with which I desire to deal, apart altogether from the general aspect raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), and that is its effect on shipping interests. At present the fact that so little raw jute is coming from Calcutta is having a very bad effect on the revenue of the port and on the number of ships arriving there from Calcutta. The revenues of the harbour are going down, and this means that the dues on vessels in other trades will have to be increased. Already the Dundee harbour authorities have indicated that that will happen. The effect of that will simply be that vessels in other trades will be charged heavier dues than would otherwise be charged, and generally the whole finances of the board will be demoralised. Some 1,200 men at least find employment at the port and, with the reduction in the imports of raw jute, it is clear that unemployment at the harbour and in connection with the jute industry is bound to result. It is manifest from all we have heard from the two Members for Dundee and from those with a knowledge of this industry who have supported them that something has to be done, and I think the chances are that the Government appreciate that fact and intend to help in every way they possibly can.

There is one aspect of this matter which has not been mentioned in this Debate, and that is the position in Calcutta itself. I have some knowledge personally of the Calcutta position, and I know that if the Government here press hard enough there is just a possibility that they might encourage the manufacturers in Calcutta to come to some agreement among themselves. That done, the whole of the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Members for Dundee would disappear overnight. It is well known exactly what happened and what has been the main cause of this difficulty. The Mill Association broke up, and the result was that the mills, instead of working from 40 to 54 hours a week, have been working in some cases 100 hours. The surplus that has come from that production has been sent to this country and, although it is only 8 per cent. or so of the total production of Calcutta, nevertheless it has completely upset the Dundee jute trade. As I have said, with a little effort from the Government those in Calcutta might be encouraged again to come to an agreement among themselves. If they did so the production of Calcutta would at once go down; it would go down not only 8 per cent., but a great deal more. The surplus which has been manufactured in Calcutta has come to this country, and if by this means we can keep it down the position in Dundee will then be secure. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Members who have raised this matter to-day should depart from what they have suggested, but I think that another way, and possibly the best way in the end, would be for our Government, in conjunction with the Government in Calcutta, to get an arrangement made with the jute mills there, whereby the hours at present worked can be reduced to a more or less normal number, namely, 54. By that means the production would be reduced, and all would then be well in Dundee.

In conclusion, I would like to return to the position from which I started in connection with the shipping industry. Every year 200,000 tons of jute comes from Calcutta by steamer. The amount is curtailed at the present moment, because manufactured goods are coming here instead of raw jute, and of course not in the same quantity, and to that extent the shipping trade of Dundee is prejudiced. If something is not done, I foresee in Dundee not only chaos in the jute industry, but chaos in the shipping trade and the port. I suggest to the Government, therefore, that not only should they bear in mind the question of protecting the Dundee jute industry and seeing that it gets a fair share of trade as against Calcutta, but they ought immediately to get into touch with the Government of India and see whether something cannot be done to bring these people together and get agreement.

7.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace)

I think it was stated in the "Times" newspaper this morning that the age of chivalry is not dead, and the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) for having used his luck in the Ballot to achieve an object in which a great many people in the House had promised their help, and that was to enable the hon. Lady the senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh) to bring before the House the Motion which we were unable to debate, under peculiarly tragic circumstances, a few months ago. I might make bold to say that this afternoon's Debate has been the best Private Member's Motion day that we have had for a very long time, for the simple reason that there has been a minimum of Front Bench intervention. I am very glad indeed that everybody who was anxious to address the House on this important subject was able to get in before the inevitable rising of the Government spokesman.

The Debate has ranged over a very wide field, and it would take a far longer time than I have at my disposal to answer the speech of the Mover alone. There are, as has been said, two aspects of the Motion on the Paper: first of all, the large general question of imports from low-wage standard countries in relation to trade agreements; and, secondly, the particular subject of the competition of Indian jute goods with the products of Dundee. The hon. Lady in particular painted a most moving and eloquent picture of the state of affairs in Dundee at the present time. It was good to see the two Members representing Dundee in agreement to a certain extent, although I should have hesitated to draw the conclusions that were drawn by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart).

I should like to say to both hon. Members for the burgh, also to the whole House, that the Government fully appreciate the particular difficulties of Dundee. There is not the slightest need, if I may say so, to send a special commissioner in order to inform the Board of Trade of the situation. The difficulties have been explained by a number of deputations, representing, as I think should always be the case, all sections of the industry and representing the workpeople as well as the employers. It is no secret that it is the immense expansion of imports of piece goods and sacks, principally from India, in the last two years which has placed Dundee in a position which is causing that city such anxiety. I believe it is true to say that the increased imports from India are not wholly due to the replacement of Dundee goods by Indian goods, but rather to the replacement of other kinds of containers by Indian bags on account of their extreme cheapness.

I do not wish to conceal from the House that imports have increased so rapidly that the prospects for Dundee must be regarded as bad unless some means can be found for dealing with this increasing flow of imports from India. But I do think that the hon. Lady in her anxiety to put pressure on the Government was perhaps a little less than just to the great efforts which have been made by the industry in the last few years. Despite these difficulties, we all appreciate that the jute industry, by means of new methods and new machinery, has been enabled up to the present time to hold its own. The production of jute cloth in this country for the year 1937, judged by the retained imports of raw jute and the state of employment is as high as it has been for many years. The situation in regard to production last year is probably as good as in any year since 1930. The unfortunate part of the situation is that the returns from sales are very much lower.

Another sign of the tenacity and resilience of the jute industry is the fact that it has been able not only to maintain but even to increase the export of British jute goods. In 1936, 122,000,000 square yards were exported. Last year the total went up 12 per cent. to 137,000,000. I fully appreciate the reasons, which have been mentioned by more than one speaker in the Debate, for this rise. I hope they are not all on such a temporary basis as the emergency demands from America. But, at any rate, we must admit that up to the present moment the position of the jute industry has been held.

The hon. Lady has already mentioned something that the Government have been able to do as a temporary measure of alleviation. An immense number of sandbags are required for defence purposes, and the orders for a large number of these have been placed in Dundee. They are employing more than 4,000 operatives until the end of March, and I have no hesitation in saying that there are prospects of further substantial orders. Of course, we must face the fact that if the trade had to depend upon defence orders its prospects would be very precarious. It must look for its long-term future to finding some source of civil requirements.

I agree with the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot)—and this so seldom happens that it ought to be put on record—that the best solution would be an agreement made not between Government and Government, but between the United Kingdom industry and the industry in India. Several other hon. Members stressed that point. There can be not the least doubt that on those lines we must try to find a solution. The Board of Trade have done their utmost to bring the industries together. We have arranged talks, but so far they have been unsuccessful. I was very glad to hear from the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton (Sir C. Barrie) that he, with all his experience, takes the view that there is still not only a prospect, but a good prospect, of doing something upon these lines. So far as the negotiations with India are concerned Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan has returned to this country and the discussions on certain outstanding questions are now in progress. Everything that has been said in this Debate by those who have pleaded so eloquently for Dundee must be heard and considered by the persons who are going to negotiate on both sides. There is no danger whatever of the jute question being overlooked in the negotiations which are proceeding with the Government of India.

The House will realise not only the difficulty but the danger of anyone in my position attempting to go into a detailed statement in regard to the negotiations which are at present going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) drew attention to the fact that there are a great many other irons in the fire besides jute. There is the question of cotton which he mentioned, among many other things. If the House accepts the Motion, as I am going to ask it to do, because the Government are prepared to accept it, I hope the hon. Lady will understand that the words on the Order Paper with regard to putting the jute question in the forefront of our negotiations mean what they say, and we intend to "leave no avenue unexplored and no stone unturned" to press the matter forward.

Before I come to the Amendment, I should like to turn to the general question of imports from countries with low-wage standards. The House must bear in mind that any policy of discriminating between one country and another would cut right across the whole principle of the most-favourednation clause. I know that there is a school of thought in this House and in the country which believes that there would be more to be gained by doing away with these most-favourednation clauses than would be lost in the process. I can tell the House, with such authority as I derive from the position which I hold that repeated examinations, and I believe entirely objective examinations, incline the Board of Trade to take the contrary view. To discriminate against one particular country in respect of one particular kind of goods because their wage standards were in our opinion inadequate would cut across the most-favourednation system and destroy what we believe is one of the most essential elements in our overseas trade policy. The same thing applies in regard to putting on restrictions or prohibitions.

I was extremely interested, as I always am interested, in the speech made by the hon. Member for Hitchin. His speech was comprehensive and clear and was magnificently supplied with statistics. I appreciate the tribute he paid to the tariff policy of the Government. Anybody has only to look at the results, which are available to any seeker for knowledge, to realise that the tariff system has been an enormous success. I must, however, correct what is perhaps a wrong impression of my own. It seemed to me that the burden of my hon. Friend's speech was that we should put on as many more tariffs as were required to reach the position that any goods of the sort that we could make here should be stopped from coming in. Ever since the tariff policy was put into operation in 1932 by the National Government the object, as I have always understood it, has been to use the tariff as a long-term weapon in order to increase the flow of overseas trade. Therefore, I cannot subscribe for one moment to the doctrine that it is necessary to ban altogether the imports of manufactured goods. Any increase in the flow of international trade will be for the benefit of all; but we ourselves stand to benefit more than any other country because we are the greatest maritime and carrying nation in the world.

It should also be put on record that an increase in the amount of retained imports, in the situation in which this country finds itself at the present time, is not necessarily a bad thing. I would invite the House to look at the figures of the retained imports into this country between 1931 and last year. Retained imports of food, drink and tobacco went up from £400,000,000 to £420,000,000; manufactured articles only from £245,000,000 to £250,000,000; but raw materials rose from £150,000,000 to £280,000,000. That point has been already mentioned but it is well that the House should have the figures and should understand that the tariff has substantially achieved one of its prime objects, which was to increase the amount of work in this country, which in turn has necessitated greater imports of raw materials.

There is one further point on the tariff policy. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) said that he was not going to criticise the Imports Duty Advisory Committee; but he proceeded to subject them to a certain amount of criticism, not personally but in relation to the position that they occupy in our general tariff scheme. I hope he will forgive me if I remind him that one of the essential elements in the tariff policy, as put through this House by the National Government, and one of the reasons why it has been so successful and a reason which has conduced to its smooth operation, has been the fact that the actual recommending of a tariff on particular objects has been in the hands of a committee of this kind.

Mr. Lyons

I referred to the work of the Committee as a judicial body outside this House, but my point was that the question of policy should be a matter for this House.

Captain Wallace

One of the great advantages that has followed from our tariff policy has been the trade agreements. If one looks at the results we find that between 1932 and 1937 our exports to the Ottawa countries went up 68.6 per cent.; to foreign countries with whom we had trade agreements, excluding those that merely provided for non-discrimination, the figure was 45 per cent.; and to other foreign countries only 28 per cent.

Now let me come to the Amendment, in the few minutes that remain. I was extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) was not able to move the Amendment, owing to illness, and I regret sincerely the absence of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I think he would have been a little more cautious in moving the Amendment. The hon. Member for St. Rollox

(Mr. Leonard) did his best to get the Mover of the Amendment out of an awkward jam. It is, however, on record in to-day's Debate that Socialist economic policy is a policy of prohibition. There is certainly one gentleman who will be very disheartened to read that part of this afternoon's Debate, and that is M. van Zeeland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) elicited from the Mover of the Amendment the perfectly clear and unqualified statement that this Labour policy would prohibit imports from any country with a lower wage standard than ours.

Mr. Thorne

With a qualification.

Captain Wallace

Presumably, agriculture must come in. That policy is going to stop Indian rice from coming in, South American meat, bananas, all Chinese goods, practically everything from Russia, and cane sugar. These are a few of the results that have occurred to me. If that policy were pursued to its logical conclusion the United States of America would cease to import anything at all. I was glad to hear the hon. Member from the Liberal benches expose the Amendment. If that is the policy of the Labour party I should like to know what their position is in regard to the great Liberal petition and what any opponent who may come forward in my constituency will say about the cost of living agitation. It is without hesitation that I ask the House to reject the Amendment, which the Junior Member for Dundee described as fantastic, and to put on record the Resolution which was so ably moved and seconded.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 115.

Division No. 79.]	AYES.	[7.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.	Briscoe, Capt. R. G.	Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.	Brocklebank, Sir Edmund	Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.	Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)	Cox, H. B. Trevor
Aske, Sir R. W.	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)	Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.	Bull, B. B.	Crooke, Sir J. S.
Ballour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)	Butcher, H. W.	Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Baxter, A. Beverley	Butler, R. A.	Cross, R. H.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)	Carver, Major W. H.	Crossley, A. C.
Beechman, N. A.	Channon, H.	Crowder, J. F. E.
Bernays, R. H.	Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)	Cruddas, Col. B.
Bird, Sir R. B.	Clarry, Sir Reginald	De Chair, S. S.
Blair, Sir R.	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Denman, Hon. R. D
Brass, Sir W	Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.	Denville, Alfred
Dodd, J. S.	Liddall, W. S.	Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)	Loftus, P. C.	Salt, E. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)	Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Samuel, M. R. A.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.	Lyons, A. M.	Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Duncan, J. A. L.	MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.	Savery, Sir Servington
Dunglass, Lord	McCorquodale, M. S.	Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Eastwood, J. F.	MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Eckersley, P. T.	Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)	Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.	Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.	Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.	Smith. Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Magnay, T.	Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Ellis, Sir G.	Manningham-Buller, Sir M.	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Emery, J. F.	Markham, S. F.	Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.	Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.	Spens, W. P.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)	Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)	Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Fildes, Sir H.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Storey, S.
Findlay, Sir E	Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.	Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.	Morgan, R. H.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Furness. S. N	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Grant-Ferris, R.	Munro, P.	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Granville, E. L.	Nall, Sir J.	Tasker, Sir R. I.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.	Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)	Nicholson, G. (Farnham)	Thomas, J. P. L.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.	Nicolson, Hon. H. G.	Titchfield, Marquess of
Grimston, R. V.	O'Connor, Sir Terence J.	Touche, G. C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)	Patrick, C. M.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Hambro, A. V.	Peake, O.	Turton, R. H.
Hannah, I. C.	Peat, C. U.	Wakefield, W. W.
Harbord, A.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)	Peters, Dr. S. J.	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Petherick, M.	Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Warrender, Sir V.
Hepworth, J.	Radford, E. A.	Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Higgs, W. F.	Raikes, H. V. A. M.	Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Holmes, J. S.	Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.	Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)	Ramsbotham, H.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)	Ramsden, Sir E.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Hunter, T.	Rankin, Sir R.	Withers, Sir J. J.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.	Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)	Womersley, Sir W. J.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)	Rayner, Major R. H.	Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Keeling, E. H.	Reed, A. C. (Exeter)	Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)	Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)	Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)	Rickards. G. W. (Skipton)
Law. R. K. (Hull, S. W.)	Ropner, Colonel L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Leech, Sir J. W.	Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)	Sir Arnold Wilson and Miss Horsbrugh.
Lees-Jones, J.	Rowlands, G.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett)	Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)	Messer, F.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)	Groves, T. E.	Milner, Major J.
Ammon, C. G.	Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)	Muff, G.
Banfield, J. W.	Hardie, Agnes	Noel-Baker, P. J.
Barr, J.	Harris, Sir P. A.	Oliver, G. H.
Bellenger, F. J.	Hayday, A.	Parker, J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.	Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)	Parkinson, J. A.
Benson G.	Henderson, J. (Ardwick)	Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W
Bromfield, W.	Hicks, E. G.	Pritt, D. N.
Buchanan, G.	Hills, A. (Pontefract)	Quibell, D. J. K.
Cape, T.	Hollins, A.	Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Chater, D.	Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)	Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Cocks, F. S.	Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)	Ridley, G.
Cove, W. G.	John, W.	Riley, B.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford	Jones, A. C. (Shipley)	Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Daggar, G.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)	Kelly, W. T.	Rothschild, J. A de
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)	Kirby. B. V.	Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)	Kirkwood, D.	Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Day, H.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.	Sanders, W. S.
Dobbie, W.	Lathan, G.	Seely, Sir H. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)	Lawson, J. J.	Sexton. T. M.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)	Leach, W.	Shinwell, E.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)	Lee, F.	Simpson, F. B.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)	Leslie, J. R.	Smith, E. (Stoke)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.	Logan, D. G.	Smith, T. (Normanton)
Garro Jones, G. M.	Lunn, W.	Sorensen. R. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Macdonald, G, (Ince)	Stephen, C.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)	McGovern, J.	Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)	Maclean, N.	Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.	Mander, G. le M.	Thorne, W.
Grenfell, D. R.	Mathers, G.	Thurtle, E.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)	Maxton, J.	Tinker, J. J.

Tomlinson, G.	Westwood, J.	Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Viant, S. P.	Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)	Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Walkden, A. G.	Wilkinson, Ellen	Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Walker, J.	Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Watkins, F. C.	Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Mr. Leonard and Mr. Watson.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

It being after Half-past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.