§ 10.22 P.M.
§ Mr. CrossI beg to move,
That the Import Duties Substitution (No. 2) Order, 1939, dated the twenty-fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved.This Order relates to the recent increase of the customs duty on unwrought zinc from 12s. 6d. per ton or 10 per cent. ad valorem, whichever is the less, to 30s. per ton, which is approximately 10 per cent, ad valorem at current prices. The circumstances in which the recommendation is made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee are fully described in the White Paper, and perhaps it would suffice, therefore, for me to go over the ground outlined in the White Paper in abbreviated form. This increased duty is one of a number of proposals which were made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee in a report of February this year for amending the arrangements introduced in 1935. The main proposals are, first, that the Empire producers are to pay 10s. in cash to the Imperial Smelting Corporation in respect of each ton of zinc imported and sold by them in the United Kingdom; second, that the Corporation shall co-operate in making a payment of 5s. a ton on production into a fund for the payment of a rebate in respect of exported goods containing zinc; third, that the production of zinc metal by the Imperial Smelting Corporation is not to exceed 60,000 tons a year; fourth, that the price of Empire electrolytic brands of zinc of a purity of 99.9 per cent., up to, but not including, 99.ent. shall not exceed £3 per ton above 2164 the mean of the London Metal Exchange spot and forward quotations.The duty of 12s. 6d. a ton on foreign zinc was imposed on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee in 1935. It was then hoped that international regulations might be made for the control of supply in relation to consumption. Those hopes were not realised, and the continuing low price of zinc, coupled with the increased cost of production, had a serious effect on the Imperial Smelting Corporation. In 1936, the Corporation applied for a higher rate of duty on foreign imports, in order to establish a more satisfactory price level in this country. The Advisory Committee considered that the position could not be met by a higher duty alone, and suggested the possibility of an Empire agreement as a first step. Unfortunately, a satisfactory basis of agreement could not be found, and in 1937, following an inquiry by the Committee of Imperial Defence, the Advisory Committee were asked to use their good offices to promote discussions between the United Kingdom and Empire producers, with a view to an agreement being reached in respect of prices in this country. The Advisory Committee reported that the Empire producers, recognising the position of the home industry, put forward these proposals as the best method of dealing satisfactorily with the position.
The Empire producers agreed that an effort should be made concurrently to re-form the international cartel on a basis having for its object the stabilisation of the price of zinc at from £14 to £16 a ton. The House will perceive that in broad outline the scheme is that the duty should be raised by 17s. 6d. a ton on foreign zinc, bringing it up to the level which is roughly equivalent to 10 per cent. ad valorem, that the Empire producers should pay, and in effect subsidise, the Imperial Smelling Corporation to the extent of 10s. a ton on what they sell here in this market, and further, that under this increased duty they should co-operate with the Imperial Smelting Corporation in paying to the United Kingdom consumers 17s. 6d. per ton on the zinc content in exported manufactured goods. It is in fact a voluntary drawback scheme. The Committee have gone carefully into the effect of the increased duty on the cost of manufacture of goods, and they are satisfied that the effect should 2165 be small in relation both to the total cost of the great bulk of these goods and to the actual tariff protection which already exists. They say, however, that they would be prepared to take the new situation into account in considering any application that might be made.
As to the export rebate scheme, a substantial body of consumers have agreed to co-operate in its administration.
§ Mr. CrossAs far as I am aware there is no particular body of consumers, but the producers are at the present time in discussion with the consumers as to the details of the scheme.
§ Sir P. HarrisThe smelting industry has opposed the scheme.
§ Mr. CrossA large body of them have agreed to co-operate in its administration. The hon. Gentleman will find that in the White Paper itself, and I am certainly correct in saying that they are at present engaged in discussion upon its administration. The Committee say that they do not consider that the new arrangements should materially affect the functions of the London Metal Exchange. The new scheme has been agreed to by the Governments of Canada and Australia, and the Norwegian and Polish Governments, with whom we have commercial agreements under which the duty should not exceed 10 per cent. ad valorem, have also agreed. The industry gives direct employment to some 2,200 people, and indirectly to considerably more.
§ Mr. CrossI am not aware that there is any commercial agreement with the Belgian Government affecting zinc, or that an agreement with the Belgian Government is necessary.
§ Mr. CrossI am speaking of the employment which the industry gives directly to 2,200 people, and indirectly to considerably more, because it is a very large user of coal. It takes something like four tons of coal to each ton of metal produced, which gives a figure of the order of 250,000 tons in recent years, and the industry gives further employment in plant and maintenance of 2166 plant. the Committee state that the Imperial Smelting Corporation have new plant and new processes, that they are up to date, and that they are efficient. They have examined their costs of production in detail and they are satisfied that assistance of this order is necessary to the maintenance of the Corporation with the present level of prices. In these circumstances, I recommend the Order to the favourable consideration of the House.
§ 10.30 p.m.
Mr. AlexanderThe Parliamentary Secretary in his last words hoped that the House would approve the Order. I hope that it will not. The more I study this report and the more I listen to the Parliamentary Secretary the more I fail to understand how this can be in the interests of industry as a whole or in the interests of Defence. May I take the Defence part first? The actual figures of imports and of home production are to be found on page 5. Out of a total consumption of about 220,000 tons, we at present have about 50,000 tons of home production, and one of the rewards for asking the taxpayer to take the burden of this extra duty, we are restricting British home production, there is to be no advance on the 60,000 tons, while the duty on foreign is to be advanced from 12s. 6d. to 30s. per ton. If this matter has been considered and approved by a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence what is the great advantage of it? We shall still be dependent, after we have put up the duty from 12s. 6d. to 30s., for a total of 200,000 tons, although our home production is to be strictly limited by the usual type of back-scratching agreements which always spring up under any general tariff system. The more I look at the other details the more I feel inclined to ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.
It is admitted that you are dealing with a very important raw material for other forms of metal and engineering industries, and any steep increase in the price of this raw material is of great importance to them. It may be that under the agreement there is to be a voluntary drawback scheme in respect of exports, but that is no remedy for the actual manufacturer who is using zinc as a raw material, and who is not in the export business. He will have to pay any way. I speak rather feelingly because I know many people who use this raw material who 2167 have no export market; they will have to meet the whole cost on this increase in their raw material in finally assessing their cost to the consumer. There are many sections of the trade who are opposing this advance in duty. There are the chemical manufacturers, the galvanisers, the British steel wire industry, the Ever-Ready Company, the paint colour and varnish manufacturers, Stewarts and Lloyds, a whole range of manufacturers who are obviously going to find it exceedingly inconvenient to have to meet the extra cost which will be incurred.
Look also at the aspect of this matter in relation to the Ottawa Agreement. It was explained to us at some length in 1935 how this position had to be met from the point of view of the Empire producer. What is the situation now? As far as I could gather from the Parliamentary Secretary, the Imperial Smelting Corporation is the only body concerned in home production to any extent, and whatever help is to be brought to the smelting industry is to be brought to one company or association of companies. [Interruption.] I will leave that to my hon. Friend to deal with if he wishes to do so, but there is a former Member of the House now in another place, who was well known in business circles and who is the chairman of the Imperial Smelting Corporation. This is an extraordinary arrangement. We are being asked to-night to put up the duty from 12s. 6d. to 30s. a ton on foreign imports. The Empire producers, who are sending to this country rather more than one-half of our total consumption, then enter into a voluntary agreement by which, provided that the House will put up the duty from 12s. 6d. to 30s., they will agree to pay a special voluntary subsidy of 10s. a ton for every ton produced by the Imperial Smelting Corporation. I even gathered from the Parliamentary Secretary that this agreement was induced by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I rather gathered from what the hon. Gentleman said that the effect of the duty alone being passed by the House would not bring sufficient improvement to the Imperial Smelting Corporation, and that, therefore, the Import Duties Advisory Committee tried to get this agreement with the Empire producers by which the Empire producers would pay a subsidy as well.
§ Mr. CrossThe tariff on foreign zinc only, they said, would be quite insufficient, and it was necessary to get a wider agreement.
Mr. AlexanderWas there any proposal for a smaller tariff than 30s. before this agreement with the Dominion producers? The Parliamentary Secretary is unable to answer that. It is obvious from what he said that it was on the initiative of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that an agreement was sought by which the Empire producers would subsidise the home producers by 10s. a ton. Now it seems that it was not a question of having a bare amount of tariff put on, but there had to be an increase of tariff which would so help the Empire producer that he could afford to pay 10s, a ton subsidy to the British home producer, and still pocket the balance. Therefore, in return for the 10s. a ton which he is going to pay, as an Empire producer, to the home producer, he will get a further 17s. 6d. out of the home taxpayers. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. But the Empire producer does something more. He says that he will give this 10s. a ton to the home producer only if the House of Commons insists on the duty being increased by 17s. 6d., but that in any case he will not pay it unless we pledge ourselves that British production will never exceed 60,000 tons. That seems to me to be a most extraordinary arrangement. It is pretty bad. It is a round-the-table deal by people who know best how to use the fiscal authorities throughout the world for private purposes.
I could speak at great length on this, but I want only to give the facts. These being the circumstances, I feel certain that my hon. Friends, who approach these matters not on the basis of a century-old academic, cut-and-dried theory, but on their merits, will divide against this Order. Here is a case in which obviously, as distinct from the previous Order, the House is being asked to approve something where there is no finality and no guarantee of a steady improvement of British industry. They are being asked, not to improve British production for Defence purposes, but to put a limit on it, and they are being asked to make a deal as between the taxpayers and the Empire producer which takes more from the home taxpayers than is actually needed for the Empire producer to get his benefit. 2169 I think that is a very bad business. We have had considerable trouble from time to time in dealing with the various details of Civil Defence. One of the things in which most of us who think about A.R.P. are interested, is the type of shelter to be used. The Government think the only practical type is the shelter which is blast and splinter proof. In that connection, we have great use for galvanised sheets, and this proposal will add to the cost of those sheets. It will add to the costs of those firms who have been providing shelters of that kind in connection with air-raid precaution work as against the cheaper cost of the asbestos type of shelter, which is in competition with the galvanised type. Thus, from the point of view of Civil Defence also, this proposal seems to be unwise. The Imports Duties Advisory Committee wrote a very long letter to the President of the Board of Trade explaining the situation. All I can say is that, on this occasion, they have not convinced me. I hope they will not convince the House, and that the House, instead of approving of the duty, will send it back to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for reconsideration.
§ 10.42 p.m.
§ Sir R. AclandWe have here, in the plausible words of the Minister, a small step, but a new step in the very rapid march which is taking place, away from the system of private enterprise and free competition, which hon. Members opposite are supposed to defend, towards complete monopoly. We are establishing a new principle. We are getting away from the idea of the efficient manufacturer making high profits, the justification for the profits being that he undertakes risks, including the risk that if he is inefficient, he will make not a profit but a loss. All that has gone. To-day we fix prices which will return a satisfactory profit to those who have already invested money in an industry, while making arrangements which will prevent any new people coming into the industry. On page 4 of the White Paper we find this:
It had been hoped that the removal of the difficulties caused by the special provisions of the Ottawa Agreements, the ground would be cleared for the completion of international arrangements for the regulation of production in relation to consumption, in order that a satisfactory price level might be 2170 established, but progress in this direction presents great difficulties, due in part to the actual and potential expansion of production in a number of countries.That sounds well, but what it really means is "the international arrangement which it was proposed to make so that the producers would be able to keep the consumers just short enough of supplies to make sure of satisfactory prices." The only trouble has been that one or two people in one or two countries would like to produce at a lower cost and somehow that has to be avoided. I would draw attention to certain words from a very careful speech delivered by the leader of my own party:Where conditions, of free competition have been irretrievably replaced by conditions of monopoly, those who direct the industry and make the decision as to price and output, should be the servants of the community rather than the servants of the capital invested in the monopolists industry.Hon. Members opposite, by this sort of legislation, are digging the grave of those principles of industrial organisation which they are supposed to support. There is something rather more serious in this White Paper. I draw attention to the words on page 6 where the committee state that they were asked by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to use their good offices to promote discussion between the United Kingdom and other Empire producers with a view to some agreement between them as to sales in this country. They go on:We are glad to report that we were successful in bringing the producers together, and we desire to pay a tribute to the spirit in which"—And so it goes on. But is that one of the functions of the Import Duties Advisory Committee? It was set up by this House and its salaries and the salaries of its staff are paid out of moneys provided by Parliament for certain purposes laid down by Parliament in the Import Duties Act, 1932. It is there stated:For the purpose of giving advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under this Act there shall be constituted a Committee.…The Committee shall from time to time take into consideration representations which may be made to them with respect to matters on which, under this Act, any action may be taken by the Treasury. and may make recommendations with respect to the matters aforesaid.Those are the only functions of this Committee which I can find in that Act. It 2171 is nowhere laid down that they are to act in the capacity of an international cartel-fixing organisation, but they are performing this function, which may be extremely useful to the monopolists of Britain, Canada and Australasia, which may be extremely useful to the shareholders, but they are doing it with money provided by Parliament for other purposes. I seriously submit to hon. Members who may be members of the Public Accounts Committee that they should seriously challenge whether it is proper for the Import Duties Advisory Committee, with money provided in this way, to act as cartel brokers to all the metal monopolists all over the world and try to fix up arrangements by which they can get better and bigger prices out of the consumers of zinc.Of course, the agreements entered into at Ottawa have been surreptitiously swept on one side by the processes of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in relation to zinc. The duties were originally 10 per cent. The Ottawa Agreements provided that the Empire producers would supply the British demands at world price. The duty was then lowered from 10 per cent. to 12s 6d., which is roughly 3 per cent., and in consideration of that lowering of duty Empire producers were relieved of the obligation which they had undertaken at Ottawa. Now we have put up the duty to 10 per cent. without any mention of reimposing this obligation to supply zinc to the British market at world prices, which would upset the whole scheme. Apart from there being no obligation to keep the price down, the scheme requires that it be kept up for the purpose of paying £100,000 in subsidy—not, as we have done before, to those engaged in shipping of all kinds, to those engaged in the production of wheat or any particular commodity, but in order to pay a direct subsidy to a private corporation. It is the very substantial one of £2 a ton on their production, amounting to £100,000 a year, which is 50 per cent. of the total trading profit of the corporation. This is going to increase their trading profit by 50 per cent. Of course, £100,000 per annum represents some £3,000,000. That is the size of the gift.
§ Sir R. AclandI think their report shows a trading profit in the neighbourhood of £200,000, and we are giving them £100,000. The Minister does not dispute the £100,000, nor that that is £2 a ton on their output. If he disputes then-trading profit then it may be I am wrong, but I have done my best to be right. Nor have we yet reached the limit of what is going to be done, because that is clearly anticipated on page 7. All this is done in order to fix up an international cartel which is going to run the price very much higher than the present £2 a ton additional which this Measure is to give British manufacturers. It is stated on page 7 that in the event of the London Metal Exchange price rising above 18 the payments to the Imperial Smelting Corporation by the Empire producers will be reduced by 2s. 6d. for every £1 rise above that point. Two and sixpence for every £1 means that the payment at 10s. a ton will be wiped out in a £4 rise. For all these reasons I hope that this Order will be rejected by the House.
§ 10.51 p.m.
§ Mr. M. SamuelI have listened very carefully to the speeches made from the opposite Benches and they show an absolute want of feeling for the thousands of men who are employed in this industry. They show no concern whatever over the danger that the 60,000 tons which are at present being dealt with in this country might be reduced to nothing, owing to the very small profits, as they were in past times.
Mr. AlexanderMay I ask the hon. Member to inform us exactly when this industry was down to nothing?
§ Mr. SamuelNothing, or to very small proportions. I have not the figures by me.
§ 10.52 p.m.
§ Mr. DaltonI want to ask the Minister to explain one or two matters that were referred to by my right hon. Friend, and which I should like to underline. Why is it, if it is desired from the point of view of defence to build up this industry, that a limit of 60,000 tons is to be imposed upon the whole production, having regard to the fact that in three out of the last four years the production has been above that figure. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. M. Samuel) has spoken about employment. On what grounds can he defend a limitation of the amount of 2173 employment to be provided in this industry by imposing a limitation on the output notably below the output figures for three out of the last four years, particularly having regard to the fact that there are references here to modernisation of plant, as a result of which there will be labour-saving devices introduced and the number of persons employed will be reduced? Why is there deliberate limitation in the home production of a commodity which is necessary for defence?
Secondly, there have been various arithmetical calculations made, but the case is worse than the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) suggested, twice as bad as he suggested—because he was basing his calculations on the assumption that this bill which is to be paid by the Dominions across the seas to Lord Home and his associates of the Imperial Smelting Corporation is based upon the home production—10s. per ton of home production. This is based upon the Empire importation, and when the economics of this scheme have got into working order—the economics of Colney Hatch one of my hon. Friends said under his breath when the hon. Gentleman was explaining it—the Empire importation will be at least double the home production. If there is to be paid this dole from overseas to the Imperial Smelting Corporation of 10s. per ton it will be 20s. per ton approximately in respect of home production, if not more. I would ask whether there is any precedent in the long and varied history of these import orders for a scheme of this sort to be entered into in advance as part of the case for a new import duty. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give some further reply on this point.
§ 10.56 p.m.
§ Mr. CrossAll hon. Members who have spoken in opposition to this Order have ignored what I think is a clear fact, that the maintenance of this industry is desirable in the national interest. The Committee of Imperial Defence have made it clear that they desire this industry, the Imperial Smelting Corporation, to be run for purposes of defence. Hon. Members are aware that the Committee of Imperial Defence can never state their reasons which cause them to arrive at their conclusions. It is obvious that international relations would be made incomparably difficult otherwise, and 2174 worse than they are at the present time. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) asked particularly why there should be a limitation. It. would be extremely unreasonable, where you have an uneconomic industry, to stipulate as a condition of agreeing to a scheme of this kind that there should be no limitation. This plan is brought forward for the advantage of the industry and for purposes of defence.
§ Sir P. HarrisThe hon. Gentleman has said that the industry is uneconomic. Does he build up his case on that?
§ Mr. CrossCertainly. This industry would not survive without aid of some sort, and this is the particular remedy which I am recommending the House to take. The right hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Alexander) said that Empire producers were to be given 17s. 6d., and in return were going to pay 10s., but he ignored that they will pay 15s., because there is a further 5s. in respect of rebate. This leaves a half-crown. The figures are in any case rough and theoretical, but I am forced to make the right hon. Gentleman a present of this theoretical half-crown. Considerable play was made by the hon Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) with the argument that we were establishing a monopoly, but I cannot understand for one moment how the Imperial Smelting Corporation can enjoy a monopoly in this country. So far as the foreign product is concerned, it pays a small duty, and although a trade may shelter behind a 10 per cent. duty that is not a monopoly. And surely it is inconceivable that the Empire producers, in bringing forward these proposals, have given the Imperial Smelting Corporation a monopoly when they are going to operate in this country against the Empire producers. The fact that the Empire producers made these proposals is sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman who said that the Corporation would enjoy a monopoly.
The hon. Member produced some figures. I have figures of my own here, and they are much nearer the mark than his. The Empire imports were 108,000 tons in 1938 which gives us a figure of £54,000, and not of £200,000. From that sum has to be deducted the further figure of £15,000 in respect of the contribution made by the Imperial Smelting Corporation to the payment of rebate. I think 2175 the hon. Member must have been making the calculation on the basis employed by free traders, which includes the amount of the tariffs,
§ Sir R. AclandNo, from the "Financial News."
§ Mr. CrossThen I cannot accept the "Financial News." The only other point that he made was with regard to large profits made by the Imperial Smelting Corporation. They have paid no
§ ordinary dividend since 1930, except for the year ended 30th June, 1937, when 5 per cent. was paid.
§
Question put,
That the Import Duties Substitution (No. 2) Order, 1939, dated the twenty-fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty -fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 117.
2177| Division No. 186.] | AYES. | [11.2 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Gridley, Sir A. B. | Peake, O. |
| Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) | Grimston, R. V. | Perkins, W. R. D. |
| Albery, Sir Irving | Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) | Petherick, M. |
| Allen, Col. J. Bandsman (B'knhead). | Guinness, T. L. E. B. | Radford, E. A. |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) | Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. | Raikes, H. V. A. M. |
| Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's) | Hambro, A. V. | Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Hammarsley, S. S. | Rankin, Sir R. |
| Baillie, Sir A. W. M. | Hannah, I. C. | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) |
| Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) |
| Balfour, G. (Hampstead) | Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. | Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) |
| Beauchamp, Sir B. C. | Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- | Renter, J. R. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) | Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth) | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Hogg, Hon. Q. McG. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Holmes, J. S. | Rosbotham, Sir T. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Horsbrugh, Florence | Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) |
| Bracken, B. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) |
| Broadbridge, Sir G. T. | Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J. | Rowlands, G. |
| Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) | Hume, Sir G. H. | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Nawbury) | Hunter, T. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. |
| Bull, B. B. | Hutchinson, G. C. | Russell, Sir Alexander |
| Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. | Jarvis, Sir J. J. | Salmon, Sir I. |
| Butcer, H. W. | Jennings, R. | Samuel, M. R. A. |
| Campbell, Sir E. T. | Joel, D. J. B. | Sanderson, Sir F. B. |
| Cary, R. A. | Jones, L. (Swansea W.) | Sandys, E. D. |
| Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) | Kimball, L. | Selley, H. R. |
| Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Shakespeare, G. H. |
| Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) | Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Shepperson, Sir E. W. |
| Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) | Lees-Jones, J. | Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) |
| Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) | Leech, Sir J. W. | Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald |
| Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. | Liddall, W. S. | Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J. |
| Cox, H. B. Trevor | Lindsay, K. M. | Spens. W. P. |
| Craven-Ellis, W. | Little, J. | Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. |
| Crooks, Sir J. Smedley | Llewellin, Colonel J. J. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Lloyd, G. W. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Cross, R. H. | Loftus, P. C. | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Cruddas, Col. B. | Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Culverwell, C. T. | MoCorquodale, M. S. | Thorneyoroft, G. E. P. |
| Davies, C. (Montgomery) | Maconald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Denman, Hon. R D. | McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. | Titchfield, Marquess of |
| Denville, Alfred | McKie, J. H. | Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. |
| Dodd, J. S. | Maclay, Hon. J. P. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R, L. |
| Donner, P. W. | Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Turton, R. H. |
| Drewe, C. | Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Dugdale, Captain T. L. | Manningham-Buller, Sir M. | Walker-Smith, Sir J. |
| Duncan, J. A. L. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. O. R. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L (Hull) |
| Dunglass, Lord | Markham, S. F. | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Edmondson, Major Sir J, | Maxwell, Hon. S. A. | Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie |
| Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. | Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham) |
| Ellis, Sir G. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R. | Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Moreing, A. C. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. |
| Entwistle, Sir C. F. | Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Errington, E. | Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) | Wise, A. R. |
| Everard, Sir William Lindsay | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirenoester) | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Fildes, Sir H. | Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. | Wragg, H. |
| Fleming, E. L. | Munro, P. | Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C. |
| Furness, S. N. | Nall, Sir J. | York, C. |
| Fyfe. D. P. M. | Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Gledhill, G. | Nicolson, Hon. H. G. | |
| Gluckstein, L. H. | O'Connor, Sir Terence J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Goldie, N. B. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.- |
| Gamer, Sir R. V. | Palmer, G. E. H. | Colonel Kerr. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Sir R. T. D. | Hayday, A. | Pethick Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Adams, D. (Consett) | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Poole, C. C. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Price, M. P. |
| Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Richards, R. (Wrexham) |
| Adamson, W. M. | Hills, A. (Pontefraot) | Ridley, G. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Hopkin, D. | Ritson, J. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Isaacs, G. A. | Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) |
| Barnes, A. J. | Jagger, J. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Barr, J. | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Rothschild, J. A. de |
| Batey, J. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Seely, Sir H. M. |
| Beaumont, H. (Batley/td | Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. | Sexton. T. M. |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Silverman, S. S. |
| Benson, G. | Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Simpson, F. B. |
| Bromfield, W. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. | Sloan, A. |
| Brown, C. (Mansfield) | Kirby, B. V. | Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) |
| Burks W. A. | Lathan, G. | Smith, E. (Stoke) |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawson, J. J. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Leach, W. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Cooks. F. S. | Lee,F | Stewart, W.J. (H'ght'n le-Sp'ng) |
| Collindridge, F. | Leslie, J. R. | Stokes, R. R. |
| Daggar, G. | Logan, D. G. | Summerskill, Dr. Edith |
| Dalton, H. | Lunn, W. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) |
| Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Thurtle, E. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | McEntee, V. La T. | Tinker, J. J |
| Dobbie, W | McGhee, H. G. | Viant, S. P. |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | McGovern, J. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) | MacLaren, A. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Maclean, N. | Watson, W. McL. |
| Gardner, B. W. | Mander, G. le M. | Welsh, J. C. |
| Garro Jones, G. M. | Marshall, F. | Westwood, J. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Mathers, G. | White, H. Graham |
| Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Messer, F. | Wilkinson, Ellen |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | Milner, Major J. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Grenfell, D. R. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Noel-Baker, P. J. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Oliver, G. H. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Owen, Major G. | |
| Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) | Paling, W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Harris, Sir P. A. | Parker, J. | Mr. Groves and Mr. Anderson. |
| Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's) | Parkinson, J. A. |
§
Resolved,
That the Import Duties Substitution (No. 2) Order, 1939, dated the twenty-fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-fourth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, be approved.