HC Deb 14 February 1938 vol 331 cc1643-57
Captain Wallace

I beg to move, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1938, dated the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Benn

I wish to raise one or two points on this Order. Am I right in supposing that this relates to a Belgian import? I am told that lithopone is one of the most important elements of the manufacture of paint, that it is a non-lead paint. It that is so, all the agitation that goes on in favour of the use of non-lead paint in the interests of the health of the workers will be helped by the use of this lithopone instead of lead paint. It is a matter of special interest from the point of view of the tariff as well. The British trade is doing very well. It is true, I believe, that there was a slight reduction in output last year, but as compared with 1933 the trade was doing extremely well in 1936, and, therefore, are not entitled to ask for additional protection from the committee. Lithopone, being the basis of paint, is the basis of the export trade in paint. We have a large export trade in paint, and I am told by paint manufacturers that if you cannot get a sale of white paint, of which lithopone is an important component, you do not get a sale of any paint. White paint is what you might call the stock article. If these manufacturers are subjected to a duty upon lithopone it is a blow at the whole of their export trade.

It is agreed in all parts of the House, I think, that we desire to see an increase in our export trade, but this Order would place a duty upon a raw material for an article which is a very important part of our export trade. I therefore want the Minister to tell me whether there will be a drawback. If paint manufacturers here import lithopone and use it in making paint which they afterwards sell abroad, in the hottest competition with foreign paint manufacturers, and have to pay a duty upon the lithopone, then obviously they will be seriously handicapped. I asked the Minister whether they will get a drawback equal to at least 90 per cent. He said, I think, in the course of his speech, that he imagined that would be so, but no doubt he can give us more information, because although we object to the Order, and I hope the House will divide against it, one of our objections would be removed if we were told that a drawback would be given.

We have been told that we must not criticise the Advisory Committee, but we can criticise the Minister. It is quite incredible that this House should have lost all power to criticise the arguments on which new taxes are to be imposed, and, therefore the Minister accepts responsibility for the words in the report of the committee. He must do so. They say, in regard to lithopone, that they will give protection until such time as the lithopone trade may be in an international cartel. That is to say, "We will protect the gangsters until they can come together and protect themselves"—until the sweating of the consumer passes from the home trade, under the protection of a tariff, to the international cartel. I should like to tell the House what a great expert whose name will be accepted with respect on the other side of the House said on the subject. Speaking of the steel trust Lord Nuffield said: A perfect ramp; an absolute ramp; big cigars and nothing else. That is not language which I should venture to use, but it was language used by this very great expert in these matters. Therefore, I should like answers on these points; First, how far is the foreign trade in paint going to be affected by this increased duty; and, second, does the Minister accept the view that nothing is to be done about the creation of an international cartel and about the rise in prices, which will then become entirely a matter for their own decision?

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

I feel very much concerned about the items with which we are dealing this evening, and am wondering whether we have an assurance that all those who have taken part in arriving at these decisions are people who are not interested either in the manufacture or the selling of the particular products.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member cannot go into the question of the composition of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Kelly

There are the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury as well. I want it to be clear that this is an impartial decision arrived at in the interests of the country, and that those responsible have not come to it because they are themselves interested parties,

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is doing now what I have told him that he should not do, and that is inquiring into the composition or the proceedings or the interests of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Kelly

I dealt with the other names which are attached to the Orders.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is doing what he ought not to do. I have made the position perfectly plain.

Mr. Kelly

There are the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, whose names are mentioned; but on that matter I shall not attempt to go past the Ruling of the Chair. The question of the committee is one which we shall have to deal with elsewhere than here, and I am not going to deal with it to-night. I ask the Minister whether or not we can have the assurance that the people who have to pass these Orders along to the House—the Lords Commissioners' names are here—have no interest of any kind in the manufacture or distribution of these particular products.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Acland

I should like to ask the Minister whether I understood him rightly as saying that he refused to give us any figures of production in the years 1936 and 1937 because it was confidential information. It seems a rather remarkable state of affairs if that is so. I appreciate that the advisory committee may receive a good deal of information which is confidential, but surely a matter of fact, like the production of the home industry, as to which there can be no dispute, ought to be made known to the House before we are asked to decide whether a duty should be granted or not. A hint was dropped by the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) that the figures, if they were given, would show a decrease last year. The figures one has show that in 1933 production was 30,000 tons and in 1935,38,000 tons, a quite handsome rate of increase. As regards the export trade, in 1930 it was 2,000 tons; 1933, 4,000 tons; 1935, 6,000 tons; 1937, very nearly 8,000 tons. None of those figures indicate that the industry is in a bad way.

Sometimes we are told that a tariff should be imposed to rescue an industry which is in a bad way and cannot carry on, but there is no indication that this industry is in a position where it cannot carry on. There have been suggestions of a heavy reduction in the price of the imported article. I put it to the Minister that imported lithopone has fallen by 5 per cent. in price in the last few years, if by no more, and in this very report it says that home prices have been materially reduced. They have been materially reduced, presumably, because methods of manufacture are such that they can be reduced, and if the foreigner is using those methods it is not surprising that foreign prices have fallen along with ours.

I should like to say a sentence or two in support of the suspicions of the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the last paragraph in which it is stated that an international cartel is going to be set up.

Hon. Members opposite really must think out anew what are to be their answers to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. The answer which they have always had has been based upon the universal practice of free competition, backed up by bankruptcy to take out the inefficient and to leave only the efficient to function, but now we are entering—here is another small example—into a world from which free competition is eliminated. What is the answer of hon. Gentlemen opposite to those above the Gangway who say that as in the lithopone industry prices are to be fixed not by competition but by some committee, meeting in London, that committee should be composed of representatives of the State acting on behalf of the nation as a whole, and that those prices should not be settled by representatives of capital acting in the interests of the capital involved in the industry? It may be that hon. Members should be careful how far they are going in this process of elimination and in allowing the State to give assistance to the elimination of one more aspect of free competition.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths

I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a rather pointed question because we hardly know where we are. What has the production of this trade been during the past year? Up to now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been rather dumb on that point. In the first column of this Order it states that the definition is intended to describe lithopone and materials of the character of lithopone, a pigment used mainly in the manufacture of paints and linoleum and, to a minor extent, for various other industrial purposes. I am led to understand that there is a lot of white lead used in this business. Have inquiries been made as to the conditions of the workers in the industry? Generally speaking these tariffs are brought forward not in the interests of the workers but in the interests of the capital invested in the industries concerned, in order that those who have that capital can make what they term reasonable profits. All these orders worship at the shrine of the golden calf.

I am associated with an industry in which, in recent years, numerous committees have been set up to inquire into the conditions of the workers. I was in this House during the last Parliament when an inquiry was set up into miners' nystagmus and other diseases. That was about three years ago. I believe the findings of that committee have just come to the Department and that we are to have them a little later on. Another committee was set up about silicosis, a most dangerous disease. I will leave this point now, because I see Mr. Deputy-Speaker is getting rather restless. I would ask the Secretary for Mines whether he is taking into account the health of these people. White lead disease is one of the most dangerous, and many men have passed out of time into eternity by reason of it. If no inquiries have been made, it is time that the Minister made inquiries about conditions among the producers of these goods as well as among the sellers of them. Unless more information is given on this point than has been given up to the present time, we shall have to vote against the Order.

9.20 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson

This matter concerns my constituency, where we have one of the largest paint works in the country. This Order is serious for this industry, whose raw material is to be taxed. I would raise this matter with some force because the policy of the Government in this and many other directions during the six years in which the Government have been in power has been to hit the export trade of the North-West country very considerably indeed. One of the reasons why there are distressed areas is the repeated blows which have been delivered at the export trades in our great industrial centres. There are two very large paint works, one in my constituency and one just across the river. They are excellent employers of labour and pay excellent wages. The one in my constituency is the only one which was able, during the first year of the depression, to give any steady employment. It has maintained trade union conditions and has won everywhere an excellent reputation.

It is the type of firm that should be encouraged. I was once shown around the firm and I went to some extent into its workings. I found that it was working under conditions of most intense competition all over the world. It is an international export trade, and it has to enter into competition not only with labour very much cheaper than its own but against Government-subsidised industries in other parts of the world. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary the position in regard to this industry, which is in an area which the Government have hit very badly. It is a good firm with a sound export trade, maintaining its position in the face of great difficulty, but instead of trying to help it the Government have come along and actually proposed that one of its important raw materials should be subjected to taxation. It seems a little grotesque that on one side the Government should put up a Minister to appeal to new industries, many of them quite mushroom in character, to go into the new trading estates, which are being provided at very great expense to the taxpayer, and are giving every kind of inducement to those industries, including requests to our towns, already very heavily rate-burdened, to reduce their rates to such trades, while, on the other hand, another Minister is sent forward with an import duty which will definitely hamper an existing trade which is maintaining one of our very badly-needed export industries.

As those were not enough, the bank chairman and the other experts who advise the Government, are at the present moment showing how necessary it is that the export trade should be facilitated. We are being asked to pay too high a price in order that a small industry, in this case the lithopone industry, should be able, having pulled the necessary number of strings, to get a special tariff to itself. If the Minister came before us and gave the whole facts and said, "There is this special reason why this duty should be levied," then at least we could weigh up the supposed advantages to the lithopone industry (which seems to be doing very well) against the disadvantage of increasing the price of raw materials to an old-established export trade. I submit that the Minister has done nothing of the kind, in fact, if I may pay him compliments, he is a perfect artist in vagueness. He has all the vague phrases: He "would find it difficult to imagine" that the Advisory Committee would do something or other, "he could not think it possible," "he would be very much surprised to learn."

Really, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were arguing this in a court of law he would find it very difficult to get away with such phrases; I think it would be said that that was not evidence. And I submit that when Parliament is examining an importy duty that is going to have a double effect and hit an established export trade we should at least be given some facts and be told by the Government the real reason why they are doing this thing—if they dare give the real reason, and if the whole thing is not a ramp from beginning to end. All that happens is that the Minister comes here and uses the sledge hammer of his automatic majority, and says, "Really it does not matter; we can allow these people to talk, and we have to listen to them, poor things. It is a frightful bore, but all it means is that we shall be a quarter of an hour late with the next Order." That is not treating the House fairly, it is not treating fairly those of our manufacturers who are put in a difficult position, and I hope that my party will register its protest both against the Minister's attitude and against the proposed import duty.

9.28 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris

I want to call the attention of hon. Members opposite to a peculiar feature of this Order. I have had many experiences of these import duties Orders, and up to the present I have always found them in one particular form. They have always gone on the line that the duty is imposed mainly to protect British industry and to give more employment. But, for the first time I believe—it is true, there is one precedent in the iron and steel industry, which is not an exact equivalent—a new principle is laid down. I hope hon. Members opposite will give some particular study to page 2 of the Advisory Committee's report, where this extraordinary doctrine is put forward: It is possible that, in due course, an international agreement between the chief European manufacturers, in regard to which negotiations have been proceeding for some time past, will be concluded, and in that event we shall be prepared to consider whether the proposed duty should be reduced. I am not quite sure that the Commissioners were not exceeding their powers, because under the original Act two factors have to be considered—first, that the industry needs protection owing to unfair competition and, second, that the duty is not going to interfere with the supply of essential raw materials for our industries. But this is a new doctrine. This is a direct stimulus to the formation of an international cartel. There are one or two Liberal Members supporting the Government. There is the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Furness)—I do not know exactly whether he is a Commissioner to the Treasury or on the high road to that position, but he is proud to be inspired by Liberal traditions, though I understand he is prepared to put them in cold storage to meet a national emergency. Still, it is part of his doctrine that he is still in principle, although not in practice, a free trader. I should like to know whether it is part of the policy of the National Liberals—I emphasise the word "National"—to use tariffs, not in the interests of the nation or of our own industries, but in order to form international trusts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have been reading this report, and, as far as I can see, there is nothing in it which shows that the putting forward of these proposals would lead to a cartel.

Mr. Benn

No, but they do indicate that the Order has essentially in view the fact that they believe a cartel is to be formed, and if we are not to be allowed to discuss the report of the committee itself, it is restricting the Debate toomuch.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not so read the report. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at it again. What it means is that it is possible that a certain thing may be done, in which case the committee would be prepared to consider taking a certain course.

Sir P. Harris

But is not it reasonable to assume that we are putting on this duty in order to encourage the formation of an international cartel?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It seems to me rather a long way round, I am bound to say. It had not occurred to me, and I do not see that that is stated in the report.

Sir P. Harris

Yes, but the ways of these Commissioners are tortuous. This is significant of a new dispensation, and perhaps the Minister could enlighten us. Is it the policy of the Government to use these duties as instruments to encourage the formation of international cartels? If so, we know where we are. Perhaps my hon. Friends who are working for national, as opposed to international, interests, if they think that is the policy of the Government, will reconsider their position. However, I do think that this Order is significant as suggesting a new policy and a new purpose, and ought to be examined very closely.

Captain Wallace

The hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), who came in in the latter stages of the Debate, accused me of being casual and of a lack of imagination.

Miss Wilkinson

On a point of Order. I have been present in this House during the whole time that this question of lithopone has been discussed. I have never moved from this House.

Captain Wallace

Then the hon. Lady did not, perhaps, know that we had an interesting Debate before that on the general question. Of course, I do not for a moment wish to pit my imagination against the hon. Lady's, because I think some powers of imagination are needed to make the astonishing statement that this Government has done nothing for the North-East coast. All that I am going to do now is to reply to some specific points which were very succinctly put to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He asked, first of all, what were the chief sources of these imports. The answer is, Belgium and Germany. He asked, secondly, whether there was a drawback scheme in the tariff. The answer is that there is not at the present moment, but, if people feel that their export trade would be helped by a drawback, they have simply to go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and make a case for it if they can.

Mr. Benn

I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must be mistaken. He says, of course, that if the House agrees there will be a drawback, but manufacturers have to face international competition with this swingeing duty on their raw material.

Captain Wallace

These people are competing, according to the right hon. Gentleman, under such difficulties with this swingeing duty—which, I may point out, is not being increased under the Order, but is simply being supplied with an alternative—exported in 1935, in the form of paints and painters' enamels, which are the only figures I have, 457,000 cwts., and that went up in 1937 to 547,000 cwts. With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), who came to the conclusion that I was "off side"; as a matter of fact it was he that was "off side," because white lead is not a component of lithopone, and in fact lithopone is used as an alternative when people do not want to use white lead. As to the question of cartels, I doubt very much whether I should be right in pursuing it very far, but the point I would like to make is that British prices to the consumers in these manufacturing and exporting industries have been reduced as a result of the tariff. The home manufacturers of lithopone have been enabled to produce on a bigger scale and more effectively, and they held three-quarters of the home market in 1935. But since then there has been this alarming increase in imports. Imports from all countries have gone up from 10,381 tons in 1935 to 15,639 tons in 1937—

Mr. Acland

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the figure for 1934? He has taken the very lowest figure.

Captain Wallace

The imports have gone up 50 per cent. The point made by the Committee with regard to cartels is, I imagine, a very simple one, namely, that if, as the result of an agreement between manufacturers abroad and in this country for the purpose of what I may call assisting orderly marketing, the home market was saved from the competition of the low-priced article, the necessity for the duty might disappear. I am surprised that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who, I know, hates these duties with an almost fanatical hatred, should look even a potential gift horse in the mouth when he sees in this Order a possible reduction of the duty.

Mr. Acland

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give no answer on the

question of the production in 1936 and 1937?

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Ede

Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what interpretation the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) and the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), who signed this Order, put upon the fourth paragraph of the Committee's Report? I notice that the Committee describe themselves as: Your Lordships' obedient Servants. We have been told earlier this evening that those servants cannot be instructed, and I do not know to what they are obedient when they describe themselves as obedient servants. Clearly, however, this fourth paragraph of their Report must have had some meaning to the two Lords Commissioners who were asked to sign the Order. In view of the experience that has overtaken another industry in which a cartel has been established, namely, the complete withdrawal of its commodity, sometimes, from the people who desire to use it in this country, it would be interesting to know whether these two Members of the Government who signed the Order on behalf of the Government had any consultation with responsible Members of the Government before they afforded this opportunity for the setting up of an umbrella under which people might meet together to try to arrange one of these cartels.

Question put, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1938, dated the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

The House divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 127.

Division No. 98.] AYES. [9.43 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Bower, Comdr. R. T. Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Boyce, H. Leslie Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Bracken, B. Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Briscos, Capt. R. G. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Apsley, Lord Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Christie, J. A.
Aske, Sir R. W. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Assheton, R. Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Clarry. Sir Heginald
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Butcher, H. W. Clydesdale, Marquess of
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Butler, R. A. Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Campbell, Sir E. T. Colfox, Major W. P.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Cartland, J. R. H. Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Beechman, N. A. Carver, Major W. H. Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Blair, Sir R. Cary, R. A. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Boulton, W. W. Castlereagh, Viscount Crooke, Sir J. S.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Hunter, T. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Hutchinson, G. C. Ropner, Colonel L.
Cross, R. H. James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Crossley, A. C. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Crowder, J. F. E. Keeling, E. H. Rowlands, G.
Cruddas, Col. B. Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Culverwell, C. T. Kimball, L. Russell, Sir Alexander
Davies, C. (Montgomery) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Salmon, Sir I.
Davits, Major Sir C. F. (Yeovil) Lees-Jones, J. Salt, E. W.
Dawson, Sir P. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Samuel, M. R. A.
De Chair, S. S. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Danville, Alfred Levy, T. Sandys, E. D.
Dodd, J. S. Lewis, O. Savery, Sir Servington
Doland, G. F. Lipson, D. L. Scott, Lord William
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) Loftus, P. C. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Duggan, H. J. Lyons, A. M. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Duncan, J. A. L. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Eastwood, J. F. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Edmondson, Major Sir J. McCorquodale, M. S. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Ellis, Sir G. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Elmley, Viscount Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Spans, W. P.
Emrys-Evans, P. V. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Entwistle, Sir C. F. McKie, J. H. Storey, S.
Findlay, Sir E. Maitland, A. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Fleming, E. L. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Fyfe, D. P. M. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Gluckstein, L. H. Markham, S. F. Sutcliffe, H.
Gower, Sir R. V. Marsden, Commander A. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Tate, Mavis C.
Grant-Ferris, R. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Touche, G. C.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Grimton, R. V. Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Turton, R. H.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R. Wakefield, W. W.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Moreing, A. C. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Guinness, T. L. E. B. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hambro, A. V. Munro, p. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Hannah, I. C. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. Warrender, Sir V.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Nieolson, Hon. H. G. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Peake, O. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Hepworth, J. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Higgs, W. F. Porritt, R. W. Wise, A. R.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Radford, E. A. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Holmes, J. S. Rankin, Sir R. Wragg, H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin) Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence Rayner, Major R. H. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Hulbet, N. J. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Hume, Sir G. H. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) NOES. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Major Herbert and Mr. Furness.
NOES.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Dobbie, W. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ammon, C. G. Ede, J. C. Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Banfield, J. W. Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Barnes, A. J. Foot, D. M. Kelly, W. T.
Batey, J. Gallacher, W. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Bellenger, F. d. Gardner, B. W. Kirby, B. V.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Benson, G. Gibson, R. (Greenock) Lathan, G.
Bevan, A. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Lawson, J. J.
Broad, F. A. Grenfell, D. R. Leach, W.
Bromfield, W. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Leslie, J. R.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Griffiths. J. (Llanelly) Logan. D. G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Groves, T. E. Lunn, W.
Burke, W. A. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Cape, T. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) McEntee, V. La T.
Charleton, H. C. Harris, Sir P. A. McGhee, H. G.
Chater, D. Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Maclean, N.
Cluse, W. S. Hayday, A. Mainwaring, W. H.
Cocks. F. S. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Mathers, G.
Cove, W. G. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Messer, F.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Daggar, G. Hicks, E. G. Muff, G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Hills, A. (Pontefract) Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hopkin, D. Naylor, T. E.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jagger, J. Noel-Baker, P. J.
Oliver, G. H. Sexton, T. M. Viant, S. P.
Owen, Major G. Shinwell, E. Walkden, A. G.
Pearson, A. Silkin, L. Watkins, F. C.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. Silverman, S. S. Watson, W. McL.
Price, M. P. Simpson, F. B. White, H. Graham
Quibell, D. J. K. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Wilkinson, Ellen
Richards, R. (Wrexham) Smith, E. (Stoke) Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Ridley, G. Smith, T. (Normanton) Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Riley, B. Sorensen, R. W. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Ritson, J. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Thurtle, E. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey) Tinker, J. J.
Seely, Sir H. M. Tomlinson, G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1938. dated the thirty-first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.

Forward to