HC Deb 13 July 1938 vol 338 cc1467-79
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross)

I beg to move, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1938, dated the twentieth day of June, 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 said twentieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, he approved. This Order seeks to apply alternative specific duties on cycle bells, bell gongs, bell domes and dynamo lighting equipment for cycles. The object is to protect a well-established and efficient home industry against the abnormally low priced foreign competition to which it has been subjected in recent times. In the case of cycle bells there are British cycle bells made by a firm of world-wide reputation which for some years have been retailed at the price of 8d. and is. In recent years there has been a growing foreign competition from cycle bells retailed in this country at 6d., a price at which it is quite impossible for the home-produced article to be retailed. Conse- quently, the home producer has been steadily losing ground. Japan and Germany are the principal sources of importation. Japan entered the market four or five years ago and made very rapid progress with a very cheap bell and cut out the German product. Germany then cut their prices and won back a substantial share of the market. It will be readily understood that this price competition between Germany and Japan reacted most unfavourably upon the British producer. The proposed new duty should place an old-established British industry upon a competitive basis and enable them to supply bells of tested quality at the lowest prices consistent with the maintenance of British industrial standards.

There is also a recommendation for the imposition of a duty upon bell gongs and bell domes. The object of this recommendation is to prevent the evasion of the duty that I have been discussing, by the importation of parts for assembly in this country. As regards dynamo lighting sets, we are here again concerned with Japanese competition. This form of lighting for bicycles has become increasingly popular in this country in recent times, but the British manufacturers have concentrated upon the rather more expensive type of set. It is evident that there is need for a cheap and reliable set. The Japanese product is cheap, but it has a questionable reliability, and the element of unreliability brings into discredit this form of lighting and affects adversely the better British product. What we want is a set which is reasonably cheap and reliable. The British industry have plans and have installed plant for the production of a cheap and reliable set at 12s. 6d. and are hoping to start production in August. In both these cases we are concerned with competition of German and Japanese origin. In the case of Germany it is a question of price cutting, although we have no evidence of the methods by which the prices have been reduced. In the other case it is the competition of Oriental labour, which is just as serious for us. In view of these facts I hope the House will readily approve this Order.

Major Dower

Is not this another instance of Germany subsidising her exports?

Mr. Cross

I have no evidence on that point.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Paling

I am more concerned with the question of dynamos. I have always understood that the business of the Import Duties Committee was to give protection to British industries which find themselves in competition with cheap goods produced by cheap labour abroad. That may be the case in regard to cycle bells, but it cannot be the case with regard to dynamos. Dynamos which the ordinary cyclist would buy have never been manufactured in this country and are not manufactured now. That is admitted in the leaflet. The actual dynamo issued to cyclists costs between 145. and 27s. 6d., and the only competition has come from Switzerland, with a slightly dearer article, and from Germany with a slighly cheaper article, but not so much as to become unduly competitive. The competition, if it can be called competition, is now coming from Japan with a dynamo which is sold at 7s. to 10s., but it is an article which is in an entirely different class, a much inferior article, to the British article. The British manufacturers have never competed, and have never tried to compete with a dynamo suitable for thousands of cyclists. Now we are told that if we pass this duty, and give this protection, our manufacturers will consider making a dynamo to suit the market. I always thought that there had to be evidence of intense competition before they could hope to get a duty. Now, apparently, the duty is to come first.

It is rather curious that this should come at a time when there is the possibility of an enormous market being created in the near future. A committee has been sitting on the question of cyclists on the roads, and I understand that they may have to have rear lamps on cycles. If that becomes law it means that every cycle will have to have an extra lamp, there will be a demand for some millions of lamps. There is likely to be a huge demand and these people who are seeking to provide for this huge demand are to have protection on the article before it is produced. It would have been much better if the manufacturers had done their best to create the article which is likely to be in much greater demand rather than to come to this House and ask for this protection before they have attempted to make the article which the cyclists will want. I hope we shall be told why there has been this change of policy. Why is the Import Duties Council granting this duty even before the industry has laid down the plant to manufacture the article? It is a bad change of policy. I think that some of the import duties that have been imposed previously have been unwarranted, and I am sure that this particular duty is absolutely unwarranted.

11.20 p.m.

Sir P. Harris

I am glad that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) has called attention to the innovation which this Order represents. I think this is the first time that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have taken the step of recommending a duty before the actual commodity is on the market. It is clear from the report that had it not been for the foreign competition, the industry would not have attempted to produce a cheap article for which there is a very real and practical demand. It is true that cyclists in general have been suspicious of any requirement that they should do what all motorists are anxious they should do, that is to say, carry rear lights. The price of this article has been one of the reasons for that reluctance; it has been too expensive in the past. It is clear that if a cheap and reliable lamp were placed on the market, it would be a stimulus to cyclists to use it, even without legislation, for their own safety and the advantage of motorists.

I would like also to say that I am very glad that, as a result of criticism from this side of the House, the Import Duties Advisory Committee have given us a little more information, but still it is not enough. More facts and figures ought to be given to us when we are asked to pass these Orders after 11 o'clock at night. We cannot shift our responsibility. After all, the Import Duties Advisory Committee is an advisory committee, and it has to advise not only the Treasury, but the House; and we cannot come to a really satisfactory decision on a matter of this sort unless we have complete facts and figures. My natural instinct is to oppose this sort of Order, but at a time such as this, when Japan is pursuing a policy of aggression, we do not want to see her receive any credits which will inevitably be used for making munitions with which to carry on her wicked war, and I have not the heart to oppose the Order.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Markham

I feel that there is very much strength in the point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), but I would like the Minister to explain how it is that in this case no explanation has been given as to how Germany and Japan can produce the article at a price which is much lower than that at which it can be produced in this country, unless there is some suggestion of dumping, exchange currency juggling, or of sweated industry. If none of those three arguments can be advanced in this case, then the Import Duties Advisory Committee are embarking on an entirely new policy, and recommending tariffs when any foreign competitor can supply goods slightly cheaper than our own manufacturers. That is a very serious issue, and I should like to hear a further statement on it from the Minister.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

I hope the Minister will tell the House who are the people who have promised to manufacture this particular product. We have a right to know who has undertaken that, if this Order is carried, and a protected market is given, they will erect a factory, find the skilled and semi-skilled men and the other labour for this work at this time, and will be able to manufacture these dynamos at the price mentioned earlier. Is this to be the policy of the Government, that some little coterie may come together and proceed to this Star Chamber and tell them "If you will see that we have an opportunity of engaging in this work and of having a monopoly, so that we can charge the public what we like, with no conditions compelling us even to be reasonable employers, to pay reasonable wages, or give reasonable conditions to our work-people, then we in the trade will be able to share the profits made out of this "? The Government are now taking up this type, which is not the best type to be found in this country and can only engage in the work of electrical or mechanical engineering, provided that everybody else is kept away from it. I hope the Minister will tell us that he has not merely a regard for the pockets of the people, who think of little else, except their own pockets, but that he will also take some account of the workpeople so that they shall be adequately paid. [Interruption.] I know it will be a new thing for the party opposite to do that but I ask them to begin the good work of seeing that our people in this country are adequately paid for any work they undertake. Those of us who are engaged in these trades never expected in this matter of competing with others, this particular protection which has never advantaged the workpeople but only the pockets of the owners and manufacturers.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Cross

The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) and the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) both criticised this Order on the ground that the duty was being imposed before production had been commenced and said that this was a breach of the existing practice in the imposition of additional duties. I call their attention to Section 3 of the Import Duties Act which says that the duties may be put on articles which are being produced or are likely within a reasonable time to be produced in the United Kingdom in quantities which are substantial in relation to United Kingdom consumption. It is clear from what I have already told the House that those conditions are being fully carried out in the case of the articles in question.

The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green also complained that full enough information was not given in the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The reason for that is that the figures are not available. In the case of dynamo lighting sets there are no official figures as to home production or as to imports or exports. The great bulk of home production is carried out by three Birmingham firms, and if their output were given to the House it would enable any one of these firms to know what was the business of the other two, or indeed it would enable anyone acquainted with the trade to get a very clear idea of the business of each of these firms. For such reasons information of this kind has never been given up to now by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Again, in the case of the cycle bells the information is not available for the same reason. Information is not given as to the home production, although, of course, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are able to get it, and where imports are concerned cycle bells are not separately distinguished in the trade returns. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me for the names of the firms that would make these lamps. They are three firms in Birmingham—Lucas, Miller, and Hill. He also said something about the Import Duties Advisory Committee not being concerned with the wages which will be paid in this industry at the time when the duty is put on. It is no part of the function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and I am very surprised to hear hon. Members opposite cheering that, for indeed, if it was their function it would mean on their part an incursion into a field which has hitherto been the preserve of the trade unions.

Mr. McEntee

What would be the objection on this side to the insertion of the Fair Wages Clause?

Mr. Cross

I can imagine a good many. If you did have this intervention in regard to wages in a particular industry, I can imagine a great many disadvantages. To take one, assume a case where the employers' organisation is wanting a reduction in wages. It would be a very convenient argument, no doubt, for hon. Members who represent trade unions to be able to say that the Import Duties Advisory Committee had given their blessing to the rate of wages which then obtained as being fair and that those wages ought not to be reduced. To take the reverse position, if the trade union desired to get an increase in wages, they would find themselves up against precisely the same argument from the em- ployers, who would say the wages were fair and that there was no ground for an increase.

Mr. James Griffiths

I gather that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is not the function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to inquire whether the firm that has asked for protection is paying fair wages. Does he think it right that a firm of that kind can go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and say, "Please give us protection, because we have been undercut in the market by the Japanese and the Germans, who are paying sweated wages," without at the same time giving them a right to find out whether these people are paying reasonable wages themselves?

Mr. Cross

The reason for that is that this is the responsibility of the trade unions. Where the trade unions, for one reason or another, are not carrying out that responsibility, there is legislation under which trade boards are set up. I cannot agree that it is within the limits of the proper duties of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to intervene in that way.

Mr. Kelly

What trade board in the country covers the dynamo manufacturers?

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth

I do not rise to challenge the merits or otherwise of this Order, but I want to say a word or two after the statement of the hon. Gentleman in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) with regard to the supply of details to this House in order that hon. Members may form a judgment on the merits of such an Order. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was impossible to give the House certain figures, as to do so would be to give away the business of individual firms. We are not asking for the particulars of the business of individual firms, but it seems to me to be a travesty to set up a committee to advise and make recommendations to the House of Commons, and to say that they shall be in receipt of full particulars in order to form a judgment as to the issue before them, and then to come to this House, which has the duty to form the final judgment, and ask us to confirm or reject the recommendations of the committee, without having the particulars on which the committee had formed their opinion. I appeal to all sides of the House to realise that this is simply handing over the duty of this House to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. As a Member of the House who is asked to pass judgment on these Orders I demand to have the same material in front of me as the Advisory Committee has. This is another example of the way in which the House is handing over its powers to delegated bodies, and I protest against the argument that we cannot have the full particulars to enable us to form a judgment simply because it might divulge the particulars of certain businesses. I do not want that to be done, but we ought to have the figures of total production.

11.36 p. m.

Mr. McEntee

I have had a fairly long experience of the Fair Wages Clause, and it would be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what is the difference between the insertion of the clause in ordinary Government contracts and the insistence by the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the clause should be observed by those who receive the protection of a tariff. The principle is the same and the results would be the same. It is sheer nonsense to tell us that it might interfere with the work of trade unions. You might just as well tell us that the setting up of trade boards interfered with the work of trade unions in fighting for fair wages. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there should be a constant dog fight between the unions and employers on the question of wages, and that would lead to chaos in industry. I hope that the Government will in future insist that the industries which are given protection should themselves give protection to their workers. I hope that the House will divide against this Order in spite of the fact that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has deserted the principles which he has held for all the years I have known him.

11.39 p. m.

Mr. Ede

I want to refer to a part of the report of the Advisory Committee which represents a departure from policy. On page 3 the report states: The principal British manufacturers have informed us that they desire to put in hand the large scale production of cheap sets of good quality, provided the risks of their enterprise are not enhanced by the importation of foreign-made sets, quantities of which have already appeared in this market, at prices out of all proportion to British costs. The Parliamentary Secretary has been very frank with the House in giving the names of the firms concerned. I would like to ask how long they are to have in which to make good their desire to produce these articles behind the shelter of this tariff wall. Has any time been fixed? When will the Import Duties Advisory Committee consider the progress made and whether manufacturers have managed to place adequate supplies on the market? The House cannot be expected to erect a permanent tariff wall on this report, and there ought to be some understanding respecting the period during which manufacturers are to receive this advantage, and a clear intimation given to them that if they do not rise to the occasion the benefit will be withdrawn.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

I had hoped that the replies of the Parliamentary Secretary to the questions addressed to him would have put the House in a position to give a judgment upon this Order; but in view of the vague character of the information in the White Paper and the failure of the Parliamentary Secretary to furnish the information which the House wishes to have I see no course open to us but to adjourn. We are discussing a matter of considerable public interest and some social importance. Since the War the cycle industry has occupied itself chiefly with catering for two classes—the working people who use bicycles to go to and from work, and school children who use them to go to school, in country districts often a journey of four or five miles. In view of the class of persons on whom the burden will fall, before we agree to a duty of 33⅓ per cent. we ought to feel thoroughly satisfied that the basis on which the application was put forward has been thoroughly examined. What are the facts which emerge from the White Paper and the very vague answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary? I am not blaming him specially; obviously he has given all the information which he is permitted to give by his Department. Again and again we have protested in the House against the lack of adequate information from the Advisory Committee in the White Papers. I admit that in the case of the last two or three Orders we have had fuller information, but although the present White Paper is a rather long one, we are absolutely without the requisite information as to the state of the industry.

After the Debate has been adjourned, as I hope it will be, I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will obtain information on these specific points: First, what is the average number of cycles in use to which bells are attached in place of horns? The Board of Trade have the ordinary monthly trade information in addition to their census of production. Secondly, we ought to have the volume of imports and their value, which would give some idea of the yield of this 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem duty. Thirdly, we ought to know the financial position of the firms who are making this application for a duty on dynamo sets in advance of undertaking this actual type of production. When I heard the announcement that they were firms like Lucas, and Hills, of Birmingham, I felt very strongly, although I have not had a chance to leave the House and look at the Stock Exchange Year Book, that those firms certainly did not need additional protection to what they are already receiving in the motor car industry. Judging from the financial results of those firms and the very fine achievements of their shareholders, I should have thought that this House

would hesitate once, twice and thrice before putting specific and additional burdens upon the daily users of the workmen's cycles, in order to enhance those profits at a time when the firms are moving to new production to meet compulsory regulations that may be made upon cyclists under an order of this House. We ought not to be asked to come to any decision to-night until we have had that specific information.

The Parliamentary Secretary may be quite right when he says that wages regulation is not the function of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and that it is the prerogative of the trade unions to organise on a fair-wages basis; but he might have added that the Government have some responsibility to the Ministry of Labour. Surely if all the conditions attaching to the trade have to be brought before the Committee it is not impossible for the Committee to be asked to satisfy itself that any industry which is to be in receipt of high protection should give a guarantee to the Government that the Fair-Wages Clause shall be observed, in regard to the labour that is employed. I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 146.

Division No. 303.] AYES. [11.48 p.m.
Adams, D. (Consett) Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Ridley, G
Ammon, C. G. Harris, Sir P. A. Ritson, J.
Barr, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Benson, G. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Sexton, T. M.
Bromfield, W. Holdsworth, H. Simpson, F. B.
Buchanan, G. Jagger, J. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Burke, W. A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cape, T. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Smith, E. (Stoke)
Collindridge, F. Kelly, W. T. Sorensen, R. W.
Daggar, G. Lathan, G. Stephen, C.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Lawson, J. J. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Leach, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Logan, D. G. Tinker, J. J.
Ede, J. C. McEntee, V. La T. Watkins, F. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Marshall, F. Westwood, J.
Fletoher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Mathers, G. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Foot, D. M. Maxton, J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Gibson, R. (Greenook) Paling, W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Poole, C. C. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Price, M. P. Mr. Adamson and Mr. Anderson.
NOES.
Acand-Treyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Briseoe, Capt. R. G.
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Bernays, R. H. Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Albery, Sir lrving Bossom, A. C. Bull, B. B.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) Boulton, W. W. Buteher, H. W.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's) Bower, Comdr. R. T. Campbell, Sir E. T.
Apsley, Lord Boyee, H. Leslle Carver, Major W. H.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Braithwaite, Major A. N. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) Holmes, J. S. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Ropner, Colonel L.
Colfox, Major W. P. Horsbrugh, Florenes Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Colville, Rt. Hon. John Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.) Hunloke, H. P. Rowlands, G.
Craven-Ellis, W. Hunter, T. Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Hutohinson, G. C. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Cross, R. H. Joel, D. J. B. Russell, Sir Alexander
Crowder, J. F. E. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Salmon, Sir I.
Davidson, Viscountess Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Samuel, M. R. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Leech, Sir J. W. Scott, Lord William
De Chair, S. S. Liddall, W. S. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Donner, P. W. Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Dower, Major A. V. G. Loftus, P. C. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Drewe, C. Lyons, A. M. Smith, Sir Louis (Hallam)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) MasAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) MoCorquodale, M. S. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Spens, W. P.
Ellis, Sir G. McKie, J. H. Storey, S.
Emery, J. F. Magnay, T. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H, D. R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Emrys-Evans, P. V. Markham, S. F. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Errington, E. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Fildes, Sir H. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Findlay, Sir E. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Fleming, E. L. Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R. Titchfield, Marquess of
Fyfe, D. P. M. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Touche, G. C.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Goldin, N. B. Munro, P. Turton, R. H.
Grant-Ferris, R. Neven-Spenee, Major B. H. H. Wakefield, W. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Ward, Lieut.-Col Sir A. L. (Hull)
Grimston R. V. O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Ward Irene, M. B. (Wallsend)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Palmer, G. E. H. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) Petherick, M. Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Gunston, Capt. D. W. Procter, Major H. A. Wells, Sir Sydney
Hambro, A. V. Ramsbotham, H. Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Hannah, I. C. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) wise, A. R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. Reed, Sir H. S.(Aylesbury) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Heneage,Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Mr. Furness and Sir James Edmonsdson.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Additional Import Duties (No. 6) Order, 1938, dated the twentieth day of June, 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 said twentieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved.