Sitting of 1 November 1932

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dunfermline and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    SILKS TRIAL, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total cost of the Silks trial at Edinburgh and the costs of the appeal?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): It is estimated that the total costs of the trial and appeal will be about £22,500.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the profit made or loss incurred upon each of the hotels and inns in the State management districts of Gretna and the Cromarty Firth in each of the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The financial position of these schemes, including a statement of the total profit for each district, is set out in the annual reports presented to Parliament, but to give separate figures in respect of each of the individual properties would be a new departure which might be injurious to the interests of the Exchequer. I regret, therefore, that I cannot comply with the Noble Lord's request, but I am sending him a copy of the last three reports.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that both the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission on Licensing (Scotland), 1931, recommend that the Government cease to control the State
    1588
    management districts of the Cromarty Firth and Gretna; and if it is proposed to follow this recommendation?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of the recommendations referred to, but in view of the reply given by my predecessor in office to the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) on the 28th July, 1931, fuller investigation would be necessary before any legislation on this point could be considered. It is not proposed to introduce any such legislation in present circumstances.
    Lord SCONE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that a sufficiently full investigation has been made by the Royal Commission, of which both the majority and minority were in agreement on this head?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that no evidence at all was asked for from the district of Ross and Cromarty with regard to this question?
    Sir G. COLLINS: That is accurate. With regard to the first supplementary question, before any further legislation is considered on this point, more information and investigation are necessary.
    Lord SCONE: Will that be made?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Not by me.

    ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.
    Mr. TEMPLETONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total amount paid from national and local revenue to the Roman Catholic Church following the transference of voluntary schools in Scotland to the education authorities; the amount which it, has cost the nation to advance the salaries of teachers in Roman Catholic schools to bring them up to the national scale and the amount which it has cost the nation to provide new schools for the Roman Catholic communion?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I regret that the statistics in my possession do not enable me to give a precise reply to my hon. Friend's question. The total expenditure by Scottish education authorities to the end of the financial year 1930–31 on the purchase of voluntary schools of all types transferred in pursuance of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, was

    1589
    approximately £771,000. Nearly all this sum was in respect of Roman Catholic schools, but without a special inquiry I am unable to state the precise amount or how much has been paid by way of rent for schools not purchased outright. The information asked for in the second part of the question could only be obtained by means of a special return from education authorities, and in present circumstances I do not feel I would be justified in asking them to provide this material. The cost of providing new Roman Catholic school buildings and additional accommodation at existing Roman Catholic schools is estimated at £1,335,000. I may add that the corresponding figure for schools other than Roman Catholic is £6,354,000.
    Mr. HANNON: May I ask whether, in point of fact, the standard of education given in Catholic schools is not on as high a level as in State-aided schools?
    Sir G. COLLINS: It is on the same basis, the same level.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    COLLOIDAL FUEL.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary for Mines whether his Department has yet received a report by the experts of the Cunard Company respecting the colloidal fuel, which was tested in the Cunarder "Scythia" on a trip to America and back; whether the fuel is reported on as satisfactory; and what steps does the Government intend to take in the matter?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Yes, Sir, the Cunard Company have supplied my Department confidentially with particulars of their experiment. By agreement with them certain points are being investigated by the Government's experts but the report on these investigations is not yet complete.

    IMPORT RESTRICTIONS (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to deal with the handicap placed upon the British coal trade by the imposition of quotas and other restrictions on the importation of
    1590
    coal into Germany, France, Belgium and Spain; and what measures are being taken to negotiate with the Governments of these countries to arrange reciprocal agreements?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): With regard to Germany and France, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), on 25th October. Further representations have been made to the Belgian Government in regard to the basis of calculation of the quota, but no reply has yet been received. With regard to Spain, as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was informed on the 10th May, the restrictions on coal entering that country are not considered to be discriminatory against the United Kingdom.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman received urgent representations from the Newcastle and Gateshead Chamber of Commerce with regard to the serious position of the coal trade in that area?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, I understand that representations have been received at die Board of Trade, and very close attention will be paid to them.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: What reply has been given to these representations, and will anything that is done be done quickly in order to better the very serious position?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are not these quotas just the natural result of the tariff policy?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir, the quota system started before United Kingdom tariffs. With regard to the other supplementary question, if my hon. Friend examines the reply to which I have referred, he will see that steps are being taken actively in this matter.
    Mr. COCKS: Have not the German Government agreed to arbitrate on the quota if we will agree to arbitrate on tariffs on German goods?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The German Government have asked for a discussion on this matter, and we have agreed. It will be commenced almost immediately.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is not Spain making further restrictions against British coal?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware that it has been reported that further restrictions in Spain were contemplated, but we have received assurances on this point from the Spanish Government.
    Mr. MOLSON: Have the German Government asked for arbitration?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: What is proposed now is discussion on this and certain other matters.
    Mr. MOLSON: But have they asked for arbitration?

    UPPER HARTSAY COLLIERY, RIPLEY.
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY (for Mr. WRAGG)asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the closing down of the Upper Hartsay Colliery, Ripley; the number of men thrown out of work; and whether the pit is to be permanently closed?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am informed that, including officials, about 500 persons employed at this pit received notices terminating their employment on 25th October. I understand that, while one seam is being permanently closed, it is hoped by developing another seam to give further employment to some of the men affected, and that the remainder will be given preference as vacancies arise at other pits in the district belonging to the same company.
    Captain RAMSAY: In these circumstances, is my hon. Friend satisfied that Part I of the Coal Mines Act has justified itself?
    Mr. BROWN: The answer is that the productive capacity of the industry is still greatly in excess of the present demand; and, as Parliament has decided that in the case of this industry output should be regulated, it is inevitable, with a limited market, that advantages for many pits must involve disadvantages for some.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    OTTAWA CONFERENCE.
    Major LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs
    1592
    whether any discussion took place at Ottawa as to the free importation into the Dominions of goods manufactured by disabled ex-service men; and, if not, whether, in view of the plight of the industries employing such men, he is prepared to enter into negotiations to this end?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No discussion on the lines indicated by the hon. and gallant Member took place at Ottawa, and I feat that it would not be feasible to take the action suggested in the second part of his question.
    Major LEIGHTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the question a little more in detail in view of the fact that an exhibition of disabled men's goods is now being held?
    Mr. THOMAS: I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's interest, but I have examined it, and I do not think that it would be practical politics.

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SCOTLAND (TEMPORARY CLERKS).
    Mr. GUYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if arrangements can be made, whether by re-allocation of writing assistant personnel among the Scottish Departments or otherwise, so that the ex-service temporary clerks now under notice of dismissal from the Department of Health can be retained?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The discharge of these temporary clerks is due to reduction in the work of the Department following a recent review in the interests of economy. I am afraid that it would not be practicable to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. I am sending him a copy of the recent report of a committee of official and staff representatives which covers the question of retention and dismissal of temporary clerks.
    Mr. GUY: While realising the need for administrative economy, may I ask my hon. Friend if he will take steps to see that these men get some preference for reinstatement if and when vacancies occur?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement as to the progress of the negotiations with the representatives of Norway, Sweden and Denmark regarding trade between those countries and Great Britain?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The invitations extended by His Majesty's Government to the Governments of Denmark, Norway and Sweden to discuss tariff matters have been accepted, but no precise date has been fixed for the opening of any of the negotiations.

    HOLLAND, BELGIUM AND LUXEMBURG.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if any negotiations have taken place with the Governments of Holland, Belgium and Luxemburg with regard to the tariff convention which they concluded in July last; and, if so, with what result?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Governments mentioned on this subject. His Majesty's Government have indicated that, while appreciating the effort to bring about tariff reductions, they were unable to accept the invitation to become a party to the Convention since their treaty obligations prevented them from assuming an obligation to apply discriminatory tariff treatment to the goods of countries which remained outside the Convention and did not observe its terms, and that, having regard to the provisions of the Treaties between the United Kingdom and the two countries, they could not contemplate a situation in which Dutch goods in Belgium or Belgian goods in the Netherlands were accorded privileges denied to United Kingdom goods.

    TEXTILE EXPORTS (CANADA).
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities of four-ounce and under light dress-goods exported from the United Kingdom to Canada during the last three months and the corresponding figures for 1930 and 1931?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I regret that the desired information is not available.
    Mr. MABANE: Is it not the fact that the production of four-ounce cloth is an almost negligible proportion of the total production of the wool textile industry?
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these figures cannot be found in the Trade and Navigation Returns or in the Canadian Trade Returns?
    Mr. HOLDSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade what class of cloth not previously manufactured in the West Riding of Yorkshire has, since August last, been ordered by Canadian importers; and whether he will state the quantities?
    Dr. BURGIN: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the statement that my right hon. Friend made during the Debate on the Ottawa Agreements Bill on the 27th October in which he referred to a statement made by a particular firm that they had received orders for a class of goods not previously made in Yorkshire for the Canadian market. As the information was received in confidence he is unable to furnish further details of the transaction mentioned on that occasion.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the, same cloth has been made in Yorkshire for the last half century?
    Dr. BURGIN: The novelty was that it was made for the Canadian market.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: is the hon. Gentleman aware that that order was simply a transference from one firm to another, and that the material had been sent to Canada for the last 20 years?

    CHINA.
    Mr. NUNNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Chinese Government have adhered to their decision that as from 1st September all goods shipped from this country to China shall be accompanied by invoices signed by the Chinese Consul at the port of shipment; what procedure is to be followed; at what ports in this country Chinese Consuls are stationed; and what effect this requirement is likely to have upon British trade?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but certain concessions have

    1595
    been made in the matter. Details of these and of the procedure to be followed are given in the Board of Trade Journal for 25th August and 6th October. At present there is only one Chinese Consular station in this country, namely the Consulate-General in London, but understand that another is to be opened shortly in Liverpool and that the London Consulate-General propose to open a branch office in Manchester for the certification of Consular invoices. This requirement must, of course, involve some additional formality and expense to United Kingdom exporters but it should be pointed out that the regulations apply to all countries.

    CANADA (EXCHANGE DUMPING DUTIES).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the special dumping duty imposed by Canada on imports from countries whose currencies have depreciated as compared with the currency of Canada is being applied to imports from this country; and, if so, what is its present rate in respect of them?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, the special duty is still being applied to imports into Canada of goods from this country of a class or kind made or produced in Canada. For Customs entries during the period 1st to 15th November, the duty on United Kingdom goods amounts to 68 cents for every pound value of the invoice; that is, the difference between the fixed rate of 4.40 dollars and the average value of the pound, namely, 3.72 dollars, which has been proclaimed for Customs entries for the period in question. The average value of the pound for this purpose is declared fortnightly.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case will this penalisation of British goods increase during the next quarter owing to the fall in the pound?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The particulars given relate to the fortnightly period, but I should point out that under Article 17 of the Canadian Agreement His Majesty's Government in Canada have undertaken to give consideration to the reduction and ultimate removal of the existing exchange dumping duties as soon as circumstances permit, and we attach importance to that undertaking.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But who gives consideration to it, the Tariff Board which they are setting up, or the Government themselves?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Canadian Government themselves.

    AUSTRALIA (WHISKEY DUTY).
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the present duty per proof gallon on whiskey entering Australia from Great Britain, and by how much this duty will be reduced as the result of the Ottawa Agreements?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The British preferential rate of duty on whiskey entering Australia is 45s. per gallon, or per proof gallon if over proof, plus a primage tax of 10 per cent. ad valorem. No immediate reduction in the amount of the duty is provided for in the United Kingdom-Australia Agreement, but in so far as the duty is protective it will fall for review by the Australian Tariff Board in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 of the Agreement. I may add that the Commonwealth Government have undertaken to remove or reduce the primage duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem as soon as the finances of Australia will allow.

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he has received from elastics in piece imported into this country from the United States of America during the last 12 months; and whether he has received any claim for repayment of any part of this revenue?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Elastics in the piece do not constitute a separate tariff class, and I regret, therefore, that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, one claim for repayment of duty on certain elastic imported from the United States of America was made on the ground that the elastic was not in the piece, and, therefore, not chargeable with duty under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931. This case was settled by a referee appointed under the Act.
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE (for Sir PERCY HARRIS)asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has made representations to the Canadian Government as to the removal from the Free List since 20th August of regenerated cellulose; and whether he has received any explanation thereof?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): This matter is being taken up with His Majesty's Government in Canada

    IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (CANADIAN WHEAT).
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how it is intended to define Canadian wheat in the working of the Ottawa Agreement; and if it is proposed to confine the British preference to Canadian wheat shipped through Canadian ports?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Canadian wheat means wheat grown in Canada which satisfies the conditions of Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of the Ottawa Agreements Bill. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer to the full statement made by the Financial Secretary last night on an Amendment on this subject moved by the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen).
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us were not quite clear as to the meaning of the statement?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very much surprised to hear that.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: If Canadian wheat is defined as being solely Canadian wheat shipped from Canadian ports, is it not the case that the whole preference will he abolished, or there will be the extra cost of transport from Halifax, Nova Scotia?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will read the Bill, he will see that it is not so defined.

    CUSTOMS ARRANGEMENTS.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the inconvenience and expense caused to importers arising from delays due to the present working arrangements of customs officials at docks and bonded
    1598
    warehouses; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that representations have been made with reference to the hours during which free attendance is given by Customs officers for the examination and clearance of imported goods. Customs officers attend free of charge to the merchant for the examination of dutiable goods between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. or 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., as may best suit local conditions, and longer, if desired, on payment of a fee by the trader. Little advantage is now taken of the latter provision. Customs officers also give free attendance for the examination of goods not liable to duty between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. This latter service covers the large range of Empire goods which are exempt from duty under the Preference arrangements. After very careful consideration of all the relevant facts, I am satisfied that there are not sufficient grounds to justify any alteration of the hours during which free attendance is given.

    JAPANESE TEXTILES.
    Mr. HANNON (for Mr. REMER)asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware of the dumping of Japanese textiles into this country; that a coloured striped-silk cloth is being sold in the English market for 1933 contracts at 2s. 9d. a yard, upon which duty of ls. 2d. per yard has been paid; that a committee of Macclesfield manufacturers estimate the cost price in the Macclesfield mills of the same cloth as 4s. H. per yard without any overhead charges, rent, rates, taxes, power, selling costs, etc.; and if it is the intention of the Government to take action in this and other cases of dumping?
    Dr. BURGIN: My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter, but my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has asked the Import Duties Advisory Committee to investigate the whole situation in relation to the silk duties, and it is open to the silk industry in this country to make representations to that committee.
    Mr. HANNON (for Mr. REMER)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the dumping by Japanese manufacturers into the West Indies of artificial

    1599
    silk cloth, sold at 4—d. per yard; if he is aware that no kind of duty which could be considered would enable British manufacturers to compete with these prices; and if he will take steps to safeguard British exporters from competition of this kind?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Lord of the Treasury): My hon. Friend will be aware that there is already a preference on these materials in all the British West Indian Colonies. My right hon. Friend realises, however, that even a substantial preference may be ineffective to countervail special cases of dumping.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LIMBER GUNNERS, LARKHILL (PAY).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the wages per week paid to the limber gunners at the school of artillery, Lark ill, Salisbury Plain; whether these men receive any other allowance and, if so, what is its nature; what is the reason for such a low scale of payment; and whether there are any other War Department employés who receive less than £2 a week, including any allowances?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The authorised rate of cash wages of these employés at the present time is 24s. 9d. plus Civil Service bonus, total 37s. 2d. In addition, they receive from public funds an issue of clothing on first employment, with an allowance after 12 months of 2s. 3d. a month for its upkeep. The figure of 24s. 9d. represents a rate of 25s. agreed upon by the appropriate Industrial Whitley Council in 1931 as a basic rate for this class of labour, less a deduction of 3d. a week in respect of clothing. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

    SURPLUS MEDAL RIBBON (DISPOSAL).
    Mr. THOMAS COOKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the amount of surplus war-medal ribbon recently disposed of; the method of disposal; and the amount of money received in relation to the cost of production?
    Mr. COOPER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 27th
    1600
    October to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). The ribbon was disposed of by tender.

    OFFICER IN CHARGE OF CAVALRY RECORDS.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN (for Major HARVEY)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if any cavalry officers are now available to replace the Royal Artillery officer who temporarily holds the position of officer in charge of cavalry records?
    Mr. COOPER: There are cavalry officers available for this post, and it is probable that a cavalry officer will be selected when the present holder vacates the appointment.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does that mean this year?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does it mean next year, or some time?

    ACTIVE SERVICE DRESS AND EQUIPMENT.
    Mr. MOLSON (for Mr. LENNOXBOYD)asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what progress has been made by the Committee appointed to consider the question of an improved dress and equipment for the soldier on actice service or manœuvres?
    Mr. COOPER: The Committee have reached provisional decisions as to the articles of dress and equipment they propose to recommend for infantry during training and on active service. Their suggestions are designed primarily to lighten the weight carried by the soldier and to make for his comfort, but, before their value can be ascertained, it is necessary that the new dress and equipment should be given a thorough trial under all possible conditions of both manœuvres and training. It will be some months before final conclusions can be reached as a result of this experiment.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Is this in addition to the normal issue of clothing made to British soldiers in peace time?
    Mr. COOPER: These are alterations which have not yet been decided upon.

  NEW FOREST (ELECTRIC PYLONS).
  Mr. PERKINSasked the hon. and gallant Member for Bye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he can state what action the Forestry Commission propose to take with regard to electric pylons in the New Forest?
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 6th July last to the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills).
  Mr. PERKINS: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that a very large body of opinion in this country is definitely opposed to any desecration of the New Forest by any pet scheme of the Minister of Transport; and is he also aware that these pylons cannot be erected in the New Forest without special legislation, and that any legislation proposed is going to be hotly opposed in this House and in another place?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: The Forestry Commission are well aware that there is a, strong body of popular support for themselves in their refusal to allow pylons in the New Forest.
  Mr. PERKINSasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that the Electricity Commissioners have no legal power to carry electric mains over the New Forest without the consent of the Forestry Commissioners; and whether he will give the House an assurance that under no circumstances will the Forestry Commission give this permission?
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: With regard to the first part of the question, the Forestry Commissioners are glad to have their own lay opinion confirmed on the high authority of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins); as regards the second part of the question they feel that it might prove to be contrary to public policy to give such a sweeping assurance.

  WARING AND GILLOW, LIMITED.
  Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Attorney-General whether the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy has forwarded to him the report of the liquidator
  1602
  appointed under the compulsory winding-up order against Waring and Gillow, Limited; and, if so, whether the Law Officers of the Crown will investigate the facts disclosed to ascertain whether the published accounts of the company for the five years 1925 to 1930 informed trade creditors of the true position of the company's operations?
  Mr. POTTERasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the report of the Official Receiver in connection with the affairs of Waring and Gillow, Limited; and whether, having regard to the disclosures by the Official Receiver in respect thereof, he will consider directing the attention of the Public Prosecutor thereto?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am not aware of the existence of any reports by the Official Receiver or by the liquidator; indeed, my information is that a liquidator has only just been appointed by the Court. At the proper time it will be the duty of the Official Receiver to make a Preliminary Report to the Court under Section 182 (1) of the Companies Act, 1929, as to the causes of failure and the desirability of further inquiry, and he may also, if he thinks fit, make a further report under Sub-section (2) of that Section on any matters which in his opinion it is desirable to bring to the notice of the Court. When these reports have been made the Companies Act empowers the Court to give further directions in certain events. Until these reports have been made it is premature for me to consider any action.
  Mr. MACDONALD: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider at a suitable date taking action in this case?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will consider the whole matter when it is appropriate for me to give it consideration.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hen and learned Gentleman aware of the statement made by the liquidator, which found its way into the London "Times," which indicated that the original business of the firm was still profitable, but that subsidiary undertakings in whch the chairman had no right to indulge were responsible for losses; and in these circumstances, and in the interests of the investors, does he not think that he ought

  1603
  to urge upon the appropriate authority the necessity for a thorough investigation?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: A thorough investigation will be made in accordance with the duties required of the liquidator who has been appointed.
  Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not the fact that a committee has been formed by the shareholders themselves and that it is sitting now to investigate these matters, and is it not very unfair to prejudge things?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I saw a report in the Press two or three days ago to the effect that a committee has been appointed.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE (MOTOR CARS).
  Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of motor cars on the establishment of Scotland Yard; how many are allotted for the use of high officials and senior officers; and how many are attached to the special branch of the service known as the flying squad?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The number of cars available for all purposes in the Metropolitan police service is about 280, of which seven are for the official use of the Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioners and their staffs at Scotland Yard; two are for headquarters officers of the Criminal Investigation Department; and seven are attached to the receiver's department. The remainder, including those of the flying squad, are assigned for supervisory, patrolling and other duties throughout the district. I do not think that it would be in the public interest to state how many cars and vans are attached to the flying squad. These figures do not include vans and tenders.
  Mr. McGOVERN: May I ask whether it is true that a number of these cars are used by high officials and senior officers to go round the country on pleasure journeys, for which the cars have been placed at the disposal of themselves and their friends? Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any information as to misuse of the cars in this way?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I should think that statement wholly unwarranted.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire further as to whether they are so used?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, all matters connected with the discipline of the force come under my review, and will be reviewed.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Are these cars ever used for rescuing Members of Parliament in times of trouble from rowdy meetings?
  Mr. McGOVERN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Members of Parliament are being rescued, usually it is with a Black Maria?

  POST OFFICE.

    POSTMASTER, BALA (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. HADYN JONESasked the Postmaster-General what was the gross salary, including commission, paid to the postmaster of Bala for the year 1931; and what was the net salary after payment of rent, wages of assistants, and other office expenses?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): The gross emoluments of the sub-postmaster of Bala for the year 1931 were approximately.2358; and the net remuneration, after payment of necessary disbursements, is estimated at £220. Sub-postmasters are not required to give personal full-time service.

    AIR MAIL CHARGES.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH (for Captain ERSKINE-BOLST)asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in calculating the fees charged for letters sent by air-mail insufficient allowance is made for the fact that no transport service is provided in respect of the normal charges of1½ and 2½d. which are made in addition to the air-mail fee; and whether he will consider abolishing such additional charges in order to encourage the deevlopment of commercial aviation?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith).
    Mr. SMITH: Will the Postmaster-General give this matter further con-

    1605
    sideration? Would not the revenue increase if the charges were more equitable?
    Sir K. WOOD: If my hon. Friend will refer to the answer which I gave yesterday, he will find that I said:
    "The air mails to practically all foreign countries outside. Europe and a considerable proportion of the air mails to European countries are conveyed for part of their journey by rail and steamboat and have to carry the same transport charges as ordinary letters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1932; col. 1446, Vol 269.]
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLISasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that British commercial aviation is being hampered by the high fees and other restrictions imposed by the Post Office, he will consider setting up a committee to inquire into the matter and make recommendations as to how in the public interest development of commercial aviation may be best promoted?
    Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend appears to he under some misapprehension. The fees charged by my Department are not more than sufficient to meet the costs and compare favourably with those charged by foreign post offices; since last year the air mails carried by British machines have increased by 30 per cent., and the total air mail carried from this country by 17 per cent. The total air mail traffic has doubled itself in the last three years. I do not therefore propose to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: May I ask if the Post Office profits, arising out of Air Services, are to any extent used for subsidising foreign Air Services?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I made that plain yesterday.
    Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: In that case, may I ask how the £8,000 difference between the profit arising out of British Air Services and the £5,000 arising out of Foreign Air Services is made up? There is a difference of £8,000. The correct profit from Air Services—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—for the Post Office is only £5,000.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid that I cannot follow my hon. Friend's arithmetic, but perhaps he had better go into the matter with me in private.

  SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
  Captain HEILGERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the committee to inquire into the future of the sugar-beet industry has been appointed?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir.
  Mr. L. SMITH: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very distressing position of agriculture, especially in the Eastern counties, and will he, as soon as possible, let us know when that committee will meet?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, certainly, but there is no urgency about the matter, as the subsidy does not come to an end until 1934.
  Mr. L. SMITH: Although that may be so is the Financial Secretary not aware that, until the fanning community knows the future position of this industry, it is extremely difficult for them to make their future programmes?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I promise my hon. Friend that there will be no delay.

  RENT RESTRICTION ACTS.
  Mr. JOHNSTONEasked the Minister of Health whether it is the policy of the Government to introduce legislation at an early date to bring house rents into conformity with the general fall in the earning capacity of the working-classes?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement as to legislation to be introduced next Session.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    TYPHOID FEVER, MALTON.
    Mr. TURTONasked the Minister of Health how many cases of typhoid have been discovered at Malton to date; the present condition of the patients; where these are being treated; and whether the cause of the outbreak has been located?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Eighty-eight cases of typhoid fever are known to have

    1607
    occurred at Malton up to and including 30th October. My right hon. Friend is unable to say anything about the condition of individual patients, except that three of the patients have died. Patients are being treated in the fever hospitals at York and Driffield and in the cottage hospital at Malton, which has been temporarily appropriated for the purpose. As my right hon. Friend is at present advised, the infection appears to have been water-borne, but he will communicate further with my hon. Friend when he has received the report of his medical officer who has been investigating the outbreak.
    Mr. TURTON: Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to help the local authorities, both in the location of the cause of the outbreak and in the provision of an alternative water supply?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Certainly. I understand that steps are already being taken in consultation with the local authorities.

    CLAPHAM MATERNITY TRAINING HOSPITAL.
    Mr. DENVILLEasked the Minister of Health if any credal tests are imposed on pupils who are training in the Clapham Maternity Training Hospital?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has no information on the point raised by my hon. Friend. I should, perhaps, add that my right hon. Friend's concern is solely with the efficiency of the training given in such an institution.
    Mr. DENVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that representations were made on behalf of the lady who had to resign because she adopted the Catholic faith; and is he aware that the reply of the secretary—
    HON. MEMBERS: You must not read a supplementary question.
    Mr. DENVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the reply of the secretary of the institution was to the effect that he was amazed that exception was taken to the action of the authorities?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am afraid that no action can be taken, because grants are not made to approved training
    1608
    centres, but to the individuals concerned. The remedy seems to be to go to some other training centre.
    Mr. DENVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that contributions are made by the State to this maternity home; and is he also aware that this lady has had to leave her job and be "sacked" because she embraced the Catholic faith?

  DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (AUDITOR'S REPORT).
  Mr. DICKIEasked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received the report of the district auditor on his investigations into the finances of the Durham County Council; and when such report will be published?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right. hon. Friend understands that the report of the district auditor has not yet been made to the county council. The publication of auditors' reports is a matter for consideration by the local authority concerned.

  HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (CORPS OF CUSTODIANS).
  Mr. PIKEasked the First Commissioner of Works upon which Vote the salaries and wages of the new custodian force will fall; the approximate cost; and the basis upon which the estimated saving of £13,000 in the national expenditure is arrived at?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The salaries and wages of the new custodian force will fall upon the Vote for the House of Lords Offices. The approximate annual cost will be £6,700 and the basis of the estimated saving of £13,000 is the difference between the present cost of the police (£38,821 per annum) and custodians (£2,815 per annum) and the proposed cost of £22,000 for police and £6,700 for custodians.
  Mr. PIKE: In view of the fact that the custodian force is to be greater in number than that which they are displacing, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is proposed to effect this economy at the expense of small wages?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly a custodian will not be paid anything like the

  1609
  rates that the police are paid. I see that ordinary constables serving in this House cost £1 3s. 1d. for every eight hours they are on duty. That is a very high figure indeed. The custodians' wages will range from £3 a week, upwards.
  Mr. COCKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to obtain the views of the House before bringing this scheme into operation?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it true that a pensioned-inspector is to be appointed, and will the right hon. Gentleman give us the value of the pension, and say what the estimated salary is likely to be?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No appointments have yet been made, and it does not rest with me to make the appointments.
  Mr. HICKS: Is it intended to take into calculation, for the purpose of the £3 odd, any pension that may be received?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No.
  Mr. HICKS: Then the salary will be independent of the pension?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

  UNEMPLOYMENT (WORK SCHEMES).
  Mr. HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any schemes ready to provide work for the unemployed during the winter; and, if so, the nature of the proposals?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday in. answer to a question by the hon. Member for Stratford.
  Mr. HICKS: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government to put forward any statement that they may have to make in the unemployment Debate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The views of Ministers will be stated in the course of the Debate.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    WAR LOAN CONVERSION.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the approximate cost of the 5 per cent. War Loan conversion operation, including that of the cash bonuses and advertising?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of the cash bonus and commissions will approximate to £23,000,000, and the remaining expenses including cost of additional staffs, advertising and postage to £600,000.

    EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any profit made by the use of the Exchange Equalisation Fund will be used to assist in the balancing of next year's Budget?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Part IV of the recent Finance Act under which the Exchange Equalisation Account was set up made no provision for the appropriation to Budgetary Revenue of any profits arising from the operation of the Account. Section 26 of the Act contemplates that any such profits shall be retained in the Account until it is wound up, and then applied to the redemption of debt.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does that debar Chancellors of the Exchequer from using this fund, seeing that they have occasionally raided the Sinking Ford?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a statutory fund and cannot he raided.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mrs. COPELANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that hardship is being experienced by taxpayers over the reforms instituted in the first 1031–32 Budget, he will take steps to revert to the previous system of income tax collecting, which enabled easier personal contact between the collectors and the income-tax payers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would not now be practicable to abandon the reforms to which my hon. Friend refers and to return to a system of collection which was condemned by the Royal Commission on the Income Tax in 1920 and by the Public Accounts Committee in

    1611
    1926. The reforms were designed to provide greater security for the Revenue and to reduce the cost of administration without diminishing the facilities afforded to taxpayers generally, and the experience so far available shows that both these objects are in process of being attained.
    Mrs. COPELAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in towns 12 miles distant from the main centre the payers of taxes have to waste a whole afternoon, often at a cost of 3s. or 3s. 6d., in order to come in and chat with the Income Tax collector; and does he not consider that something could be done to alleviate that?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the case she has in mind, I will look into it.
    Mrs. COPELAND: Thank you very much.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
    Mr. L. SMITHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what date the Report of the committee investigating the question of the taxation of co-operative societies is to be expected?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: A similar question was answered on 11th July last in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Hillsborough Division of Sheffield (Mr. G. Braithwaite). I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

  CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS.
  Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has recommended the proclamation of Tuesday, 27th December, as a holiday?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will repeat his question on Thursday I hope to be in a position to give him an answer.

  STOCK EXCHANGE RESTRICTIONS.
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the restriction on optional conversions requiring public issues or underwriting prevents manufacturing companies,
  1612
  public and private, from converting debenture issues or debts at a high rate of interest, it is intended that Governments such as the Union of South Africa are to be given a preference in the use of British capital?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The loan recently raised by the Government of the Union of South Africa was a loan for the provision of new money for expenditure within the Empire. Any borrower, other than foreign, may borrow without impediment for the like purpose. Dominion borrowers enjoy the same range of facilities as home ones but have not a privileged position.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the home borrower cannot borrow to convert existing debt if any appeal for fresh funds is involved in the operation?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that is so.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not that discriminating against the home borrower in favour of the Government of South Africa?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The distinction is between borrowing for new works and borrowing merely for the purposes of converting an already existing debt.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, is Australia unable to take advantage of the English capital market for converting, at the present time, its existing debt?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, Australia is in exactly the same position as the Union of South Africa.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make regarding business.
The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the patties opposing the Ottawa Agreements Bill have come to an arrangement whereby all stages of the Bill will be concluded by Thursday night. The proposed arrangement is as follows:
To-day: Consideration' of Clauses 5 and 6 until 7.30, and of Clauses 7 and 8 until about 11 o'clock.
To-morrow: Consideration of remaining Clauses and new Clauses until about 8 o'clock and consideration of Schedules until 11 o'clock.

1613
Thursday: The remaining stages of the Bill.
If this scheme is practicable, as the Government hope it may be, a Debate on Unemployment may begin on Friday, be continued on Monday, and concluded at 7.30 on Tuesday.
I may add that consideration of a Resolution approving an Order made under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, will occupy the remainder of next Tuesday's sitting.
Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On what Motion will the Unemployment Debate take place?
The PRIME MINISTER: It will not be a Government Motion. It will be an arranged Motion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  OTTAWA AGREEMENTS BILL.
  Further considered in Committee [Progress, 31 st October.]
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.)

  OTTAWA AGREEMENTS BILL.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Security of preferences granted pursuant to agreement with the Dominion of Canada against action by foreign Governments.)
    Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, at the end, to insert the words "after holding a public inquiry."
    This Clause is one of paramount importance when considered in conjunction with the many important details contained in the Bill. The desire of the Amendment is to see that full publicity shall be given to any proposed alterations that this part of the Bill allows to be made by the Board of Trade. We are not unmindful of the very good qualities contained in those who guide that organisation, nor do we think that they would run hastily into conditions or accept assertions which would not be in their opinion in the best interests of the country, but we recollect that in the past the Board of Trade has found it difficult to get authentic information from employers on other matters, and it is possible that the difficulties that they have previously experienced along these lines might display themselves in the circumstances supposed to be covered by the Bill. The Clause says that, if at any time the Board of Trade are satisfied that any preferences granted by this Act are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the action by any other foreign country, they shall have the right to prohibit importation.
    Notwithstanding what I have said with regard to the Board of Trade, I cannot forget that Members of this House who went to Ottawa were supposed to have for their guidance individuals connected with the various Departments, and also representatives of the various trades of the country, who were there for the sole purpose of giving them detailed guidance as to what was best for the country. On the last occasion that I spoke on the matter I referred to a letter that had been placed in the possession of every
    1622
    Member of the House from the Chloride Storage Battery Company, and I presume that every Member of the House has today received a reprint from the "Manchester Guardian" affecting the same matter. If such a thing could take place at Ottawa, with all the experts at the disposal of the people who were negotiating the basis of this Bill, the same possibility might arise again. I am aware that the element of speed is one of importance in a matter such as this, but the employing organisations of the country are welt aware of the opportunities that there are in the Bill for and against them, and if it were agreed, as we suggest, that a public inquiry should take place it should not be visualised that such an inquiry would take the length of time that it would in normal conditions, because the organisations representing employers and labour are at present paying attention to these matters and, therefore, they could more speedily knit themselves into any inquiry that might be agreed upon.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have not the least idea what was the communication to which the hon. Member referred, not having received a copy myself, but I judge from what he said that he is really under a fundamental misapprehension as to the purpose of the Clause. I gather that he had some idea that this was a matter of special interest to traders in this country, but I may perhaps be allowed to remind him that the Clause is merely for the purpose of implementing an agreement made with the Dominion of Canada, and that one thing that the Board of Trade has to be satisfied of before taking any action under the Clause, is that certain preferences granted by this Act in respect of particular goods, preferences which are in fulfilment of the agreement with the Dominion of Canada, are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part. That is the purpose of the Clause, and, if that purpose is to be effected, it is obvious that the powers to be exercised must be capable of being exercised promptly. Unless they can be exercised promptly, it is not likely that they will be of any effective use at all.
    For that reason alone, therefore, I shall have to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. I may, further, perhaps point out that, for the purpose of satisfying themselves whether the

    1623
    preferences are being frustrated in whole or in part, it may be necessary for the Board of Trade to make confidential inquiries, and to ask traders to give them information of a confidential character. That would be entirely defeated if there had to be a public inquiry, and indeed, as part of the information may have to come from Canada, it is obvious that a public inquiry of the kind that the hon. Member appeared to suggest would hardly be practicable in the circumstances. I must, therefore, hope that he will not press the Amendment to a Division, and, if he does, I must ask the Committee to reject it.
    Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to the Amendment and the remarks which he has just made. He will notice that Subsection (3) of the Clause says that:
    "No order shall he made under this section except with the concurrence of the Treasury,"
    and that later on in Clause 11 it says:
    "The Treasury may refer to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for consideration any question connected with the discharge of the functions of the Treasury under this Act."
    May me take it that in all cases where the Board of Trade may think it necessary to take action under this Clause, they will refer the matter to the Import Duties Advisory Committee before they take such action? If he would give us an undertaking that in no circumstances would they take such action without the approval of, and inquiry by, the Import Duties Advisory Committee, it would go some way, at any rate, to meet the objections which have been advanced.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I cannot give any such undertaking. It might very likely happen, and in most cases, I venture to say, would happen, that it would be impossible for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to give any useful advice or information to the Board of Trade upon the subject. If, however, the Treasury thought that they desired their advice, of course, they would have power to ask it.
    Mr. ATTLEE: At an earlier stage, when we were discussing this matter on another Amendment which we put down that there should be consultation first of
    1624
    all with the Import Duties Advisory Committee, we understood from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the difficulty was really one of machinery. I rather hoped that at this stage the Government would have devised some appropriate machinery, because, while it is a question of implementing an Agreement made with Canada in the interests generally of the Dominions, it does not do entirely to forget the interests of people in this country. We are giving here a very arbitrary power to the Board of Trade suddenly to step in and, in fact, upset the course of business. It is going to be done in the interests of certain persons who send goods to this country. I think that there ought to be some opportunity for the users of those goods to see that a case is made out. We may have the Board of Trade requiring to be satisfied in regard to particular goods required in a business which has been built up—it is a very wide Clause containing the phrase "directly or indirectly"—and somehow or other the goods may be interfered with, the supply cut off, and great disturbance caused.
    While it may be necessary to act perhaps with some degree of promptness, yet, after all, that promptitude ought to be tempered by an inquiry allowing the possibility of representation to be made by the interests affected. I cannot see that it should necessarily take so very long if you have some kind of inquiry and publicity in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that, although, as we understand, this particular proposal is directed to a special matter—imports from Russia—yet, as it is drafted, it is capable of an extremely wide application. The general tendency will be to unsettle traders in this country who will not know how to carry on their business under such conditions. There certainly ought to be greater opportunities afforded to them to make representations and, if possible, a proper inquiry.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am prompted to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, although the Import Duties Advisory Committee met with very great opposition in the House of Commons from certain quarters, those same people are now completely converted to the idea of seeking to use it on every possible occasion. It is worth while the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    1625
    taking note of that fact, because even the most hopeless of four-wheeler minds occasionally learn something in the House of Commons.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: Really, for the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to read into the suggestion that further steps should be taken and that there should be an inquiry that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) approves of the whole thing is ridiculous.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I was only referring to the more advanced sub-section of that section of the Liberal party.
    Mr. MASON: I do not know to whom the hon. Gentleman was referring, but the suggestion was absurd. The more inquiry you have the better. It is an appointed body and it is proper for my hon. Friend to suggest that it should be made use of. I support what was so ably said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). When one comes to read the Clause, the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to what the Amendment proposes, namely, that there should be an inquiry, is a lame one. I would ask hon. Members to read the Clause where it states that
    "If at any time the Board of Trade are satisfied that any preferences….. are likely to be frustrated in whole or in part by reason of the creation or maintenance, directly or indirectly, of prices for that class or description of goods through State action on the part of any foreign country, the Board of Trade may by order prohibit the importation."
    Suppose that a foreign Government went in for a policy of inflation which raised prices, is the Board of Trade then to come in and frustrate the importation of foreign articles? There are a hundred and one cases which might arise with which the Board of Trade in its wisdom might have to deal. I do not doubt that there are many able men in the Board of Trade in whom we have confidence, yet the Clause gives these very wide powers to the Board of Trade. The only object in debating this matter is purely academic, because we know that hon. Members will go into the Lobby and support the Government. But, after all, perhaps we do serve a useful purpose if, as we go along, we point out what is being done. Let us think what we are doing. It does not matter whether we
    1626
    are Free Traders or Tariff Reformers, we are giving power to the Board of Trade to prohibit the importation of foreign articles if they think that something is being done through some State action on the part of a foreign Government to raise or maintain prices which, in their opinion, is not advisable. The Clause contains a monstrous suggestion, and the hon. Gentleman opposite should proceed with his Amendment to a Division.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: If my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) will take his mind back to 1921 he will find that the Safeguarding of Industries Act passed in that year expressed the intention of this Bill in regard to prohibition by the Board of Trade, and that therefore the principle received the sanction of Parliament 11 years ago. He will find that a whole Section of that Act is devoted to giving power to the Board of Trade to prohibit the importation of articles which are described as dumped in that prices are lowered by deflation of currency in the country of origin. I also ask my hon. Friend to note that that Section of the Safeguarding of Industries Act applies to dumping of all kinds. There is no qualification whatever of the type of dumping to be dealt with under that Section of the Act. The Government, therefore, in limiting the circumstances in which this action may be taken under the Ottawa Agreements, are providing for action which is very much more limited than the Board of Trade were required to take under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921.
    I should also like to say, in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), that the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) could not possibly be conceded. The hon. Member for Banff tried to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that in every case the question of any action to be taken should be referred to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. If my memory serves me aright, the Import Duties Act gives the Advisory Committee no power to do anything except to recommend the imposition or removal of duties, or the reduction or lessening of duties, whereas Clause 5 of this Bill specifically states that the Board of Trade has power under Sub-section (5) to exercise prohibition.

    1627
    Therefore, it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an undertaking that in every case the action to he taken on that account should be referred to a body which has no power except in regard to recommendations respecting import duties. It is a matter of very much more than the devising of machinery as the hon. Member for Lime-house suggested, and I hope that the Government will resist the Amendment.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The Noble Lady has pointed out the precedent laid down in the Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921. I presume that she thinks that that is a wise precedent to follow as regards the damping of goods. May I draw her attention to the provision as regards inquiry under that Act? First of all a complaint has to be lodged with the Board of Trade. Secondly, the Board of Trade have to be satisfied on a certain number of matters. Thirdly, the Board of Trade have to refer the matter to a committee, which has to hold an impartial inquiry, before which the parties appear, either themselves or by counsel. As a result of that inquiry the Board of Trade might if the Committee so reported in certain events, put on a duty, but there are several provisos as to safeguards. If the Noble Lady desires that procedure and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give it to us, we shall be perfectly prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I was not dealing with that point but specifically with the surprise expressed by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Mason) at the idea of prohibition being extended at all to goods coming into this country. I felt bound to remind the Committee of the precedent laid down—I did not say whether it was good or bad—of the Safeguarding of Industries Act.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The argument of the Noble Lady does not seem to touch the matter which we are discussing at the moment. It is not a question of whether there shall or shall not be prohibition, but whether there shall be a public inquiry before the prohibition is put on. I agree with her that if we are to have prohibition we ought to have the procedure as laid down in the Safeguarding of Industries Act. There never has been
    1628
    a power given by this House to a Department to put on a prohibition with no inquiry whatsoever, at which the parties concerned could be represented or heard. It is that proposal to which we object. Whether prohibition be good, bad or indifferent, the people who are vitally interested in this country should have an opportunity of laying their case publicly either before the Board of Trade or some impartial tribunal, before a decision is arrived at which may have such serious effect upon them.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I was thinking of the interests of the people in this country as well as the interests of the Canadian producer. They would not wish to be undersold by State-aided dumping.
    Sir M. WOOD: I pointed out that it was possible under this Bill for the Treasury to refer certain matters to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The Noble Lady says that it is not possible for that committee to take cognisance of anything of the kind. I am only suggesting that the machinery laid down in the Bill should be used, but if it 'is impossible for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to have cognisance of these things, there is no meaning in Clause 11.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member suggested that in every case of proposed action it should be referred to the Tariff Advisory Committee. That is impossible.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The Amendment before the Committee has nothing to do with the Tariff Advisory Committee. It refers to a public inquiry. A public inquiry is not necessarily of the nature of an inquiry before the Advisory Committee. Therefore, any reference to that Committee is really out of order in relation to this Amendment. It might be in order in relation to an appropriate Amendment. The practical business reason for resisting the Amendment is the terrible forestalling that would inevitably happen if there were a long public inquiry to find out whether the alleged dumping was taking place. If the Board of Trade are satisfied and if they want to take effective steps to prevent the evil from continuing, they must act at once. If there is delay for some weeks such enormous quantities of goods would come in that the purpose of the

    1629
    Ottawa Agreements would be frustrated not merely for a short time but perhaps for a year or so, on account of the enormous forestalling that would be inevitable. When an order has been made it can only remain in operation for 28 Parliamentary days, unless it is confirmed' by Parliament. Therefore, there would
    be every opportunity if any abuse had taken place for the Government to be censured by the action of either this House or the other House.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 251.

    Division No. 340.]

    AYES.

    [3.58 p.m.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Bevan, Ancurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cove, William G.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Cowan, D. M.

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cripps. Sir Stafford

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

    Daggar, George

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    White, Henry Graham

    Edwards. Charles

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Leonard, William

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Lunn, William

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McGovern, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McKeag, William

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. John.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    NOES

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Copeland, Ida

    Grimston, R. V.

    Albery, Irving James

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Gulnness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Craven-Effie, William

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Barrie. Sir Charles Coupar

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hartland, George A.

    Beauchamp; Sir Brograve Campbell

    Crossley, A. C.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennight'n)

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Blindell, James

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston,

    Borodale, Viscount

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslle

    Bossom, A. C.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hornby, Frank

    Boulton, W. W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Denville, Alfred

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Dickie, John P.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Donner, P. W.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Doran, Edward

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Iveagh, countess of

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Buchan, John

    Dunglass, Lord

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Burghley, Lord

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Elmley, Viscount

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Burnett, John George

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Knight, Holford

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Leckie, J. A

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Flelden, Edward Brockiehurst

    Lees-Jones, John

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Levy, Thomas

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Lewis, Oswaid

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Clarke, Frank

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Lymington, Viscount

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Goff, Sir Park

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    MacAndrew, Capt, J. O. (Ayr)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.)

    Petherick, M

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Plckford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    McLean, Major Alan

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Pybus, Percy John

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Stewart, William J.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Maitland, Adam

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Ramsden, E.

    Templeton, William P.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Rankin, Robert

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.

    Thompson, Luke

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'side)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Munro, Patrick

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Nall-Caln, Arthur Ronald N.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Savory, Samuel Servington

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Scone, Lord

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Nicholson. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Nunn, William

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Womersley, Walter James

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Slater, John

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Peaks, Captain Osbert

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waiter D.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Pearson, William G.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Penny, Sir George

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Captain Austin Hudson and Lord

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Erskine.

    Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that such order shall not come into force until after due time has been given for all goods already consigned from such country to be landed in this country, and shall exempt from the the operation of such order any goods imported in pursuance of a bona fide contract entered into before the date of such order."
    I move this Amendment because the Bill as it stands imposes a sudden prohibition without giving any opportunity whatever of an inquiry, and may cause a certain amount of friction between importers and exporters. The Clause states:
    "the Board of Trade may by order prohibit the importation into the United Kingdom of goods of that class or description grown, produced or manufactured in that foreign country."
    I contend that this is imposing a sudden prohibition upon certain sections of our community without any inquiries. Let me cite an example. Some kind of commodity may be on the high seas, and the change of taxation comes before the cargo arrives in this country. It might also break through a number of commercial transactions or agreements. Suppose a man had a large building con-
    1632
    tract in this country, and he had specified for a certain class of material being used in that building, and had also quoted his price before the Ottawa Agreement came into being or was known. The operation of the power of prohibition before his cargo arrives in this country would put him in a very awkward predicament, and might break an agreement. I do think that there ought to be full power of inquiry on matters of this kind in order that there shall be no sudden jump from one thing to another, and the Amendment I am moving is only a fair one to make, because Clause 5 gives:
    "Security of preferences granted pursuant to agreement with the Dominion of Canada against action by foreign Governments."
    We do not, in a sense, wish to try to break an agreement already made from this point of view, but we ask that, at least, full and fair consideration should be given to the case of people who are placed in a difficult situation owing to prohibition being imposed without real and proper notice of the change. After the change takes place no opportunity of inquiry is given, and we feel that a full inquiry ought to be given, or at least concessions made in that direction, particularly in the case of goods already con-

    1633
    signed from the country of origin to this country in the interim period of this Bill.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I very much hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment. It seems to me perfectly clear, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises, that there is taking place a great deal of forestalling of goods, imported at cut-throat prices, and six months must elapse before any suet) goods from Russia can be taxed on entry into this country. In regard to goods coming into this country at cut-throat prices from a country other than Soviet Russia, we have not yet learnt from the Government what time will have to elapse before any action is taken in respect of that. I have asked already in the Debates on this Bill whether it will be necessary in order that such action may be taken in regard to goods of this kind coming from countries other than Russia, whether any treaty will have to be denounced, and how long before it can be regarded as having elapsed. But it is quite clear that six months must elapse before any action of the kind can be taken in respect of goods coming from the country which has dumped most goods upon us in the last two or three years, and I wish to say that the suggestion to the effect that goods shall be exempted from the operation of this order,
    "imported in pursuance of a bona fide contract entered into before the date of such order,"
    might almost have been suggested or dictated by members of the Timber Distributors, Limited, who, I have just learnt, are beginning to negotiate for another large purchase of timber from Russia. It is almost inconceivable, in view of the feeling there has been in this country with regard to the large purchases of timber from Russia, often produced under such terrible conditions, and in view of the importance of the timber question to Canada, particularly to British Columbia and the East of Canada, that this particular corporation should be trying to negotiate another large purchase, but I am told that negotiations have begun with a Russian State Trust, and that the Russians are trying to get no less than 500,000 standards taken in this country, which is 50,000 more than the deal they arranged last
    1634
    winter. That seems to me a very serious matter.
    If this Amendment were carried, it would mean that not only should we have to wait six months from now, or from a fortnight after the 18th of this month before any action could be taken, but the hands of the Government might be tied for a further period until there had arrived in this country the timber for which there are negotiations at present. As we know, timber does not come from Russia in the winter months, and this timber which is being negotiated for now might not be delivered till May or even later next year. It is, therefore, a most urgent matter that this Amendment should be rejected.
    Mr. PARKINSON: If the Noble Lady will read the Amendment, she will see that it states:
    "for all goods already consigned from such country,"
    and not in respect of negotiations entered into.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I was reading the words at the end of the Amendment:
    "any goods imported in pursuance of a bona fide contract entered into before the date of such order."
    I understand that no Order can be made by the Board of Trade in respect of goods coming from Russia until after the Russian Treaty has lapsed, which cannot be for six months after 18th October. I say that for a British corporation to be negotiating a deal of this kind when we know what enormous importance the Canadian Government attach to the cessation of this unfair competition, which has caused their timber and saw mill industries such tremendous loss—28 mills in British Columbia have been closed—and when we remember that at this moment there is in this country a deputation from the timber and saw mill industry of British Columbia, which has come over to see what the British market requires so that they may alter their plans and methods and plant in order to secure a better and more assured place in our markets—I say that it is terrible that any British corporation should be proposing to make another huge purchase of timber from Russia and that there should be hon. Members in this House trying to induce Parliament to accept a weakening of our plighted troth to

    1635
    Canada, and thus play into the hands of Soviet Russia.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment deals with two different cases. First, the case of goods which are actually in transit at the time of the Order and, secondly, goods which are the subject of a bona fide contract entered into before the date of the Order. The Noble Lady has dealt with the latter case and after what she has said I think the Committee will agree that the second object of the Amendment is really one which should not be encouraged. In the past the same suggestion has been made in respect of all new import duties, and it has always been resisted, not on the grounds which are applicable in this case, but on the general grounds of the impracticability of such a provision. It is impossible to determine whether a contract is or is not, a bona fide contract. There is always the possibility that you may have faked contracts put forward as bona fide contracts. There is also the further objection that having given notice that all contracts entered into before the date of the Order can be carried out in full it is a direct incentive to people to enter into as large contracts as possible for the purpose of forestalling the Order. For all these reasons, it is out of the question to accept any such provision as far as contracts are concerned.
    When I come to the other part of the Amendment, I admit that the case is not so strong as it is in the case of contracts, but I must point out that there is nothing to prevent the Treasury Order coming into operation at some date which would actually allow any goods in transit to come in, if it were desired. But to lay down in the Act itself that such goods must be free from the operation of the Order would defeat at any rate the procedure I have in mind which might be followed in dealing with goods entering under this Clause. What we are endeavouring to do is not necessarily to prohibit the importation of goods from any particular country. We are trying to prevent a practice which if carried out will defeat the objects of the preferences. That object would be defeated if goods are sold under the market price so as to make it no longer possible for a Dominion producer to send articles here and make both ends meet.
    1636
    I hope that on representations being made to a Government which was carrying on State action of that kind that they were liable to frustrate the object of these preferences, and that if they continued their action we should have to put this Clause into operation, such a Government would see the wisdom of falling in with the desires expressed by His Majesty's Government. We should then have not only a cessation of the sales but a cessation of the practice of selling below the market price. But, if we were to say that anything in transit must be free from the operation of the Order, it is obvious that you could not make any such communication to the Government in question, because you would be inviting them to send in whatever they liked before the Order came into operation. If the Amendment were accepted, it would defeat the object of the hon. Member, and I hope that he will not press it.
    Mr. ATTLEE: In her speech the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) dealt solely with Russia. In her opinion there is no question of any inquiry; her mind is made up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with the Clause on broad lines. As he says, the Amendment raises two distinct points. I agree that there is something to be said for the position the right hon. Gentleman has taken up in regard to contracts, but in regard to goods in transit I do not think that he really made out his case. He says that if he accepted the Amendment and then approached a Government in order to try and get them to see the error of their ways, that Government would immediately consign as much stuff as they could to this country in anticipation of the Order. If that is true then the converse is true, that once it was made known that the right hon. Gentleman was going to enter into negotiations with a country all consignments would stop; it would be too risky to carry on. Therefore, whenever an attempt is made to operate this Clause you are going to stop trade. The whole Bill in my opinion interferes with trade, but this is a very clumsy way of stopping trade.
    The question as to what is going to happen to importers who suddenly find that goods which they have ordered are to be prohibited has been argued for many years. In previous years it was a

    1637
    duty, but in this case it is actual prohibition. It is quite possible to obtain the date when the goods were actually consigned and there is no reason why we should not except goods actually on the water at the time. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made out his case against the first part of the Amendment. It may be a different matter in the case of contracts, but I wish that their zeal for Imperial trade would occasionally allow the Government to see something of the position into which they are putting the traders of this country. They are doing everything to upset traders. By taking these powers,
    which they are going to use at once without any opportunity of inquiry, they are, in fact, destroying any incentive to trade, and it will militate against any recovery of world trade if we have a Government in a position where they can step in and stop a certain trade going on. The mere threat of such an action, or a question in this House, may stop a consignment, and the result will be disastrous to our trade and shipping.
    Question put: "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 267.

    Division No. 341.]

    AYES

    [4. 25 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)

    Lunn, William

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McGovern, John

    Bonfield, John William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    MeKeag, William

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Manton, James

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Briant, Frank

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Price, Gabriel

    Buchanan, George

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, William G.

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Hirst, George Henry

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Edwards, Charles

    Leonard, William

    Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. John.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    NOES

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Albery, Irving James

    cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Alien. Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Cayzer, Mal. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Cazaiet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Felle, Sir Bertram G.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M,

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Fox, Sir Glfford

    Balfour. George (Hampstead)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Beaumont. Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Cooke, Douglas

    Goff, Sir Park

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Copeland, Ida

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Blindell, James

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Borodale, Viscount

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Bossom. A. C.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Boulton, W. W.

    Crooke. J. Smedley

    Grimston, R. V.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Crossley, A. C.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hartland, George A.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Denville, Alfred

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Buchan, John

    Dickle, John P.

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Donner, P. W.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Burghley, Lord

    Doran, Edward

    Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)

    Burnett, John George

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Cadog an, Hon. Edward

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Calne, G. R. Hall-

    Eiliston, Captain George Sampson

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    Campbell, Edward Taswelf (Bromley)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Hornby, Frank

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Milne, Charles

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Slater, John

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Munro, Patrick

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Ralph

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Nicholson, Rt. He. W. G. (Peters'fld)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Nunn, William

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Knight, Holford

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Stewart, William J.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Pearson, William G.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Petherick, M.

    Templeton, William P.

    Levy, Thomas

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Liddell, Walter S.

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Thompson, Luke

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Tudd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Lymington, Viscount

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Pertick)

    Ramsden, E.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Rankin, Robert

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    McLean, Major Alan

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirring)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Maitland, Adam

    Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'side)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Womersley, Walter James

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Scone, Lord

    Sir George Penny and Lord Erskine.

    Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) For the purposes of this section State action shall be deemed to include any action controlling the prices of such goods by means of subsidies, allowances, bonuses, remissions of taxation, local or national, or any other State action calculated to assist the producers to make a profit although goods for export are sold at a lower price than for internal consumption, but shall not include economies effected in production by reason of the elimination of rent, interest on capital, or other overhead charges."
    The purpose of the Bill is to give preferences to countries of the British Empire, and Clause 5 is for the purpose of preventing any foreign country defeating that object by certain means, that is to say, if a particular commodity is coming from the Empire under terms of preference and a foreign country attempts to subsidise that commodity and to get it into this country on what we may term
    1640
    unfair means, the Clause gives the Government power to stop that kind of thing happening. The Amendment helps the Government a certain part of the way. We agree that if there is unfair competition of that kind the Government ought to have this power. Of course, we shall fight the Bill all the way through, but, seeing that the Bill is to be carried, we give way to the Government here to that extent. Take the case of Russia. One cannot keep away from that country in these days. With the kind of Government now in control in Russia there is an elimination of rent, interest on capital, and other overhead charges in industry. We would not say that that was an attempt to get goods into this country in a special preferential way. If the Government can satisfy us that this Clause is not aimed at any particular country we would consider their statement, but I cannot see that the Clause does not mean

    1641
    that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech on a previous Amendment stated that it was for the purpose of giving preference to a country so that it could export to this country goods at a price which was under the price at which they were sold in the country from which they came.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I never said anything of the kind.
    Mr. TINKER: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is generally clear, and he knows what he said. I am not one who would dare to contradict him, but I did think that in the course of his previous remarks he made that statement. However, I withdraw what I have said, as I am not going to challenge him on accuracy. The point I am making is that if the general system of government in any country is such as to eliminate certain production charges, such as rent, interest on capital, etc., that shall not be taken as constituting a subsidy to the goods of that country. If the goods of a country are brought here at a price which is not below the market price in that country the Clause should not operate against such goods.
    Mr. PRICE: I wish to support the Amendment. I cannot accept altogether the statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the position clear. We want to know what is intended by the Clause. A few days ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when dealing with Russian imports, said, if I remember rightly, that we cannot be expected to compete with imports from a country whose industry is run in such a way as to eliminate rents and interest on capital and so forth. We want to know really what is in the mind of the Government. It may be denied by some manufacturers, but we state that the manufacturers of this country were subsidised when the last Conservative Government passed the De-rating Bill. What is the real intention of this Clause? The Government ought to accept the Amendment and give facilities for imports into this country of all goods manufactured in countries where the conditions of labour are satisfactory. The Government should not make their attack on one country and base that attack on the economic and industrial conditions under which that country produces its goods.
    1642
    We are hoping to see the time when the economic and manufacturing life of this country will be run under conditions that include an elimination of rent and of interest on capital. Therefore, we are anxious not to lay down any provision in this Clause that imports from a country which runs its economic and industrial life on those lines shall have no opportunity of exporting its goods. In the discussion on Russia a week ago reasons were given for the endeavour to prohibit the entry of Russian goods to this country, and statements were made about wages and working conditions in Russia. A Noble Lady who has to-day been attacking Russia, may be reminded that in the timber yards of which she spoke there is under-paid labour. Let us be consistent. If we are going to boycott the entrance of goods from Russia on those grounds, then let us boycott goods from Canada or India or anywhere else.
    Mr. LEVY: I do not know whether the Government propose to accept or reject this Amendment. My object in intervening is to call attention to State-aided dumping that is taking place in the textile industry, not only in this country but in other parts of the Empire. I am referring to Japan—
    The CHAIRMAN: That subject would not come within this Amendment, and the hon. Member's remarks, so far as I have heard them, would seem to come in better on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. LEVY: As you please. With your permission I will postpone my few remarks until that Question is put from the Chair.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The Committee I think are now aware of the exact point involved in this Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment presented his case with considerable skill but the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) who supported the Amendment revealed exactly what is in the minds of those promoting it—which the Mover endeavoured to conceal—namely that we are dealing here with the question of Russia. If we are dealing with Russia then let us face that fact. The hon. Member for Hemsworth seemed to suggest that it would be an admirable thing if there were no rents. But what would happen to the trade union funds which are invested in building societies, if the

    1643
    building societies' tenants decided to pay no rent '? I imagine that the trade unions would have something to say to the building societies in that case.
    I wonder whether those hon. Members who endeavour to foster the idea that the Russian system of government is one which ought to be safeguarded, ever take account of the fact that, from an industrial point of view, Russia's system of commerce is not based on profit and loss at all. There is no question in Russia's case of being able to sell below or above a certain cost. Russia simply sells at whatever price pays her. If she is hard up for cash, she sells at a price below production costs and we have to endure that. Therefore when it is a question of saying that one must sell at cost price, it must be realised that there is no such thing in a country like Russia as a cost price because the price simply depends on what the Government of the country-say is to be the price. When you eliminate capitalism as a means of commerce then, of course, you come to these questions which have to be raised in the case of Russia. I would like my hon. Friends to remember that, whatever happens in industrial life, the value of the commodity is the governing factor in market price and I suggest, with the greatest modesty that on examining the terms of this Amendment it will be found that the Government are in a very strong situation in refusing to touch it—more especially the last two lines in which it is proposed that
    "State action …. shall not include economies effected in production by reason of the elimination of rent, interest on capital, or other overhead charges."
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or whoever replies on this Amendment ought to define what is meant by "State action." I think I hear the right hon. Gentleman suggesting to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that State action means action by the State, but that is a definition which, I think, requires some amplification. The right hon. Gentleman himself took very definite State action a few years ago when he passed the De-rating Act. That was State action intended to assist industry. Such action in a foreign country might be the means of enabling that foreign country to do what this Clause says ought not
    1644
    be done, namely, to obstruct the intention of these preferences. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that a country which followed his example in that respect was one which ought to be dealt with by this Clause'? Is it intended that goods coming from such a country, as a result of de-rating, would contravene the Clause? In Australia there is a subsidy of 3s. on butter. Is that State action; and would similar action by a foreign country come under this Clause? Germany, by various methods, assists her coal industry. If similar action were taken by some other country in respect of goods covered by these preferences would such action be dealt with under the Clause?
    Reference has been made to Russia. Russia is apparently the one country which is taking action on lines which would allow this country to adopt the course proposed under this Bill. Other countries are likely to follow the Russian example. When they do so, are we to understand that those countries will be dealt with on similar terms with Russia in this respect? We propose in the Amendment that State action ought not to include economies effected in production by the elimination of rents or other charges. We should like to know what objection there is to including that definition? If some other country follows the Russian example, is that country, because it has eliminated certain factors in the cost of production, to be singled out for the suggested treatment. The sole purpose of this Clause is to satisfy Canada. Why is it limited to the Canadian Agreement? Why is Canada the only Dominion to have this prohibition? We can make a shrewd guess as to what the reply to that question will be. We shall be told that this proposal is in reference to timber and that this is a concession which we were compelled to give because Canada feared that Russian trade in timber was adversely affecting the Canadian timber market. But if an Agreement of this kind is good for Canada, why is it not good for the other Dominions and why has a similar concession not been made to them? Russian action in our opinion is action along right lines and we do not think that, merely because Russia has eliminated certain costs of production, she should be dealt with in this manner.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I point out to hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment that they have placed themselves in an extraordinary position? When you have eliminated rent and interest on capital from overhead charges, you are left with other overhead charges for social services and that kind of thing. Is it part of the policy of hon. Members who support the Amendment to eliminate social services and to praise countries who have done so? If so we have come to a curious position. Apparently, not only would they wish social services to be eliminated, but also anything in the nature of a burden on industry by reason of the trade unions. I would not like hon. Members to go into the Division Lobby without knowing that in voting for this Amendment they were voting against such things as social services. I think this Amendment has been passed on to the shoulders of the hon. Members who moved and supported it, by some rather acute legal mind probably on the Front Opposition Bench.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I hope that, if I omit to answer any of the numerous questions which have been put to me, I shall be reminded either in the course of my remarks or afterwards. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) in particular put some pertinent queries and at the outset I may say in reply to him that the purpose of this Clause is to protect the integrity of our Agreement with Canada. Clearly if we wish to enter into commercial relationship with Canada on a preferential basis it will be advantageous to secure that no other country shall, by State action, frustrate what we contrive to do. My hon. Friend asks what we mean by "State action." My answer is any action by a Government which frustrates the Agreement. Then he asked why did this only apply to Canada? The answer is simple. Canada was the only Dominion which asked for this Clause but all the other Dominions will naturally benefit by it, because, once it is in operation, it will apply to the advantage of all who send a particular class of goods—the prohibited class of goods—to this country.
    The hon. Members who support the Amendment wish to do precisely the reverse of what we have done. We say that if any country, particularly a country
    1646
    enjoying a State monopoly of trade, seeks to undermine our transactions then we may prohibit their goods. Hon. Members opposite say, "You may protect your Agreements; you may protect your trade against any country, provided it be not Russia." That is the effect of the Amendment. I am not so much concerned with what the Amendment seeks to include because, apparently it includes everything, but it says that State action
    "shall not include economies effected in production by reason of the elimination of rent, interest on capital, or other overhead charges."
    That is a very euphemistic way of defining pillage and confiscation. What we are asked to assent to is this: If any country robs persons of what they own, of their investments, of their securities, of their rents, of their interest on capital, then that country shall be put in a privileged position and shall be the only country against which you are not entitled to defend yourself. I think my hon. Friends will see on reflection that this is not a reasonable proposition to make to the working people of this country. What we have done has been to insert in this Clause the exact wording of the Canadian Agreement. The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to that Agreement. Accordingly we have followed its exact words. We should be breaking the Agreement if we choose any other words, and we certainly should make ourselves look very ridiculous in the eyes of Canada if, having entered into this Agreement we said, "We are prepared to protect you against any country except Russia."
    Mr. WALLHEAD: It seems to come to this—that the timber trade of the country is to be penalised in order that Mr. Bennett's lumber barons may make a good thing out of it. I understand that the timber which comes into this country from Canada is about 6 per cent. of the total.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Does the hon. Member realise how much the importation of Canadian sawn timber has declined in the last five years?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Yes, due to Swedish competition.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: No, if the hon. Member will go into the Board of Trade figures he will find that Swedish imports have diminished also.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: But as a matter of fact, as I have already said about 6 per cent. of the total imports come from Canada.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: For which year?
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I am using general figures and the average of the last three or four years is round about 6 per cent. according to the figures of the timber trade itself. The best Canadian timber that enters into competition with Russian timber comes from British Columbia and it is not possible to bring timber at anything like an economic price from British Columbia to compete with Russian timber. Unless it is brought about 4,000 miles overland, it has to go round the Pacific and through the Panama Canal, and we have to pay the price of that, in order to suit Mr. Bennett's purpose and the purpose of the people in whose pocket he is—the Canadian lumber barons. [Interruption.] I say that Mr. Bennett is working in the interest of the Canadian lumber barons and you cannot offset the astuteness of Mr. Bennett by sending over the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to play bridge with him. It does not work. One is interested in all this talk about Russia. Of course, you have rather keen competition from Russia, because Russia has not to bear the burdens that are borne in this country. The hon. Member is quite correct. It is not a question of sweated labour. According to a report by Mr. Stewart, one of the highest authorities on the timber trade in this country, who made a tour of the Russian lumber camps, he found that the conditions there are quite as good as those in the lumber camps of America or Canada.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: To whom is the hon. Member referring?
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I am referring to Mr. Stewart, an expert in the timber trade. He speaks as one who was given free access to all the lumber camps, and his reports do not at all bear out the somewhat twisted reports that we get from the Noble Lady. With regard to this question of Russian competition, I believe it is a fact—the timber trade interests at least report it—that when the market here was being badly broken by
    1648
    Swedish competition, the Russian Government actually did come to the rescue of the timber interests by forgoing their contracts. They did revise their contracts deliberately, although they had contracts which were binding upon the timber interests to take so many thousand standards, when it was represented to them that Swedish timber was coming in at such a price as to break them. They revised their prices on two separate occasions in order to suit the timber trade here and to save them from absolute ruin by the competition of Sweden.
    Mr. PETHERICK: The Swedish timber exporters selling to this country never broke the timber market here.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: But they undercut the price.
    Mr. PETHERICK: No.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Well, the timber trade says it is true, and the hon. Member must have it out with them. [Interruption.] This is the first time that I have spoken in this Debate, and I have been interrupted about 10 times already. I feel that I am on safe ground when I am continually interrupted like this. Let me give an illustration of the kind of thing that we have to stand in this country. This House has been told many times that it costs the City of London millions because of traffic congestion, and we are told that we badly need a bridge across the river. Estimates have been framed for a bridge—the matter has been debated in this House—and the cost of it is round about £15,000,000, to build that bridge, but when one gets down to brass tacks, one discovers that about £13,000,000 is for compensation for landlords' rights, for something that has nothing whatever to do with the building of the bridge. If they were building a bridge in Moscow, they would not have that £13,000,000 to pay, and why should they be penalised because they have more sense than we have? Here, £13,000,000 in compensation is a burden which the industry of this city has to pay, because it must come out of industry by some means or other.
    I would say at once, bar sweated goods. I believe I was among the first to raise that question in this House, and I practically fought an election on it, in 1918, for the prohibition of sweated goods. I would keep out sweated goods, no matter

    1649
    where they came from, if it was demonstrated that they were sweated goods, but I am not prepared to keep out goods because they are produced under a sensible system, just to suit a lot of infernal fools who cannot manage their own business better than we are doing and while they continue to be held up, as we are, by a landlord system which has served its purpose and which more sensible people are discovering to be bad. We shall have to get rid of it, if we are to hold our own in the developing crisis with which we are confronted by the economic development that is going on throughout the world. I support the Amendment.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I really must try to tell the Committee something of the facts of this case. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead) could not tell us to what year he was referring when he said that Canada only sent us 6 per cent. of our timber imports, and he tried to fall back on an average. To take an average of Canada's timber imports to us is very unfair, because it glozes over the fact that for five years there has been a steady reduction in the quantity of sawn timber sent us from Canada, owing very largely to our great purchases during that period of Russian timber. I have here the figures from the Board of Trade returns, showing that in 1931 Canada sold to us £700,000 worth less of sawn timber than in 1928, and if hon. Members would look at the quantities, which are also in the Board of Trade returns, they would see a steady drop in quantities over a period of something like five years. Therefore, I submit that it is very misleading to strike an average, and that it obscures the position altogether.
    I do not want to claim that Canada in the near future can send us anything like all the timber that we shall want. We have to recognise that she has a very long way to send it, but she has now, thanks to the Import Duties Act, a preferential tariff in her favour, which one hopes will help her to overcome her disadvantage of distance.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: I suggest that Canada never can supply the needs of this country at an economic price.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Time will have to show that. At least, the hon. Member will admit that the fact that, so soon
    1650
    after the signing of the Ottawa Agreement, a delegation should have come from British Columbia all this way, shows that they do not think the distance too far for them to come over here, to see what the British market needs, and to see if they cannot more closely meet our needs than they have done hitherto. It seems to me very unfriendly to our kith and kin across the water to say that it is quite impossible that they should ever be able to meet our needs. They may never be able to meet the whole of our needs, or they may not be able in a short space of time to meet a great part of our needs. But let us at least give them the chance to meet all they can, and surely that is what we are bound to do under the Ottawa Agreement. I hope also there will be room left for us to take more of the timber from Sweden and Finland. We used to take it, but owing to the fact that we have bought so much Russian timber, we have bought from them very much less of late years than before. That has caused a, very grave loss of purchasing power in those countries, and it is very much to our advantage that their purchasing power should be greater, because they want to do more trade with us, and we want to give them all the orders we can for timber, and to get in return orders from them for our machinery.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil has also misapprehended the purport of what Mr. Stewart said about the lumber camps in Russia. If he will look carefully at Mr. J. F. Stewart's report, printed by the Timber Federation of this country in their pamphlet "The Timber Trade," issued about 18 months ago, he will see that Mr. Stewart's visit to North Russia was early in 1929; and if the hon. Member will look at the Blue Book on the Russian labour laws, published by his own late Labour Government, he will see that it was not until the 1st.June of that year that a decree was published authorising forced labour on a large scale in the timber industry in Russia. Therefore, Mr. Stewart was in the north of Russia before forced labour was introduced into the timber industry there on a large scale, and if the hon. Member will further look at that report, he will see that Mr. Stewart expressly disclaimed any wish to express an opinion as to whether or not there is forced labour

    1651
    there. Quite clearly, what he describes are lumber camps of ordinary free industry, local labour and so on. Therefore, it is beside the mark altogether to quote Mr. Stewart as a witness on this question at all. Those who will take a little more trouble, and read the report of the committee of inquiry set up by the Anti-Slavery Committee in 1931, will see that they examined, among others, six ex-prisoners, who made sworn statements, and they expressed the opinion that the ex-prisoners' statements as to the conditions in the prison camps in the north of Russia were "in the main true". That is the best opinion we have on this question.
    Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: If the Noble Lady wishes to pursue her inquiries into sweated labour, there is no reason for her to go outside the British Empire.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I was not speaking of sweated labour, but of prison labour on a commercial basis.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am prepared to accept the Noble Lady's admission that prison labour is not sweated labour, and that people outside prison have to sweat more than those who are in prison. But we are getting rather tired—I think the whole House is—of these diatribes about the awful labour conditions in Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I dare say it is agreeable to Tory ears continually to hear these horrible stories about a country against whose commercial success they are now going to legislate. We used to be told in former years that the Bolshevists would never succeed, and that all we had to do was to sit down and wait till they collapsed. Now the House of Commons is proceeding to arm the Government with a most formidable power of discrimination against the exports of that country. The British Government have not yet learned the lesson that other Governments have learned, that the foreign trade monopoly puts such formidable power into the hands of the Soviet Government that no single country has yet been able to take on the Russian Government with success. France, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Italy—country after country—has tried to discriminate against Russian goods, and each in turn has had to agree that the weapon which the foreign trade monopoly puts in the hands of the Russian Government is too formidable to fight.
    1652
    The Noble Lady let the cat out of the bag. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated that the purpose of the Amendment was to enable the Government to discriminate against everybody's goods except Russia's. The Noble Lady has now made it clear that the purpose of this power is to discriminate against Russia, and against nobody else. The Noble Lady hoped that we should be able to increase our consumption, not only of Canadian timber, but of Swedish and Finnish lumber as well. I cannot see, for the life of me, why an adverse balance of trade with the Scandinavian countries should make us endeavour to increase their exports to us, and an adverse balance of trade with Russia arouse all this bitterness and antagonism, if it is merely a matter of trade; but it is obvious that what the Government are seeking now is not part and parcel of a trade agreement with Canada, but a political weapon with which to wage economic war against the Soviets. Therefore, if we wish to protect the one Socialist Government in the world, it is not unreasonable, on the part of the Socialist party here, facing a Government which is arming itself with a weapon to wage war against the one Socialist Government. We are taking up this line because of the line proposed by the Government through this Clause.
    One of the most amazing things in the discussions on the Ottawa Agreements is what Canada has been able to exact from the British Government. So far as the British Empire is concerned, Canada has always been the villain of the piece. Any modifications in the Imperial structure have been made in consequence of the pressure of Canada. The whole history of the British Empire in the last half century shows that Canada has gone holus-bolus over to the financial interests. There is no justification on the basis of either trade or Imperial unity for the Clause. I would invite our Imperial friends, if they are so anxious to preserve Imperial unity, to study the history of the British Empire and the influence of Canada on our Imperial relations. Do stop talking this Imperialist bunkum, and talk business. We get tired of all the sentiment about Imperial relations.
    The next point I would like to make is that the Government are arming themselves with a weapon which they will be

    1653
    unable to drop although they will want to drop it. Are the Government seriously suggesting that they are putting themselves in the position of having a demand from Canada to compel the British Government to prohibit the import of any commodity from any of the Dominions which competes with commodities from Canada?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going rather beyond the Amendment.
    Mr. BEVAN: The purpose of the Claus—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is my point. The hon. Member's remarks would come better on the Clause than on this Amendment.
    Mr. BEVAN: As it has already been pointed out that the Amendment will prevent the Government discriminating against anybody except Russia, I submit that my point is pertinent. As I understand it, under the Clause and that portion of the Clause which would be altered by our Amendment, if any goods come into this country from Russia subsidised by State action, they will be covered by the Clause. The Financial Secretary has told us that the Russian foreign trade monopoly would be State action in the meaning of the Clause. We have now got a definition from the Front Bench, and it means that any article sold by Russia is construed to be an article sold by State action and the sale of it influenced by State action—
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has that ever been denied?
    Mr. BEVAN: I simply want to italicise what the Financial Secretary has stated, that if any goods come into this country from Russia competing with goods coming from the Dominions, the goods from Russia will be construed as goods discriminating against the goods from the Dominions.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member is now saying something else. I only assented to his proposition that goods which came from Russia through trade which is conducted by Russia, is not conducted by private individuals but by the State, and I say that that has never been denied.
    Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Gentleman started off his speech by saying "Let us be logical." I am being strictly logical. We are now to understand that, under the hon. Gentleman's definition, any goods from Russia would, being sold by the Russian foreign trade monopoly, be sold by State action. Therefore, if those goods are sold in this country in competition with goods coming from any part of the Dominions, they can be prohibited under this Clause. Immediately Russian goods are brought in in competition with Dominion goods in the market of Great Britain, there is the possibility of prohibition. The Clause means that whole ranges of goods sold in Great Britain by the Russians become subject to the decree of the Board of Trade without any consultation with this House. We are not pressing this in order to get the Amendment, for we know that we shall not, but to let the country understand what is being done. The country should understand that what the Tories failed to do by a free vote of the House in the last Parliament they are now seeking to do by clandestine methods. If the House were allowed to discharge its duty to the consumers of these goods so that purchasers of timber and butter——
    Duchess of ATHOLL: And poultry.
    Mr. BEVAN: I do not mind what. The more you add to the list the more I shall be pleased. The consumers of all these goods in this country are to have prices raised against them by prohibitions made by the Board of Trade without even the House of Commons being able to complain, or even without the request of the House of Commons, but at the request of any aggrieved Dominion. That is an astonishing position for the House of Commons to get into. If you study the history of the economic relations between the Soviet and European countries in the last three or four years, you will see how Governments with a much smaller consumer interest than Great Britain have failed to discriminate in this way. This discrimination was obtained as a result of pressure from Canada, and it is to be extended to all the Dominions. [Interruption.] I am accepting the statement of the Financial Secretary.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This House has to decide.
    Mr. BEVAN: Have you read the Clause You know—
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Gentlemen address the Chair?
    Mr. BEVAN rose—
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member has not mentioned that the prohibition of the importation of Cheap goods will be in the interest not only of the Dominions, but of the British producers.
    Mr. BEVAN: The goods are cheap because the Russians have thrown off the parasites who were on their backs, but the Noble Lady wants us to keep the Canadian parasites on the British back. The British miners, already the most distressed people in Great Britain, should not have their wages reduced in order to support the timber barons of Canada. We are protesting against that. Those people who went to Ottawa exacted no concessions of any sort for the most distressed industry. Here we are definitely putting it in the hands of Canada to deliver the lumber supplies of the coal industry into the hands of Canada, Finland and Sweden—
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Perhaps the hon. Member will explain in what way the Bill will lower the wages of coal producers?
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to keep the discussion to the Amendment.
    Mr. BEVAN: I am not permitted by the limitations of Debate to pursue that part of the argument, but I will promise the Noble Lady that in five minutes I will prove it to her satisfaction outside the Chamber. It is perfectly clear that the coal industry is a big—
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member please reserve that for the discussion outside?
    Mr. BEVAN: I wish to stress a point which is in perfect order, that under the Clause the Government will be empowered to prohibit timber, and I am therefore entitled to argue how timber-consuming industries would benefit if the Amendment were carried. The Financial Secretary himself, and not the Opposition, has broadened the significance of this Clause to include all commodities which come into competition with
    1656
    Russian commodities. I think that it will be found that this is the stupidest thing the Government have done. Of all the things done in this Bill, these powers will be discovered to be the stupidest of the lot. The noble Lady referred to a delegation that was coming from Canada. Certainly they will come to get their share of the swag; of course they will say, "Prohibit Russian timber." If the Financial Secretary is right, along will come New Zealand, South Africa and all the other Dominions and ask for similar things to be done, and the Government by arming themselves with this power, will be unable to refuse to offend each Dominion in turn. If the Government do not offend them, they will, by the use of this power, offend all the consumers of Russian goods in Great Britain. What is more, because the Russian foreign trade monopoly has used similar powers on more than one occasion, the Government will offend all the firms in Great Britain who are producing orders for Russia. If the Government discriminate in this way against Russian imports, they must not complain if Russia hits back. She has hit back already against many countries that put on restrictions, and the restrictions have had to be withdrawn but the British Government will not be able to withdraw these restrictions without offending the Dominions. They will tie up negotiations with Russia in order to link themselves up with any conspiracy of profit-seeking looters in any part of the Dominions who come to Great Britain and say, "On behalf of this particular group of people in this or that industry the great British Government must wage economic war upon one-fifth of the surface of the earth."
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: Nothing shows more clearly than what we are discussing now that the Government have definitely taken a wrong turning, and are pursuing a thoroughly undisguised reactionary policy. The Amendment does seek to make things logical. The policy of the Government, although they will not admit it, is definitely anti-Russian from a political point of view. The Amendment does endeavour to bring some logic into the matter and to apply the same rules to all countries. I do not want to see restrictions imposed in regard to any country, and there-

    1657
    fore I am not inclined to support either the Amendment or the Government's proposal, but, before I give a vote on this Amendment, there are one or two questions I would like to put to the Financial Secretary. We are entitled to know whether this proposal of the Government regarding Russia is intended seriously or not. Is it simply bluff? Is it simply a convenient formula agreed to in order to satisfy Mr. Bennett, to enable people to say that an agreement was reached, that everything was good, and that they could go home with something done? Or do the Government actually intend to take action f I am not at all sure what they mean to do. It may be pure bluff—they have given their notice, and there is an end of the matter. If they intend to do more, I think the situation is an extraordinarily serious one.
    I urge the Government, now that they have given notice with regard to Russia, that negotiations with Russia should be started at once. Nothing could be more dangerous than to allow months to go by and the impression to grow up in Russia that, rightly or wrongly, we are endeavouring to prevent trade between their country and our own. The only hope of getting trade going with Russia again with any sort of decent feelings between the two countries lies in starting negotiations now, and a declaration should be made to the Russian Government that we must not be misunderstood, and that we do seriously desire to do all the trade we can with their country. I should very much like to have some assurance on that point. Then there is this
    further consideration on this Amendment. Russia is a new country, certain of tremendous commercial development in future, whether we like the way they are running their affairs or not. They have a population of 160,000,000. If we pursue our present policy, adopted from political prejudice, we shall be continuing the same fatal policy as we have followed for the last 10 years.
    At one time 2,000 American engineers were in Russia, while practically no British representatives were there, on account of political prejudice, and not only political, but commercial prejudice. The presence of those Americans has meant that, although America had not recognised Russia, orders for machinery and other things worth many millions of pounds have gone to America which might just as well have come to this country, if only we had faced things in the same sensible spirit as did the United States. I deplore profoundly that our Government should be deliberately encouraging a policy which is going to do everything possible to keep us out of those great markets which, both in the near and distant future, will be of immense importance to the workers of the whole world. They are pursuing a policy now which is affecting the employment of a considerable number of people in this country, and which in the distant future will affect the employment of hundreds of thousands of our workers.
    Question put, "That those words bi3 there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 323.

    Division No. 342.]

    AYES.

    [5.35 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McGovern, John

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Gabriel

    Cape, Thomas

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hirst, George Henry

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, William G.

    John, William

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

    Daggar, George

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmoro)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Leonard, William

    Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Livia.-Colonel

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh.d.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Barlile, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Albery, Irving James

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Barrle, Sir Charles Coupar

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C,)

    Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst

    McLean, Major Alan

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Fraswer, Captain Ian

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Fremantie, Sir Francis

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Glabralth, James Francis Wallace

    Maitland, Adam

    Blindell, James

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Borodale, Viscount

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Milne, Charles

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Graves, Marjorie

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford. N.)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E,)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Burghley, Lord

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Burnett, John George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Munro, Patrick

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Murray-Philipson, Hylton Raiph

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Newton, Sir Douglas George C.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hartland, George A.

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Nunn, William

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay. H'neastle)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Pearson, William G.

    Christle, James Archibald

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Penny. Sir George

    Clarke, Frank

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Clayton Dr. George C.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Peters. Dr. Sidney John

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hornby, Frank

    Petherick, M.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Peto, Geoffrey K (W'verh'pt'n. Bllston)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hunter. Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Lient.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Copeland, Ida

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Purbrick, R.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Pybus, Percy John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootie)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Crossley, A. C.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Ramsden, E.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Daikeith, Earl of

    Kirkpatriek, William M.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovli)

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Knight, Holford

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Denville, Alfred

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Rhys, Hen. Charles Arthur U.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Dickie, John P.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Donner, P. W.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Doran, Edward

    Levy, Thomas

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Russell. Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lloyd. Geoffrey

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Locker-Lampson,Rt. Hn. G. (Wd Gr'n)

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Samuel. Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Loder, Captain J. de Vero

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Scone, Lord

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J, R. (Seaham)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    1660

    1661

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Slater, John

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Templeton, William P.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Thompson, Luke

    Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on.T.)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswintord)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Womersley.

    Stewart, William J.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: We were rather disappointed to find that the only member of the Liberal party who went into the Lobby in support of the Amendment on the last occasion was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). Of course, we are very glad to have his support in a matter of this kind. There are two points I wish to raise on this Clause, and in regard to the first of them I want to return to the question of a public inquiry. I feel that the Government cannot have considered very fully this question of a public in quiry. I am sure that they cannot have consulted the Lord President of the Council upon the matter. My attention has been drawn to the Debate on the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and I looked up to see what the Lord President of the Council said as regards in quiry in that case. The Committee will remember, no doubt, that as regards dumping charges, an important change was made in the Bill during its passage through Committee, by reason of an Amendment deciding that there might be a right of presentation of their case to the committee by the users of dumped material. That is exactly the point that we are trying to press upon the Government here.
    This is what the Lord President of the Council—he was then President of the Board of Trade—said on the matter:
    "The most important change in the Bill is the Amendment which the Committee put in deciding that there should be a right of presentation of their ease to the Committee by the user of the clumped material. I do not think that anyone, whatever his fscal or political views may be, on reflection can
    1662
    possibly object to that, because, after all, the object of this Bill is to prevent, in this country, unfair competition which may lead to serious unemployment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th August, 1921; col. 916, Vol. 146.]
    It is just the same as regards the present Bill, except that instead of "this country" we must read "Canada." I know that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will say that this is a most desirable Amendment, as will a number of other supporters of the Government who at that time were also speaking upon the Third Reading Debate in which the Lord President of the Council made those remarks. I beg the,, Financial Secretary to consult the Cabinet Ministers upon this matter—there are none of them present—and to let us know on the Report stage that they have reconsidered it, that the view of the Lord President of the Council has prevailed and that they are going to give this every reasonable, just and right facility for having some sort of inquiry at which the users of the alleged dumped goods can put forward their views as to how they will be adversely affected.
    The second matter which I wish to raise is one of very great Imperial importance. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told the Committee that this Clause would safeguard all Dominions. That is not what the Clause says. If the policy of his Majesty's Government is to be to apply this condition, which was wrung out of them by Canada, to all other Dominions, this Clause will have to be amended on the Report stage. If the Financial Secretary will look at it, he will see what the conditions are for imposing such a prohibition as is here dealt with. Clause 5 says:
    "If at any time the Board of Trade are satisfied that any preferences granted by this Act in respect of any particular class or description of goods, being preferences

    1663
    granted in fulfilment of the agreement set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act"—
    that is, to Canada alone—
    "are likely to he frustrated,"
    and so on.
    Let me take the case of butter, which is one of the cases covered by this Clause. If the Australians can come forward and say: "Our Australian butter is being undersold by Russian butter," the Government will have no power to act under this Clause to prohibit the Russian butter coining in. It is only if Canada should have goods which they say are being injured by importation from foreign countries that this Clause can be applied. I hope that the Financial Secretary will make the position clear so that the Dominions may know whether they are all going to be let into the Clause, which was forced upon the Government by Mr. Bennett, or whether, as the Financial Secretary said rather adroitly, "They all knew that this Clause was being discussed, but they did not press for it." The Committee, I presume, is to understand that, as a general matter of Imperial relations, this is not the sort of Clause that you would insert in Imperial agreements. If not, why is it not in for Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa? It is not the sort of Clause you put in because it is a good Clause for the purpose of Imperial agreement; it is the sort of Clause you put in because Mr. Bennett tells you that you have got to put it in. If that is so, I hope that Mr. Bennett is the only person who is going to get the benefit of his own deed. That covers the two main points.
    One other point I should like the Financial Secretary to answer. He said in his last address to the Committee that he would answer all the points. I did not get up to remind him of several that he had not answered. He was asked what was meant by "State action." He said: "Action by the State." Admirable! Will he just answer the two illustrations that we put to him? Is the present system of coal restriction in this country whereby the export prices are far below the home sale prices, such State action as would authorise action under this Clause, if taken by a foreign country? Secondly, is the Derating Act, if there were such an Act in, say, Germany or Belgium, and if it caused a lower selling-
    1664
    price, State action within the meaning of this Clause? Let me add one further illustration. Suppose there is an Income Tax which is reduced in a foreign country, therefore making manufacturers produce more cheaply; would that be State action which caused the lowering of prices which could be hit at under this Clause?
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) is right. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury ought to make this Clause perfectly clear. It, obviously. only applies to Canada. The title in the margin is:
    "Security of Preferences granted pursuant to Agreement with the Dominion of Canada against action by foreign Governments."
    This protection does not apply to other Dominions. It is only fair to say that the Financial Secretary, who has to do all the rough-and-tumble work for the Government, is the Government's whipping-boy and is left to take all the hard knocks, naturally finds himself faced with conundrums that are difficult to answer, and he may be led into indiscretions. He certainly suggested that the advantage of Mr. Bennett's bargain was to go to other Dominions. It will be clear, if he studies the wording, that the Clause is entirely limited to Canada. If it is desirable to extend this advantage to other Dominions, it will be necessary to add a new Clause.
    I am concerned only with the point which was just referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is, with the rights of the users of the articles that are likely to be interefered with. Take timber. I have had some practical experience of the operation of a similar arrangement, not in an Act of Parliament, but in connection with local authorities. About a year ago, when the anti-Russian agitation was at its height, certain local authorities, particularly the London local authorities, decided to limit their purchases to Canadian and Empire products. That brought us into contact with a very powerful organisation, the Timber Trades Federation of the United Kingdom. This Federation was formed as far back as 1893, and is comprised of the important firms concerned in the trade. Membership is not confined to merchants, but includes importers and brokers. It is a non-political body, well organised and efficient. It is quite

    1665
    impartial, being a commercial organisation, and it desires only to protect the interests of the consuming public. It pointed out that at the meeting of the Executive Council of the Timber Trades Federation of the United Kingdom, it was the Federation's considered opinion,
    "that the purchase and dealing in all woods, the import of which is permitted, is inevitable. The Council,"
    it went on to say,
    "takes the view that the action of certain public bodies and companies,"—
    I mention this because it is analogous, and because it is a precedent useful in considering this Clause,
    "in refusing to accept Russian wood on account of its origin tends to market instability injurious alike to traders and users of timber. In view of the offer of the Russian Government"—
    this is useful to my hon. Friends who champion the cause—
    "to give facilities for the independent examination of the conditions in the timber camps, the Council protests against any discrimination against Russian wood."
    Then it proceeds to go into matters about which I shall not bother the Committee, concerning conditions in Russian camps. This is the important point:
    "With regard to the commercial aspect, it hid to be remembered that Russia had always sent a very large quantity of wood to this country. Russian soft wood was the best obtainable, and was much in demand by architects and by the trade. If an embargo were placed upon Russian wood a very serious position would arise. During the War, when it was not possible to get Russian timber, and Sweden and Finland had to be relied upon for supplies, prices rose enormously, involving the country in an additional expenditure of many millions of pounds. On account of its large forest resources, Russia had decided to expand its timber industry and.…. the principal importers dealing in Russian wood had formed a Central Soft Wood Buying Corporation with the object of buying the whole of the Russian timber coming into this country and marketing it, so as to secure a market stabilisation. The Corporation had agreed to purchae at a reasonable price just as mach Russian timber as was imported before the War, and it was the intention of the Federation to give the benefit of the reduction in price to consumers."
    As a result of the operation of this Federation, there was a tremendous drop in the price of timber with a resulting gain in the building trades and to those authorities who were endeavouring to cheapen the cost of blocks of municipal
    1666
    dwellings. The Federation goes on to say:
    "One of the consequences of this arrangement was that timber from Finland and Sweden had been substantially reduced in price. Owing to the collapse of the American and Japanese demand, Douglas fir from Western Canada had been sold in this country at lower prices than Russian wood for many months past."
    That rather dismisses the charge of undercutting by Russia against Canada. Then it says, and this is a very significant thing:
    "Prices would undoubtedly advance considerably, and a very difficult position would arise if a boycott were to be placed on Russian timber."
    6.0 p.m.
    What we are doing this afternoon is to give the Financial Secretary—who, obviously, runs the Board of Trade, because no Cabinet Ministers bother to come to the House—discretion to boycott Russian timber. We ought to be guided by what is stated by this Federation, which is a very powerful organisation, composed of practical business men who understand the timber trade, who are not party men, and who have no particular interests except to look after timber. We ought not to part with this Clause except in return for some guarantee from a responsible Minister that, before these powers are put into operation at the instigation of Canadian interests, there should be a full inquiry, so that the interests of users, consumers and buyers of timber should be represented. Reference has been made in the course of the Debate to the committee of three. I think they discharge their duties impartially and fairly, but I have reason to know that in at least one important case, namely, that of the iron and steel duties, they refused to listen to representations from users of steel in the great engineering trades. We have no guarantee that, if the Government decide to utilise these powers, there will be a proper impartial inquiry, and, in the interest of the building trade, which is now going through a very critical time and is faced with immense unemployment, largely owing to the difficulty of producing buildings at a reasonable figure, we should not part with this Clause unless we get some definite undertaking that proper machinery will be set up to protect the public against exploitation by any interest that is likely to be helped by this proposal.
    Mr. LEVY: I intervene in this Debate because I want to call attention to the grave menace of dumping that is taking place in this country and in the Colonies from Japan. Japan is dumping all textiles, but, for the purposes of illustration, I am going to confine myself to the silk industry. This dumping is State-aided in so far as the Japanese Government are guaranteeing the exporters against bad debts. The procedure is that we in England employ people to prepare patterns, designs, and styles for the forthcoming season, and, immediately these are realised, away they go to Japan, they are copied there, and they are returned here in order to take the season's trade. The attack is threefold. Firstly, there is the abnormality of the low cost of production; secondly, there is the Government guarantee against bad debts; and, thirdly, there is the utilisation of ideas and designs.
    I have here a sample of white silk which is being sold in England and in the Colonies at 2s. 6d. per yard, cost, freight, insurance and duty paid. It would cost us 2s. 6d. for the yarn alone. Our price is 4s. 8d., without taking into consideration at all any margin of profit. The difference is 2s. 2d. I have also here a coloured silk which is sold at 2s. 9d. The cost of the yarn alone in this country is 2s. 10d.; our price is 5s. Its actual cost to manufacture is 4s. ld., without taking into consideration maintenance charges, rent, rates and taxes, and all other outgoings which are necessary, and without including any profit at all. The cost of labour alone is 30 per cent. of the total cost of production.
    I want to compare the wages and hours of Japan as against this country. In Japan they work two shifts of 10 hours each, that is to say, 20 hours per day, six days per week, without a half-holiday on Saturday. Women work the second shift or night shift at the same flat rate. Their wages work out at 7s. 3d. per week for 60 hours. I ask this Committee to compare the 48-hour week in England—
    Mr. ATTLEE: On a point of Order. Does not this Clause relate only to preferences granted to certain goods coming from Canada, and does it include silk goods?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This Clause applies to everything covered by the Import Duties Act. It is a very wide
    1668
    Clause indeed. It has nothing to do with Russia in particular, but covers any goods practically from any country.
    Mr. ATTLEE: It speaks of—
    "preferences granted in fulfilment of the Agreement set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act."
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I point out that Article I of the Agreement with Canada relates to the Import Duties Act and the general ad valorem, duty imposed by that Act?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I must say that it is a little difficult to consider the exact effect of the Clause. It makes no reference to any specific country, but appears to be of universal application so far as regards the country of origin of goods. I am a little doubtful whether it is limited to the goods specified in Part 1 of the Second Schedule, or whether it would cover goods that might be included under the Import Duties Act. The point is not one to which I have given particular attention, and I am a little uncertain as to its exact scope. In these circumstances, I will allow the hon. Member a certain amount of latitude.
    Mr. COCKS: I do not want to dispute your Ruling, but would like to draw your attention to Article 21 of the Agreement, the exact wording of which is reproduced in this Clause. That seems to me to indicate that the Clause relates specially to Article 21.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member may be quite correct in drawing that conclusion, but, from the point of view of order, I must look at the Clause as it appears in the Bill, and must be ignorant of other matters which appear to lead up to it.
    Mr. LEVY: I was remarking that the hours worked per person in Japan are 60 hours per week, and the wages 7s. 3d. per week. They are working two shifts of 60 hours each, and, therefore, the machines are running 120 hours per week. I ask the Committee to compare with that the average wage of 35s. per week in this country, where only a 48-hour week is worked. I would also ask the Committee to remember that there is the final weapon of the guarantee of the State against loss by bad debts in the

    1669
    export market. How can it be expected that we can compete against such competition The British looms that used to make this class of silk in Macclesfield, Bradford, Glasgow, Yarmouth, Norwich, Braintree, Sudbury, and other places, are being closed down. The evil does not stop there, because the yarn that is used to make this cloth is manufactured in Yorkshire and in North and East Lancashire, and the spinners are suffering because there is no demand for their yarn. Comparing the import of Japanese goods into this country for the first nine months of last year with the nine months of this year, we find that it has practically doubled.
    I know that prohibition has political objections, but a duty of 1s. 2d. per yard is of no use at all; it would have to be at least trebled. I would ask, however, why not apply the anti-dumping provision and assess the duty, not on the invoice price, but on the British factory selling price for similar goods? Wherever our manufacturers go in our Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates, they are up against this dumping. It is taking place, and we are losing our market, in the West Indies, in East and South Africa, in Zanzibar, British India, Australia and New Zealand. Therefore, I say to this Committee and also to the Government, that, unless something is done, this part of the industry will pass permanently into Japanese hands, and still more thousands of our workpeople will be thrown out of employment. Unemployment, as we all know, is one of the most serious problems to-day, especially in view of its present volume, and we require to use all our efforts to reduce it rather than increase it. Unless, however, something is done, with regard to this industry—and it is for the Government to decide what shall be done—we shall add still further to our huge army of unemployed. It may be that the Financial Secretary will say, "A case is before the Tariff Board; it is being considered, and, immediately we get their advice, we shall act upon it." But, unfortunately, the silk industry is outside the scope of the Tariff Board; it does not come within the category of the Import Duties Board; it is a budgetary matter, and, therefore—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has now given away his own case. If it is not affected by the Agree-
    1670
    ment, and he has said that it cannot be, no action can be taken under this Clause in respect of it.
    Mr. LEVY: I hope I shall be forgiven if I have made an error, but the case is now being considered by the Tariff Board, and, undoubtedly, recommendations will be made to the Government. I was about to express the hope that the Government will not wait until next April before they take some drastic measures to deal with this matter.
    Mr. McKEAG: I suppose it is too much to expect that the Government will consider the wisdom or unwisdom of including this Clause in the Bill. A moment or two ago, Captain Bourne, in giving a Ruling, you stated that this Clause does not name any particular country, but I think it is unquestionable that the Clause is directly aimed at Russia. I am not particularly concerned as to how the Clause will hurt Russia; what I am concerned with is the way in which its operation will affect us in this country. A tremendous amount of prejudice is displayed, not only in this House but in the Press and in other quarters, against Russia and everything Russian. Indeed, the Noble Lady who usually sits behind me (Duchess of Atholl) never neglects an opportunity of directing the attention of the House to the iniquities of the Soviet Government. The position is that, in political circles at any rate, there has never been any really dispassionate consideration of the trading position of Russia within the last few years. British traders are not particularly concerned with the internal affairs of Russia; chat they are concerned about is the trade with Russia; and, even although the trade which has been done by this country with Russia during the last few years has not been of the dimensions that many of us had hoped, it cannot be doubted that even that trade has given employment for a long period to many thousands of the people of country, and particularly to skilled workers in this country. Therefore, I would ask, why should we disturb once more the trading relationship between this country and Russia?
    The main criticism that is directed against Russia is that we buy more from Russia than she buys from us, but the effect of that criticism is simply to aggra-

    1671
    vate the position still further. We have had experience of it in this country for a long period of years. It will be remembered, for instance, that the effect of the Arcos raid was a grave reduction in the flow of Russian orders to this country. The foolishness of that raid was eventually realised. Trade relations were resumed, a commercial agreement was negotiated and insurance facilities were afforded to the Export Credits Insurance Department, though even in the operation of that scheme there were interruptions, and then there was an entire suspension of the whole scheme. The trading of the two countries was thrown out of gear and orders which were on the point of being placed with this country were diverted to other countries. Then in September last these facilities were again made available, and there was every prospect of new orders being given to us. Now everything is again thrown into the melting-pot.
    How can it be expected that trade can exist amid such chaos and confusion After all, trade is not a game of shuttlecock but a serious business which depends on certainty and stability. Russia is the one country in the world from which we can expect to hope for orders on a large scale. I have the authority of the President of the Machine Tool Trades' Association to say that Russia for some considerable time past has been taking no less than 80 per cent. of the total production of British machine tools, whereas Canada, in whose favour this Clause is drafted, has taken for some considerable time past only a mere fraction of the remaining 20 per cent. Even the preference that will be granted to Canada by this Bill will scarcely result in any considerable proportion of the Canadian machinery market coming to this country. Why, therefore, this discrimination against Russia? The United States bars her markets against her, other countries have increased their tariffs against her and our Dominions do likewise, but Russia imposes no tariffs against this country. Why shut out this great and potential market? I have spent two years in Rusisa and I have some knowledge of the Russian people. I am not specially pleading for Russia but for the traders and the unemployed of this country. I am not blind to the shortcomings of the Soviet administration, but
    1672
    neither am I blind to the imperative necessity of securing every available market for our manufactures, and discriminatory Clauses of this description are scarcely calculated to secure additional trade for us. We have heard much during the last week or two about artificial barriers to trade. This Clause will build up a barrier which we shall find it very difficult indeed to pull down. It can only operate to handicap and hinder our trade with 160,000,000 Russian people, and I deplore the insistence of the Government on the inclusion of this Clause.
    Mr. COCKS: The hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Levy) made a very interesting speech. I suggest that he should give the information that he gave to the Committee to the Foreign Secretary, as it might strengthen his hands—they require strengthening—in dealing with the situation in the Far East. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said a little time ago that the reason why this Clause was in the Canadian Agreement and not in the other Agreements was that Canada asked for it. That is a very mild term to use. We know that Canada demanded it. There is a false impression in the country that the deputation that went to Ottawa acted in a very feeble way and immediately surrendered to every demand that was made to them. I should like to defend them from that charge. They did put up a fight against this Clause. They fought for a month before they gave in. It is true that they finally surrendered, but they fought. That shows that in their hearts they know that this Clause ought not to be in the Agreement at all. Being interested in fighting and warfare and battles, I studied the bulletins as they were printed in the Press. This is what T found. On 21st July Mr. Bennett says:
    "State control led to dumping conflicts with Empire traditions."
    I do not know what Mr. Bennett knows about Empire traditions. I should have thought he knew more about Wall Street traditions. On 22nd July Mr. Bennett objects to the purchase of Russian wheat and timber. On 25th July Mr. Bennett demands steps against Russian timber, tinned salmon and asbestos. On 26th July Mr. Bennett takes the position that without an embargo on Russian goods it will be futile to discuss preferences at all. On 27th July Mr. Bennett asks for

    1673
    powers to be taken against Russian dumping. On 3rd August Mr. Bennett presses for anti-Russian action to support Canadian timber. On 16th August,
    "Day of hard bargaining. Canada makes stand for embargo on Russian goods into Britain."
    On the same day,
    "Britain agrees to investigate complaints re dumping, and to apply Order-in-Council if proved."
    On 17th August,
    "Strongly rumoured that Mr. Bennett has withdrawn his concessions on iron and steel pending the acceptance of his Russian demands. Canada wants us to denounce the Russian Trade Agreement and to give her a timber quota."
    Finally on 18th August
    "Mr. Bennett is reported to be in a blustering mood and tries to get the British delegation to force a Russian embargo. Mr. Baldwin said he would not do this but he would put in a formula which did not mention Russia by name."
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: What are you quoting from?
    Mr. COCKS: The daily Press of this country.
    HON. MEMBERS: Which Press?
    Mr. COCKS: Chiefly the "Times" and the "Manchester Guardian." That was accepted by the Canadian delegates, and Article 21 of the Agreement begins:
    "This Agreement is made on the express condition"
    that the Clause we are now discussing should be in. This is the only Agreement that contains this Clause. So it is not surprising to read that a little later Mr. Bennett made a speech in the Ottawa Parliament in which he said:
    "This provision went to the root of the Agreement."
    At the same time that this stand was being taken against British interests, we find Mr. Bennett himself making an Agreement with Russia to the detriment of British trade. He made an agreement to purchase 9,000 tons of Russian oil instead of oil from Trinidad. That was because Russia had given an order for aluminium, which was to be given to the Aluminium Company of Canada, which is a. subsidiary of the Aluminium Corporation of the United States, a Mellon Company. A Danish vessel was chartered for this transaction to be carried out. The export of aluminium
    1674
    was in competition with British exports, the profits went to America and the oil was diverted from Trinidad to Russia. That transaction was criticised a good deal in the Canadian Press.
    An hon. Member who spoke just now said that, by interfering with Russian trade, a great many orders would be lost to this country. He mentioned that 80 per cent. of Britain's total exports of trade machine tools was with Russia. Let me add a little more. Russian orders accounted for nearly half our trade in gas and chemical machinery, 47.6 per cent. of our trade in mining machinery, over 70 per cent. of our export sales of threshers, nearly 45 per cent. of our trade in tractors, 62 per cent, of our trade in locomotive boilers, 83 per cent. of our trade in internally fired boilers, 78 per cent. of our exports of steam turbines and more than 48 per cent. of our export of bricks, tiles, and so on. We have the secretary of the Engineering Union saying that in the Manchester area he had 15,000 workers unemployed, and 35,000 employed, most of whom would be stopped if the trade with Russia ceased. I have several other quotations to the same effect which I will not read as it would be making the same point over and over again with different witnesses.
    Here we are endangering trade with a country of 150,000,000 people, inhabiting 8,000,000 square miles of richly and variously productive territory. What will happen if we do that? We shall simply benefit the trade of Germany and the United States. Apparently in this agreement we are benefiting America in both ways, because we must not ourselves trade with Russia while America can, and at the same time in benefiting Canada we are benefiting American finance which largely controls Canadian industry, so that America gets both ends of the bargain. It seems to me that the National Government ought to fly the Stars and Stripes in future instead of the Union Jack. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) made a speech recently from which I will quote a few lines:
    "I am from the point of view of the immediate future, in favour of increasing trade with Russia as much as possible. In this country capital is lying idle. In Russia it is urgently needed. Why should not the supply meet the demand?".

    1675
    That seems to me to be a statesmanlike utterance. I wish the Government would follow an utterance of that kind rather than the hectic, feverish imagination of the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl), who was probably in her youth frightened by a foolish nurse who talked of bogies and, now that she is a little older, is trying to frighten the House with the same nursery tactics.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. McKEAG: I thank you, Captain Bourne, for giving me an opportunity of correcting a statement which I made in my speech a few moments ago. I quoted the President of the Machine Tool Trades Association as having said that for a considerable time past Russia had taken 80 per cent. of the total production of British machine tools. What I should have said was that Russia for a considerable time past had taken 80 per cent. of the total exports of British machine tools.
    Sir ARTHUR SHIRLEY BENN: I should not have risen to speak but for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) dealt with the timber question. Timber is something about which I know a good deal, and I feel that I ought to say something. We realise that Russian timber is extremely good and that there is a good market here, but, on the other hand, we believe that we can get timber from outside Russia sufficiently good in quality. If Russia will take our goods in exchange all well and good, but she will not do so. If we are to have agreements between the various countries in the British Commonwealth of Nations we must work together one with another. Canada has timber, British Honduras has timber, and there is plenty of hardwood in Australia. We can get our wood from those countries, and from Finland and Sweden and other places which will agree to take more of our goods than they have taken in the past. Personally, I hope that an agreement can be made with Russia under which they will agree to take a certain amount of our goods in exchange for their timber. Until we can come to some such arrangement, I hope that we shall do all we can to get timber from countries within the Empire rather than from Russia.
    1676
    The hon. Member for the city of Durham (Mr. McKeag) spoke about machine tools and of what Russia was buying. If we look at what Russia has been buying from us we shall find that it is machinery which Russia wants for the purpose of building up her own factories. What will be the sequel? What is going to come from it? It means that Russia intends to manufacture all her own requirements and is not going to buy foreign goods. I have rather been surprised to hear remarks about political views. As a business man my best friends in the world have been people to whom I have sold goods, people from whom I bought goods and people with whom I compete. If we talk of trading between the various Dominions of the Empire as a business and not a political matter we shall find that we have hit the mark, and it will be for the good of all of us. The great difficulty to-day is that all of us—I am not saying one side or the other—have political views, and we all feel that we have to use those political views when we are talking about trade relations with the different parts of the Empire.
    I regard the Clause as being absolutely necessary. An hon. Member said that it will only affect Russia, but it will affect other countries. I recollect some years ago this country losing a big cement business with South Africa because Germany was able to use subsidised steamers which absorbed the railway expenses from the point of origin down to the port of export. The result was that they were able to undersell us, that the trade left us, and we have never recovered it. I hope that the Clause will be passed and that we shall try to realise the necessity of acting together in trading as members of one family.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I hope that we are to have some further explanation of this Clause, because the further we get into it the greater our difficulties. We want to know exactly the scope of the Clause. I understood that the power given to the Board of Trade was to prohibit only in cases where it was apprehended or proved that preferences granted in fulfilment of the Agreement in Part I of the First Schedule are likely to be frustrated. Part I of the First Schedule sets forth the Canadian Agreement, and therefore I was under the impression that it dealt only with goods which were to be subject to those preferences, but we had quite a

    1677
    different account from the unofficial Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). We had an hon. Member who talked at great length about Japan, and you, Sir, told us that you were not quite sure of the exact scope of this Clause. I hope that the scope of the Clause will be made clear by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We all know its history, that it was directed against Russia, and that it was part of an arrangement not to put in a Clause specifically dealing with Russia but to use some general phrasing. They have put in some extremely general phrasing, and we have a note that it is pursuant to the Agreement with the Dominion of Canada. We have had statements made that it applies to all preferences from other Dominions as well. We want a clear answer upon that matter. The second point about which we wish to know something is State action. As far as we have got, State action is action by the State, and action by the State is State action. We will all agree upon that. It reminds me of some sermons to which I used to listen in my youth—truth is being true, and being true is truth. We have the curious phraseology:
    "By reason of the creation or maintenance, directly or indirectly, of prices.…. of goods through State action."
    The maintenance of prices means keeping prices up, but this is also directed at keeping prices down through State action. In so far as it is to be "directly or indirectly," it is obvious that in any country the action of the State may influence prices. Prices may be low because your workers are exceptionally skilled, and your workers may be exceptionally skilled owing to the amount of technical education provided by your Board of Education. Is that action of the kind contemplated here? It may be that your prices are particularly low because you have State railways, and if that is to be the kind of action, the Government have got into a. difficulty. While they want to please the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) and Mr. Bennett by putting in something against Russia, the House should know what they are doing. It is putting an absolutely arbitrary power into the hands of the Board of Trade over a wide range of commodities to trump up a case, as they can, with
    1678
    regard to State action. There is no country in the world of which you cannot say that the prices of the goods which they export are not influenced to some extent by State action. This can be done in a very curious way. Those are the points upon which we really wish to -obtain information. The general question of Russian trade has been sufficiently well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) and, of course, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) that I need not labour it further, but we should like to know exactly the view of the Minister at present in charge of the Bill.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I should like to say, in answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn), who said we must treat this thing as a business matter and not a political matter, that we believe that the question of politics is the whole basis of the Clause, and that the purpose of the Government is to single out a, particular country for political purposes. We believe that the demand of Mr. Bennett was made from that particular point of view. We should be quite content to leave the question to the decision of the House if this was to be treated as a business matter. That is the only thing for which we ask.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Clause opens a very wide field for discussion—philosophic, economic, and discussions of many other kinds, particularly in the sturdy vein of common sense which came from my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Sir A. Shirley Benn). But I will confine myself to trying to surmount the particular obstacles which were set in my path by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and which were painted, if I may use the expression, by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). My hon. and learned Friend objected to our resistance to any inquiry prior to these prohibitions being established. He said that when the Safeguarding of Industries Act was under discussion statements were made justifying the particular examination which is provided for in the Act But we are not dealing hero with dumping; we are dealing with State action,

    1679
    and State action intended to frustrate a particular agreement.
    My hon. and learned Friend asked why, if this Clause could be put into operation against a national monopoly such as Russia enjoys with regard to trade, it could not also apply to our own De-rating Act and to our own Coal Restriction Scheme? The test is this. Is the particular kind of State action calculated to frustrate the Agreement? It is the only question which we have to answer before putting this Clause into operation, and it is a question which we shall be able to answer if and when the time comes. The House will then, of course, either approve our action or disapprove it. That, I think, disposes of that point. [Interruption.] I can understand the jeers of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who, we were just informed, went into the Lobby with the Socialist party on an Amendment to give certain privileges to Russia. I can understand his jeers, but those of us who wish to protect these Agreements from being frustrated are entitled to take another view altogether.
    My hon. and learned Friend went on to ask, "Why only protect the Canadian Agreement?" I inform him now what I informed him when we were discussing the Amendment, and which statement he misinterpreted, that if action is taken in regard to any commodity, all Dominions will benefit equally as far as they are exporters of that commodity. That proposition is obvious. If you were to prohibit wheat from Russia, not only Canada but Australia would benefit. The same thing applies to any other commodity. That is the answer that I gave on the Amendment, and I repeat it now. The hon. and learned Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)—I withdraw the second adjective and say "my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green—said: "That is all very well, but if you take that action against a particular country, namely, Russia, you injure British importers."
    Sir P. HARRIS: You may.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I accept that qualification. You may injure British importers. That is perfectly true. Every action in life has some effect, and you
    1680
    have to decide upon the balance of advantage. Our purpose is to encourage trade with the Dominions. Our purpose is to raise wholesale prices of commodities to enable those in the Dominions to thrive where they are now suffering, and to enable them to pay more easily the debts which none of them have repudiated. I wish some of the enthusiasm that was put into pleading the case for Russia was put into pleading the case for the Dominions.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I am not at all enthusiastic for Russia. I do not want to plead for Russian interests but for the interests of the British consumer and the British public. I want to ensure that there is an inquiry to see that they are not suffering.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not accept the attitude that maintains that the interests of Great Britain are in some exclusive way involved in giving special encouragement to Russia. We believe that the interests of Britain are involved in giving better encouragement to the Dominions. Our purpose is not only to raise prices but to relate producers to consumers. Almost every speaker in debates in this House calls attention to the problem of the producer who can create wealth for which there is no consumer. By giving to those in the Dominions who grow food security in the market here, we are putting some orderliness into a disordered world. That is a very fine aspect of the whole of our Agreements, and a most encouraging aspect. We are definitely getting some ordered control and system into a thoroughly disorganised and chaotic economy.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the Financial Secretary tell me what would happen in these circumstances? Supposing a Finnish exporter bought cheap Russian timber at the Russian price and exported it here? Would it be Russian timber or Finnish timber? What would the Government do in those circumstances?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend's question does not in the least relate to what I am saying. There are a great many conundrums which are as simple to answer as they are to ask. I hope hon. Members will allow me to pursue my argument because it ought to have their sympathy. If bon. Members look closely into the matter which we

    1681
    are discussing in this Bill they will find that there is not much difference between any party in this House. We all want to give the producer a more secure market. Here is our contribution toward that, and it ought to be supported. We enable single industries like the copper industry, to reach an agreement, such as was discussed yesterday, both for the protection of the producer and the consumer, thereby helping to stabilise the markets of the world. Those are some of the purposes of these Agreements.
    I do not know why there should be all this sympathy on the part of hon. Members towards Russia. We are not making any assault on Russia. We have done Russia no injury. Russia has not claimed that we have done her any injury. Our trade with Russia is progressing quite normally.
    Sir M. WOOD: No, it is not.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I know that my hon. Friend wants to draw herrings across my speech. It was known that Russia was not in the market for herrings before we denounced the Trade Agreement with Russia.
    Sir M. WOOD: No.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have never before been accused in this House of lying. I took some trouble—
    Sir M. WOOD rose—
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will my hon. Friend allow me to complete my sentence? I took some trouble to verify the facts. I have had the closest investigation made, because I know the statements that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) is making outside and inside this 'House. I went into the facts and I have related them to the Committee. Russia was already out of the market for herrings before we denounced the Trade Agreement.
    Sir M. WOOD: That is not the case. I do not want to enter into a controversy with my hon. Friend, but he has accused me of accusing him of lying. I have done nothing of the kind, and I hope he will withdraw the suggestion.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sure that neither my hon. Friend nor myself want to accuse one another of anything. We
    1682
    want preferential treatment. I have not in the least resented anything that my hon. Friend has said. I thought he was disputing a statement of mine, and I am glad to have it established that he is not disputing it.
    Sir M. WOOD: Yes.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. Friend was disputing it and if he was not calling me a liar, he was accusing me of not telling the truth.
    Sir M. WOOD: Does the hon. Member never make a mistake?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have made many, just as my hon. Friend is making one now. We are not dealing with opinions now but with facts. I have taken trouble to ascertain the facts, and they are as I have stated. I say that trade is proceeding normally with Russia. We took one-third of the total exports of Russia, £32,000,000, last year. We pay cash for what we buy. Russia only bought from us last year, including re-exports, £9,000,000 of goods. We also finance what we sell to Russia, and not only what we buy from them. They have thoroughly satisfactory treatment; better treatment than any other country in the world receives. I think that, on the whole, we have behaved towards that great country with tolerance and forbearing. We have not any animus against them. We are not trying to upset their system of Government. There is nothing in this Bill that seeks to do that. We are only seeking to defend ourselves, and' I hope that hon. Members will not represent this Clause as an act of hostility. This Clause is not a spear; it is a shield.
    Sir M. WOOD: I hesitate to intervene again, but I do so after the speech of the Financial Secretary, in which he has not addressed himself to the question which we put to him. I hesitate to intervene, because the Trade Agreement with Russia has been denounced and we are all looking forward to the possibility of a new treaty being entered into, and no one would wish to say anything that will make it more difficult to get the very best possible treaty. We believe, pr most of us believe, that a great deal of trade can be done with Russia, and we want in every way to facilitate that trade. This Clause is a very important matter, which

    1683
    has implications far beyond what the Committee realises. There are some questions which the Financial Secretary ought to be compelled to face and to explain. He has not yet attempted to explain what is meant by the words, "State action."
    What are the commodities which the Government have in view as likely to be affected by this Clause He is asking the Committee to give power to the Board of Trade to prohibit the importation of certain commodities into this country whenever the preference is frustrated by State action. Is there anything, having regard to the particular position of Russia at the present time, which is exported from Russia or produced there that cannot be said to be produced by State action? Is it not a fact that by this Clause the Government are asking power to prohibit anything that comes from Russia? We know perfectly well that a country exports for one reason, and that is because it can produce more cheaply than someone else. The effect of this Clause is simply this, that there is not a thing that comes out of Russia to-day in respect of which the Government may not take powers to prohibit its importation into this country. I am certain that that is not what the country understands the Government are asking powers to do. A power of that kind in the hands of a certain President of the Board of Trade might not give cause for trouble, but there are some Members of this House to whom I am sure the House would never entrust a power of that kind.
    So far as I could gather, the hon. Member paid practically no attention to the question of a public inquiry. It has been said in defence of the proposal that there should be no public inquiry that it is necessary to be able to take swift action, so that Russia may not be able to forestall; but it is forgotten that if swift action is to be taken it will fall not merely on Russia but on the people who are importing. A great number of people are dependent upon Russia for many commodities. Have the Government any thought of the inconvenience and grave injury they may cause to those traders by swift action of this kind, which may come upon them without a moment's warning, and without giving them an opportunity of putting the case against it? The Government do not know all
    1684
    about Russian trade. Is it not a reasonable request to make that traders who are trading with Russia and importing goods from Russia into this country should be given an opportunity of explaining to the Government before they take action of this kind how it would hurt them, in order to prevent the Government from prohibiting the goods in the way that otherwise they may propose to do?
    7.0 p.m.
    I am certain that this power for which the Government are asking is a power for which they could never have thought of asking if they had been able to give it calm, quiet consideration. A great number of people in this House and outside believe that this Clause is simply a weapon to try to bring Russia down. There is no doubt about that. I am glad that the Lord President of the Council repudiated any question of that kind. He said that it was not a moral question or a political question, but it was simply that, according to the present treaty, Russia is getting the benefit of the most-favoured-nation clause and, by that means, she is getting the best of the bargain. He said that Russia is sending to us more than she gets from us. If that is the reason for this particular action, as good a case can be made out against many other countries as there is against Russia. Why should Russia be selected for this discrimination, because there is no doubt it is discrimination against Russia, partly on political grounds and partly because it is believed that Russia in certain ways may be able to produce things more cheaply than she has done in the past, and may be able to undersell some of our competitors? That is no reason why she should not, if she can. The whole object of foreign trade is that one country may be able to get from another country more cheaply than she can make herself. That is the whole foundation of foreign trade.
    There are some people, such as the Noble Lady the Member for West Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl), who think this is all a question of timber. I dare say timber is of great importance, although I would point out to her that a Member of Parliament in Canada said the other day that it was impossible that the preference given to lumber could be of any advantage to the lumbermen of British Columbia, because the cost of bringing

    1685
    timber from there to this country makes any question of competition on even terms quite impossible.
    But there are other industries in this country to which Russia is absolutely vital, and in spite of what the Financial Secretary said I am going to say a word or two about herrings. There is no industry in this country at the present time which is in such a parlous condition as the herring fishing industry. Everyone connected with that industry knows perfectly well that there is no hope of it ever reaching its former prosperity unless it can reopen trade with Russia. It is impossible. They have done everything possible to increase their foreign or home trade, and they have all come to the conclusion that without Russia it is impossible. They have been doing everything they can with the assistance of the present Trade Agreement to increase their trade. In 1924 they had a very large trade. Immediately the Trade Agreement of that time was broken, and we had trouble with Russia, that trade fell—it went down absolutely to nothing. The industry, however, has got together, and they have been negotiating with Russia with very good results. I wonder if it is understood that in the last three years the exports from this country to Russia have doubled. That is surely some indication that the new attitude towards Russia was having some very considerable success.
    Last year the herring industry sold a large quantity of herrings to Russia, and this year they were selling more. They had already in the early part of this year sold 100,000 barrels and were looking forward to selling more. So confident were they that they would bring off another deal, that they had actually started to cure the herrings, and the fishermen had delivered herrings at a cheap price to the fishcurers for this special purpose of being sent to Russia. The herrings are lying there now, and no one knows what to do with them. Yet I am told there was never any question of Russia taking these herrings at all. [Interruption.] He said there was no question at all; he said Russia was not in the market for herrings.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What I said was that Russia announced that she was not in the market before we denounced the Trade Agreement. I repudiate any
    1686
    suggestion that as a response to our denouncing the Trade Agreement with Russia, Russia refused to buy herrings from us. The fishing industry having been kept waiting by Russia to know whether Russia was to buy herrings, itself reduced the quantity from 100,000 barrels to 30,000 barrels, and then it was informed that Russia was not buying herrings this year.
    Sir M. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman's statement is quite inconsistent with the facts of the case. If they were so, why should these men go on curing herrings? I have not yet seen anywhere in the Press, or anywhere else, a statement to the effect that Russia is out of the market. I was down and saw a number of men who were conducting these negotiations as late as last Friday. They were in negotiation and still hoped that Russia would buy these herrings. Yet the hon. Gentleman tells me Russia was out of the market. What form has the announcement taken?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am really surprised at my hon. Friend. I would not stand at this Box and make this statement if I had not gone into it. I think my hon. Friend ought to have more respect for the ordinary courtesies of the House than to deal with the matter in this way. I went into this subject. In the summer 100,000 barrels of herrings were sold to Russia through the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society at 25s. per barrel, which was below the market price at the time. The fishing industry comes to East Anglia at this time of the year, as my hon. Friend knows, because he has been down there to meet the Scottish fishing girls, and it was hoped to effect a. similar sale, this time through the English Wholesale Co-operative Society. A tentative agreement was drawn up for 100,000 barrels. The Russians kept the herring industry in suspense day after day before they would say whether or not they would accept this agreement and renew their purchases. Growing impatient at this, the fishing industry reduced the number of barrels it would allocate to any Russian contract from 100,000 to 30,000, and was then informed that the Russians would not buy. That was on 16th October. I tell my hon. Friend that I went into these facts. I have not the exact statement I am making in writing, but I do not think

    1687
    my memory has played me false. My hon. Friend the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department says my recollection is absolutely correct as to the number of barrels, date, and every other particular.
    Sir M. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly on what date the Russians intimated that they were not going to buy.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: About the 16th or 17th October.
    Sir M. WOOD: That was the very day the treaty was denounced.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Russians had received no notice.
    Sir M. WOOD: Who does the Government give notice to unless it is to the Russian Government?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is my hon. Friend contending that, because we denounced this Agreement, Russia is not going to buy any more in this country? If so Russia would have awaited the denunciation before announcing that she would cease purchasing herrings. I said in my speech that Russia is purchasing normally in this country, and I give this specific fact about herrings which any hon. Friend says are connected with the Agreement. In 1927 Russia purchased 213,000 cwts. of herrings, and last year she purchased only 37,000 cwts. The amount varies from year to year. If Russia does not wish to buy herrings my hon. Friend has no right to connect it with the Government policy.
    Sir M. WOOD: I must say I know more than does my hon. Friend about what Russia does in the matter of buying herrings. I represent a county which depends very largely upon this commodity, and I have grown up in touch with the industry. The hon. Gentleman need not try to enlighten me upon these matters. The fact remains that everybody connected with the industry believes that the denunciation of this Treaty, or the intended denunciation—because it is quite clear it was going to be denounced—had a very marked effect upon the possibility of this deal coming off. It is a most unfortunate thing for the fishermen of Scotland, and England too, that their industry, and their livelihood, should
    1688
    be the sport of international politics, as they have been during the last few years. I would point out that it is a remarkable thing—if the Russians said they were out of the market for herrings—that the industry should go on, after getting that notice, curing herrings against an order which the Russians had told them had no chance of coming off. The herrings are lying there now—30,000 barrels of them. They have been given by the fisherman at an exceptionally low price in order that it may be possible to send them to Russia. That they are lying there is the result of the Government's policy. I hope I have not imparted more heat into this question than I intended. The hon. Gentleman, I think, must bear his share of responsibility for that.
    Some people think they realise in Russia's economic difficulties an opportunity which should not be lost. I am sorry it should be so, but there is no doubt about it. I hope it will be realised in this country that these great economic difficulties in Russia at the moment ought to afford us an opportunity of a very different kind from that which I have suggested. There are in Russia a large number of moderate minded men who are hoping that Russia's economic difficulties will mean some moderation in the political views of the Russians themselves, and that as a result Russia will be able to buy more than she has done in the past. As she gets over her difficulties, as I believe she will, it will be those countries who have not tried to take advantage of her economic difficulties who will be able to do most trade with her. Russia presents one of the greatest opportunities for increased trade anywhere in the world. We need that trade, and I regret the action of the Government because it is likely to militate against our taking advantage of that market in the future. It is a retrograde step, and the time will come when the Government will bitterly regret it.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I just want to clinch what seems to be the last and final argument of the Government in justification of this Clause. The Financial Secretary has said that what the Government are anxious to do is to raise the wholesale price of food grown in the Dominions so that the producers there will be able to pay their debts to residents in this country. That is a most extraordinary

    1689
    statement. It means that the consumers of foodstuffs in this country are to pay far higher prices for all that they consume in order that debtors in other parts of the Dominions can pay the rentier class in Great Britain. After about 12 days of discussion the cat is at last out of the bag. We know what is expected from us. We must pay more in this country so that Dominion producers will have more with which to pay the rentier class in this country. It is a most excellent idea on the part of the Government. The hon. Member said that in this Clause we are not dealing with dumping but with State action. I would like him to distinguish between dumping and what he calls State action. I have in mind the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Bill, when he said, taking Russia for example, that their major industries have no overhead charges, no rents, and no profits, and that consequently in a normal transaction they could ruin any other industry in any part of the world.
    The question I am inclined to ask is this. Is it the intention of the Government that any commodity sold by Russia is to be subject to the Order under Clause 5; or is it the intention, after having received some indication from any part of the Dominions as to the rate of wages paid in the production of any part of the commodity, to examine the price of the commodity when sold in Russia and compare the internal price with the price at wich the commodity is exported? If that is the case, is it the intention of the Government to carry that investigation further? If Russia produces goods with her marvellous efficiency, paying reasonable wages, at a price below the cost of production in Germany, Belgium, France and Canada, is that going to be a justification for issuing an Order prohibiting the import of the goods from Russia? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has been very courteous throughout the whole of these Debates, and very ingenious in some of his replies, but I cannot compliment him on being quite so clear as usual to-day. Will he tell us exactly what was in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's mind when he referred to Russia as having no overhead charges, paying no rent, and making no profits and, therefore, being at a great advantage compared with any
    1690
    other foreign country? Is that fact alone to be a justification for a prohibition against Russian goods, or are we to understand that so long as Russia meets the wages bill and sells abroad at a price comparable with the price at home she is still to be subject to this Order? That happens in other parts of the world. We export coal at a less price than we sell it to our own consumers. We can be charged with State action, or clumping. The question which disturbs us on these benches is this. Merely because Russia has nationalised her industries and services, is that of itself, without regard to any other consideration, to be a justification for an Order prohibiting the import of Russian goods into this country? If he will clear up that single point he will get his Clause quickly, and also the blessings of Members who sit in all parts of the House.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will answer the question in the same spirit. Yes, if it frustrates the Agreements.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I only desire to reply to one or two observations of the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood). I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes. He seemed to be unaware of anything but Russian timber which might be affected by this Clause but if he will consider the matter a little further he will realise how Canada has suffered by the dumping here of Russian wheat, barley, oats, poultry, eggs and butter. There is a wide range of products which are affected by the Clause. In his anxiety to look after the interests of the importer he says nothing whatever about the interests of the British producer. He seems to me to have spent his time too exclusively on the seaboard of his constituency and not sufficiently in the agricultural portions, or he would have realised how agricultural producers have suffered from this dumping. Then he spoke about Russia being able to produce more cheaply than we can. There is no doubt that they have it in their power to do so with forced labour, prison labour and confiscated property. They may be able to produce more cheaply than other nations for these reasons, but we know that there is no relation between the prices at which commodities are sold respectively in Russia and abroad, and if the hon. Member will study the official

    1691
    Press of Russia he will find constant complaints of the high cost of production and of rising costs of production to meet which wages have had to be raised. There is no suggestion there of the "marvellous efficiency" suggested by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). May I, therefore, point out to the hon. Member for Banff that Russian dumping is something which is absolutely abnormal and uneconomic.
    I can quite understand, however, the concern of my hon. Friend for the herring industry, but he fails to realise that even if an order for 300,000 cwts. of herrings has been received this year it is only one-tenth of that which the industry sold to Russia in pre-War days. What hope is there of getting back the herring trade with Russia to anything like its former dimensions so long as the Russian Government hold a monopoly of foreign trade and only intend to buy and import machinery and tools which they need for the Five-Year Plan? If he will study the matter a little further he will realise that under the Five-Year Plan, the Russian Government do not import anything more than they can possibly avoid for the general consumption of the Russian people and so long as you have that system in Russia, that system of Government monopoly of foreign trade, you cannot conduct trade in the ordinary way, and the Five-Year Plan, it is stated openly, is intended to make Russia independent of all purchases from outside. How can my hon. Friend under these conditions hope to restore the fishing industry and indeed trade generally to its former dimensions? It is only clutching at a straw if you think you can get the herring trade back to anything like its former scale under these circumstances.
    But the Government have indicated that they hope to conclude a new trade agreement with Russia. In that case there is no reason that we should not sell herrings to Russia if the Soviet Government will buy them, and if we are to continue to trade with Russia I would rather see herrings sent there than anything
    else, because they contribute to the nourishment of a people who are terribly short of food. But after all I put this to the hon. Gentleman that our exporting industries, including the herring industry, normally have a choice of markets. It should be our business to find the widest possible choice of markets for all our exporting industries, for our herrings, our machinery and our machine tool industry. On the other hand the agricultural industry has only one market, the home market, and if that is invaded and cut away by the dumping of produce from Russia it has nothing upon which to live. If we can stop this dumping of primary products on our market it will do much to restore the purchasing power of our agricultural community and the purchasing power of many foreign countries who have also suffered from dumping on our market, and we should thus get many more orders than hitherto for our manufacturing industries.
    Finally, there is no discrimination against Russia in the Bill. The Government are out to stop State-aided unfair competition from wherever it comes. It has been said that I only have in mind the dumping from Russia, but if hon. Members will do me the honour of reading my speeches they will find that time after time I have pointed out that we are suffering from State-aided dumping from other countries. We are suffering from the dumping of wheat flour from France, of oatmeal and other milled products from Germany. Both our agriculture and our millers are suffering from this and this Bill should deal with all this. There is therefore no discrimination against Russia. It is an attempt to put international trade on a fairer and a cleaner basis than at present, and nothing would do more or better service in that cause that if the Government could get other countries to follow their example and do away with this abnormal and unfair method of competition.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 64.

    Division No. 343.]

    AYES

    [7.30 p.m

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Baillie. Sir Adrian W. M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Bateman, A. L.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    McLean, Major Alan

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Magnay, Thomas

    Been, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Manningham-Builer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Birchen, Major Sir John Dearman

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Blindell, James

    Goodman. Colonel Albert W.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Borodale, Viscount

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    Bossom, A. C.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Greases-Lord, Sir Walter

    Milne, Charles

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Greene, William P. C.

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibaid

    Grentell, E. C. (City of London)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Grimston, R. V.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

    Hacking, fit. Hon. Douglas H.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Munro, Patrick

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.

    Burnett. John George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hartland, George A.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpsth)

    Caine, G. R. Hall-

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hasiam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Nunn, William

    Carver, Major William H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Cassels, James Dale

    Hangers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, lit Hon. William G. A.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Pearson, William G.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Penny, Sir George

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Hornby, Frank

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Christie, James Archibald

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Petherick, M.

    Clarke, Frank

    Horsbrug h, Florence

    Pete, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Peto, Geoffrey K (W'verh'pt'n,Bilstor)

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Purbrick, R.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Hurst. Sir Gerald B.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Cooke, Douglas

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Copeland, Ida

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Jennings, Roland

    Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ramsden, E.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Rankin, Robert

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rantoul, Sir Gervais S.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Knatchbulf, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Denville, Alfred

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Dickie, John P.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Donner, P. W.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Doran, Edward

    Levy, Thomas

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'side)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Liddell, Walter S.

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Salt, Edward W.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Eden, Robert Anthony

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillip A. G. D.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Scone, Lord

    Elmley, Viscount

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Shakeapeare, Geoffrey H.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Pertick)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Slater, John

    1694

    1695

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Thompson, Luke

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Smithers, Waldron

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)

    Train, John

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Womersley, Walter James

    Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Tartan, Robert Hugh

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Storey, Samuel

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Wragg, Herbert

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and Commander Southby.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walisend)

    Templeton, William P.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    NOES

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Milner, Major James

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Price, Gabriel

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Briant, Frank

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hirst, George Henry

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cove, William G.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Janner, Barnett

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Curry, A. C.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Wellhead, Richard C.

    Daggar, George

    John. William

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    White, Henry Graham

    Edwards, Charles

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Leonard, William

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lunn, wanam

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    McKeag, William

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Malialieu, Edward Lancelot

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro', W.)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

    CLAUSE 6.—(Power of Treasury in certain cases to add goods to Free List without recommendation.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Before the Committee lose control of this Clause I want to draw attention to page 84, Schedule D, where myrabolams and other articles are mentioned. I understand that this particular commodity, myrabolams, is not produced except in India. At the moment there is a duty of 10 per cent. on any myrabolams of foreign origin, under the Import Duties Act, or rather on any myrabolams which are consigned to this country from a foreign country. The Government of India made a very curious request, which is embodied in Schedule D of the agreement with India. They ask us to put on the Free List a number of articles such as shellac, jute, myrabolams, broken rice, mica slabs and splittings and crotalaria juncea. Myrabolams, I understand, is a commodity used in tanning. The presumption is that all
    1696
    these articles are produced in India alone. But not all of them reach this country by direct consignment from India. The established principle, in respect of Imperial preference, is that we grant it for goods produced and consigned from an Empire country. Here is a case where the principle has broken down, because a lot of these things, though produced in India, are not consigned to this country from India.
    In order to get these things effectively preferred on entry into this country we are putting them on the Free List from all destinations, and therefore we are by inference making a breath in the principle that Imperial preference is granted only in respect of goods produced in and consigned from Empire countries. I think that that principle has been overdone, and I rejoice in the Government's breach of it. Last night the Government were resisting any such breach on the importation of wheat from Canada to United States ports. I ask the Minister for some explanation. In one case a preference has been given by

    1697
    putting things on the Free List, and in another case it is given in another way. How do the Government justify the differential treatment between wheats from Canada and myrabolams from India? The principle is the same. I am by no means satisfied with the explanation given to the Committee last night with regard to Canadian wheat that may be shipped from American ports. When I say I am by no means satisfied I mean that I am speaking on behalf of a very large number of hon. Members with whom I have discussed the matter to-day.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: How many?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: A large number, nearly as many as the party to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Shall we say 60?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think we are entitled to rather fuller consideration of the point I have raised, and I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs will be able to give us some explanation as to the curious difference of treatment between one commodity which comes from India and another which comes from Canada.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend gave me no notice whatever that he was going to raise the question of myrabolams, and I am not able to correct any statement he has made with regard to that particular article, or whatever it is. But the reason why these commodities appear in the Schedule is that India asked the British Government to put them on the Free List. Nobody, and least of all my hon. Friends opposite, would object to that because it relieves the consumer in this country, according to them, of any burden whatever. I fail to understand the argument about consignment. If an article enjoys a preference it must be produced in and consigned from the Dominion concerned direct to this country. These articles will appear on the Free List and therefore no question of consignment arises, but, as India thinks it in her own interest to have the price of these commodities kept as cheap as possible, lest substitutes should be used, we have met their request.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that I did not give the Financial Secretary notice that I was going to raise this point, but I thought it was one which would naturally occur to his mind. The reason why India asks that these things should be put on the Free List is that they come into this country consigned from a foreign country. Imperial Preference in respect of these commodities was breaking down because of the too rigid application of the consignment doctrine, which the hon. Gentleman preached last night in respect of Canadian wheat. If it is considered good enough to have a breach of that principle in the case of these Indian products, I suggest that it would be equally good to make a breach of that principle in the case of Canadian wheat, where the matter could be easily handled.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) ought to take a little trouble and study the facts. He surely must know that India has a monopoly in the case of myrabolams. There is no question of preferring the Indian imports to any other imports. As far as this country is concerned it is a monopoly product of India and the only question is the question of alternatives. Obviously India has thought it preferable that these articles should be imported into this country at as low a price as possible, in order to undercut alternatives which might come in from abroad, and therefore they are to be put on the Free List. Had the hon. Member for South Croydon studied the question, he would have known these facts.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I should not have sought to trespass on the Committee again had it not been for the suggestion that I was not aware of the facts. We are told that these articles are an Indian monopoly, that they are only produced in India which is a part of the British Empire, and, therefore, when they are consigned direct from India, they are duty free whether on the Free List or not. That is the logical consequence of the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement—whether you put them on the Free List or not makes no difference, provided they are consigned from a part of the British Empire. But why is it desired to put them on the Free List? Because, in fact, they are not consigned

    1699
    from the British Empire. That is the only point. The hon. and learned Member says that the purpose in view is to make them cheaper. But there is no duty at all on them if they come from India and are consigned from India. There is only a duty when they are consigned from foreign countries. The trouble is that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself has not thought out the process of transportation involved in this case. It is the hon. and learned Gentleman who is wrong in regard to the matter. The whole purport of my argument, which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not understand because he did not take the trouble to understand it, was entirely on the question of consignment.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Regulation of importation of certain frozen and chilled meat.)
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, to leave out the words "the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "any Government Department which appears to them to be interested."
    I move this Amendment in order to get a statement from the Financial Secretary as to the exact meaning of the opening words of the Clause:
    "The Board of Trade after consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries may by order regulate, etc."
    I wish to know if these words are broad enough to ensure that any Department of the Government which is interested will be taken into consultation. My special reason for moving the Amendment is that in the case of Scotland the Minister of Agriculture is the Secretary of State for Scotland and I want to be assured that, as far as Scottish agriculture is concerned in these matters, the Secretary of State for Scotland will be consulted. I do not wish to anticipate the hon. Gentleman's reply but I suggest that if there is any doubt on this point and if it is impossible to accept my Amendment in this form, the matter might be considered further and perhaps, in another place, some words of this kind could be inserted if they are found to be necessary. Of course if the present wording of the Clause covers my point there is no necessity for any
    1700
    Amendment at all but should any doubt exist in the matter perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consider my suggestion.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The Clause provides that the Board of Trade before making an order regulating the importation of meat shall consult with the Ministry of Agriculture and he wants to know whether that prevents the Board of Trade from consulting the Scottish Department of Agriculture mention of which is omitted from the Clause. In point of fact while the Board of Trade is obliged to consult the Ministry of Agriculture it may consult any Department concerned. I appreciate however, my hon. Friend's anxiety in a matter which touches the emotions of the Scottish people. Lest any injustice should be done to Scotland, and seeing that his point appears to be a good one, I am ready to discuss it with him and if necessary find some means of overcoming his objection at a later stage of the proceedings on the Bill.
    Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: It is not a question of touching the emotions of the Scottish people. My hon. Friend has moved an Amendment which raises the question of the right of the Scottish people to have their Minister of Agriculture consulted about these matters as well as the Minister of Agriculture for England. At this moment we are determined to be very particular on such points and if the Government, by inadvertence, have made it appear that there is only one Minister of Agriculture in the United Kingdom they should correct that mistake. The Secretary of State for Scotland has under his jurisdiction many Departments and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is one of them. I suggest that the Financial Secretary should not treat the question in the manner proposed but should put Scotland on the same level as England and consult the Minister of Agriculture for Scotland as well as the Minister of Agriculture for Engand.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: After the statement of the Financial Secretary that the matter will be considered and put right, and as I am sure it is not desired to offer any insult to Scotland, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that no such order shall restrict importation below the proportions set out in paragraph five and the agreed programme contained in Schedule H to such Part II."
    The first Sub-section of this Clause deals with the regulation of the importation of frozen and chilled meat into this country both from the Dominions and from foreign countries. Schedule H of the Agreement with Australia is a declaration by the Government of this country as to the arrangement of the meat quota and in that declaration are certain figures dealing with the years 1933 and 1934 and setting out the proposed quota of different classes of meat to be allowed to be imported as maximum quantities of foreign meat during each of the quarters in that period. In the earlier discussion on this matter it was suggested by the Government that those figures would not be treated as figures to be kept to in arranging the quota. The object of the Amendment is to ascertain definitely the policy of the Government on this point. Obviously, in the regulation of the scheme and the arrangement made with Australia, it was contemplated that these specified quantities of foreign meat should still be a permissible import to this country. I suppose that every importer in this country and every exporter from foreign countries must be anxious to know, over a period of time—for the purpose of making forward contracts and so forth—what the possibilities will be as regards quantity imports.
    If the Government do not propose to stick to the figures in Schedule H which give at least some degree of certainty but are going to vary those figures considerably from quarter to quarter without notice it will make trade with foreign countries in this respect more difficult than the mere quota arrangements themselves. In our view Australia having been prepared to accept these quantities of foreign importation—quite apart from the merits of the quota which I do not discuss on this Amendment—it ought to be provided in this Clause that there shall be no restriction, below those quantities, by the Board of Trade, under the powers here given. These quantities apparently were
    1702
    considered carefully and after detailed consideration were agreed upon. Therefore they represent a basis acceptable to both parties. I ask the Government to say that these figures may be looked upon as definite figures by those dealing in these trades and also by those who wish to consume these articles. I ask them to say that they are prepared to accept the Amendment and to make it clear that the Board of Trade shall not, during the period indicated, depart from these figures.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): This Amendment is unnecessary to achieve what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. I am advised that the Clause by itself simply provides that the restriction on the importation of meat from foreign countries shall be limited to the figures actually mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill, in what is called the agreed programme. Under this Bill by itself it would not be possible for the Board of Trade to make any Order further restricting imports beyond those figures. My hon. and learned Friend referred to a discussion the other day when this matter was touched upon and I should like to relate the statement which I have just made to that discussion and to what was said then. The hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. R. W. Smith) made a statement and followed it up with a question. He said, with reference to the farmers:
    "They fear that these are stabilised figures, and that the Government are precluded from going further."
    Then he asked for
    "a definite assurance that the Government are free to reduce further foreign meat supplies if they consider it is to the benefit of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1932; cols. 631 and 632, Vol. 269.]
    8.0 p.m.
    I can repeat the assurance which I gave then on the matter. The Government are free to make further restrictions, but they could not make a further restriction under this Bill. If they desired to make any further restriction in the interests of the country, as was suggested, they would have to introduce fresh legislation to do it, but such legislation would not be a breach of the Agreement, unless, of course, instead of having the object of making a further restriction, the legislation provided for larger im-

    1703
    ports than are contemplated in what is called the agreed programme, because the figures in the agreed programme are called the maximum figures, as I pointed out the other day. Therefore, under the agreed programme, there would not be any breach of the Agreement were the Government to introduce further legislation with a view to a still further limitation of these imports. [Interruption.] I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not quite clear yet, even after the explanation given by the hon. Member, because he tells us that under the Schedule it is possible to reduce the quantities without departing in any way from the terms of the Schedule. All that this Clause says is that the Board of Trade may regulate the importation in accordance with that Schedule. Therefore, if it is possible under the Schedule to reduce the quantities, it is possible for the Board of Trade under this Clause to reduce the quantities, and it was for that very reason that we put down this Amendment, because the word "maximum" appeared in the Schedule. Had that word "maximum" not appeared in the Schedule, I can understand the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but with the word "maximum" in, if he admits that that word entitles the Government under the Agreement to reduce the quantities, then just the same, under the words of this Clause, the Board of Trade would be able to reduce them. However, I understand that that is not the intention of the Government, and therefore, if they will, as I have no doubt they will, look into the point to see whether or not this is watertight, we shall not press the Amendment.
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have looked into the point very carefully since the Amendment was put down, and I am assured that the interpretation which I have given is correct. The use of the word "maximum" in the Agreement means that there shall not be greater imports from foreign sources of the things mentioned in the agreed progracrnme. I would only emphasise the point that if the Government desired to make a still further restriction, they would have to introduce new legislation.
    Brigadier General CLIFTON BROWN: It may be an opposite point of view from that of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but is it impossible under this Schedule, supposing the Government thought the home industry needed it, as it does at present, with our markets glutted with meat, for the Government to reduce the figures of imports from the Argentine without agreement with them, or without bringing in further legislation on that point?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: Under this Bill, read in conjunction with the Schedule, fresh legislation would be required for further restrictions, but if the Government decided on such legislation, it would not be a breach of the Agreement that has been reached.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and shall contain provisions for regulating the retail prices of such frozen mutton, frozen lamb, frozen beef, and chilled beef."
    This Amendment raises what, I feel sure, will be regarded as a very important point indeed. It is, of course, the deliberate design of the Government, in entering into these Agreements, to raise wholesale prices of meat. We are, therefore, very anxious to secure an undertaking from the Government that they will keep an eye on the retail prices of that meat. It is obvious to anybody without the least knowledge of either wholesale or retail trading, that if you increase the price of a commodity, say, by 1d. per lb. wholesale, it follows that the increase in the retail price may be 1½d. or 2d. or even more. The obvious effect of the quota for meat supplies is to increase the imports from the Dominions, and consequently decrease those from the foreigner. In granting a preference in favour of dearer meat from the Dominions, the Government might as a consequence increase the price of all meat. I would like to know, therefore, whether, in endeavouring to increase the price of frozen and chilled meat from the Dominions, the Government are going to use this method as a lever to increase the price of all meat, whether foreign, Dominion, or home-produced.

    1705
    If that is their policy, is there any possibility of the Government, having once settled that they are going to increase the price of the wholesale commodity, adopting some method whereby they can check the retail price of the same commodity Let me give the prices that prevail at the moment. We are dealing in this Amendment with frozen mutton, frozen lamb, frozen beef, and chilled beef, and I have made it my business to try to find out what are the wholesale and what are the retail prices of these commodities. It is indeed a very interesting state of affairs, and I propose to acquaint the Government with these figures. Probably they have never heard of them before. I saw the Minister of Agriculture coming into his seat a moment or two ago. He would probably know all about these prices, but I hardly think our delegates at Ottawa would bother themselves with trifles of this kind.
    New Zealand frozen beef, hind quarters, sold in Smithfield Market, London, fetched last week from 2s. 2d. to 2s. 4d. per stone. I was astonished, incidentally, being rather ignorant of these matters, to find that a stone of meat is not the same as a stone of flour. A stone of meat is 8 lbs., and for the purposes of calculating prices, we have always to bear that important fact in mind. I feel sure that the two representatives of the Government now on that bench did not even know that fact. I am glad, therefore, to be able to inform them that a, stone of meat, throughout the whole world, I believe, is 8 lbs. The meat to which I refer, sold at the maximum wholesale price of 2s. 4d. per stone, would work out at about 2½d. or 2½d. per lb. It is sold retail at 6d. per lb., and it is quite possible for meat bought wholesale at 2d. per lb. at Smithfield Market to be retailed, within a 100 yards of the place where it is purchased, for 6d. per lb.
    I know, having had a little to do with the distributive trade, the costs of retailing. We must always remember that it costs as much to retail a pound of meat at 6d. as it does to retail a pound at 1s. That is a point in favour of the butcher. It is true, in spite of all that, that there is growing up in this country a great deal of apprehension as to the gulf which exists between wholesale and retail prices. Almost every speaker that I have heard in this House, on either unemployment or the means test, has complained
    1706
    of this enormous disparity, which, by the way, is a widening gulf, between wholesale and retail prices. Our Amendment, therefore, is tabled in order to ask the Government whether, in controlling the quota of meat from South America, Australia, and New Zealand and determining thereby the wholesale price of that meat—because that is what it means—they will at the same time do something to control the retail price of the same commodity in this country. We are not arguing that there ought to be control under these arrangements of the retail price of every kind of meat. There is nothing in the Amendment to deal with the price of home-produced meat, but we are demanding that there should be some control in this country of the retail price of the frozen and chilled meat mentioned in this Agreement.
    I am sure hon. Members representing the Government were very interested in the first set of figures that I gave, and I wish the Minister of Agriculture were here, because I am sure that he, too, would be enlightened by these statistics. Australian frozen beef, hindquarters, was recently sold in Smithfield Market at 2s. 9d. to 3s. per stone, and that meat is retailed to-day at 8d. per lb. Roughly speaking, the retail price in most cases is a little more than twice the wholesale price. Some of this meat that will come through under this arrangement—New Zealand frozen mutton, for instance—is sold wholesale to-day at ls. 5d. per stone. It may be said by the uninitiated that ls. 5d. for eight pounds wholesale is a very small price indeed. If you divide it up you will find, comparing that very small figure with the retail price of 4½d. a lb. which the shopkeeper charges, that the customer will sometimes want to know the reason why. I think he is entitled to know the reason why.
    When we come to New Zealand chilled lamb, it is sold wholesale in Smithfield Market at from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per stone, and the price retail is about 7½d. per lb. The wholesale price of Argentine chilled lamb is from 2s. 4d. to 2s. 10d., and the retail price about 6½d. When I spoke on this issue on the last occasion, I informed the House that one meat trading company, dealing exclusively with Dominion and foreign frozen and chilled meat, owns in this country alone 4,000 retail butcher shops. The point that affects our minds all the time is this: we

    1707
    are certain that in these quotas there will be a great deal of wire-pulling between the shipping companies, the meat trading companies, and the Governments of the Dominions in order to see that the quota is being properly distributed among them. The shipping companies will want to know how much of this quota they are entitled to carry; they will say that they own British ships, manned by British sailors, and consequently they will demand the right to carry a certain amount of this meat quota. Then the meat trading firms which own this large number of retail shops may, we fear, take advantage of these quota arrangements and force up the retail price by cornering the whole of the quota that may fall into their hands. I think that the hon. Gentleman will therefore see there is a strong point in my argument. By this Amendment we are trying to carry these arrangements much further than the Government are doing. They will find that in the operation of these quotas that not only will the wholesale price increase, as they intend it to, but that every penny increase will mean much more than a penny increase in the retail price. Hon. Gentlemen who know anything about the retail trade will know that a penny on the wholesale price often becomes 2d. or even 3d. on the retail price of the same commodity. Consequently, the Government will have to make safeguards against exploitation. I give them the credit for not wanting to lift unduly the wholesale price of commodities, and I should be astonished if they desired to see the consumer exploited by an undue increase of retail prices either.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Meat is an extremely important article of consumption by the people of this country, and anything that tended to render the retail price of meat considerably higher would be a matter of grave concern. At present it is a matter of common knowledge that there is a glut in the meat market, that enormous quantities of meat are available, and that prices are extremely low. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was right in saying that it is the deliberate policy of the Government by the Ottawa Agreements and by the legislation which will implement them to improve the too low
    1708
    wholesale prices of meat. The object of the meat regulation provisions is designedly to bring about a rise in the wholesale prices of the different varieties of meat which are mentioned. The thought behind those who moved this Amendment is that there cannot be an improvement in wholesale prices without some reflection on the retail prices. That has been argued across the Floor of the House time and time again. In this case careful provision is made—and it was first done in the framing of the Agreements themselves—to safeguard that prices shall not rise because of insufficient quantities. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is aware of the provisions in Mr. Coates' letter and in the Agreement with Australia providing for this restriction to be abandoned altogether if quantities coming on to the market are insufficient.
    How is the machinery of this meat regulation to be worked? It is to be worked by the Board of Trade, to which Department, under the Bill, are given wide powers for seeing that the regulations are effective. How does the Board of Trade propose to work out the meat restriction provisions? It is hoped that in a large measure, when these matters are explained to the industry—by which is meant those concerned in all branches of it, whether shipowners, importers, wholesalers or retailers—they will realise that it is far better for an important industry like the meat industry to submit to regulations of its own making than to have the Government impose them. The Bill itself gives the necessary powers, so far as importation is concerned. Those powers will be exercised immediately if there be abuse or occasion to use them, but it is hoped that the industry itself, in conferences with the Government Departments concerned', will so regularise its internal machinery as to see that the spirit of the Agreements is maintained and that no hardship is occasioned to the consumer. It is not a matter that has been left to chance. A whole series of conferences has taken place with those interested, and assurances have been obtained.
    The points which the hon. Member has raised in this Amendment have not been lost sight of. The first point is that the retail price ought not to be allowed to rise, and the second is that there ought not to be anything in the nature of a

    1709
    monopoly selection by one importer of his own means of distribution to the exclusion of other means of distribution. Both points are being very closely watched, and the hon. Member can rest assured that the Board of Trade have no intention of allowing an importer to monopolise the supplies of meat that come to him and certainly not to allow him to see that that meat is diverted from normal channels and placed only in selected establishments.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In the conferences to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, was the Co-operative movement consulted? It is a very large trading concern.
    Dr. BURGIN: I will ascertain information on that point immediately, but I have little doubt that the Co-operative movement was consulted. Let me return to the general reply I wish to make to the Debate. I pointed out that all these matters are taken care of and are very much in the mind of the Government Departments. At the present moment there is a tremendous glut of meat and wholesale prices are extremely low, so that the fear of an increase in retail prices seems to be hardly well-founded under the market conditions as we know them to-day. The effect of the Amendment will be to provide that Orders made by the Board of Trade must contain provisions for regulating retail prices. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment appreciates that that is outside the scope of the Clause, nor is it covered by the Financial Resolutions which the House has already passed. The object of the Bill is to implement the Agreements, and it is not possible to go outside them. The hon. Member does a service by moving an Amendment which brings prominently to the notice of the Department—if indeed they have not already observed it—the necessity of seeing that retail prices are taken care of; but the Amendment is not the way to do it, even if we were desirous of doing it, because it would necessitate inserting in the regulations something for which the Clause does not provide.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Do I understand rightly that if it is not possible to subtract anything from the Agreements, Parliament has no right to add anything to them?
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do the regulations state that the Government may not protect the consumer in regard to retail prices?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am not dealing with the general question of principle whether it is possible to add or to subtract anything, but, when we are dealing with an Amendment to a Clause, it must be obvious that we cannot accept an Amendment which is outside its scope. I cannot accept an Amendment which compulsorily requires the insertion in regulations of some matter which does not figure in the Clause itself.
    In answer to the hon. Member's earlier question, the Co-operative Wholesale Society as such have not been consulted. We have been dealing with the importers, and the representative of one of the great firms with which we have been dealing is very closely associated with the cooperative wholesale movement, so I think the interests of the movement were included. I would again point out that regulations of this kind cannot be accepted in the terms asked for by the hon. Member, but that the Board of Trade intend to see that these regulations work, that they achieve their purpose, and that both the spirit and the letter of these Agreements are maintained. I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The last words of the Parliamentary Secretary give us no reassurance whatever. He said the Board of Trade are determined to see that the regulations work and that the Order shall be fulfilled. It is the utter disregard of the interests of the consumer under these Orders that causes us on this side to be up against him. In submitting our Amendment all we ask is that the Board of Trade, in regulating from time to time the quantity of meat to be imported, shall have regard to the market price, not the wholesale market price only but the retail price at which the consumer ultimately gets the meat. Wholesale prices are of importance to the producer, who deals in wholesale quantities, but surely the retail prices are much more important from a national standpoint. I would like the representatives of the Government to give consideration to the possibilities of the restriction of imports provided by Schedule H in Part II. There it is laid down that the imports

    1711
    of frozen mutton and lamb in the first three months of next year shall be 10 per cent. less than they were in the first three months of this year, that in the second quarter of next year the reduction shall be 15 per cent., in the third quarter 20 per cent., and in the fourth quarter 25 per cent. And so it goes on until we reach a point in 1934 when only 65 per cent. of the frozen mutton and lamb at present permitted to come into this country is allowed to enter.
    8.30 p.m.
    Do not the Government foresee the possibility of this restriction playing into the hands, first of all, of the wholesalers, who will buy their meat from all parts of the world, unchecked, with no regulation of prices by the Board of Trade, and then proceed to get as much as they can for it when they sell it? Taking advantage of the scarcity on the market they will raise their prices unduly, making the retail customer pay very much higher prices for what he buys. Is it not the intention of the Board of Trade to give protection to the consumer? Suppose the restriction of quantity doubles the price of frozen meat in the shops 12 months from now. Do not the Board of Trade think that would be an occasion for keeping the maximum quantity allowed to come in at the very highest possible figure, even an occasion for setting aside the maximum quantity contained in this programme? I understand the Parliamentary Secretary has not the authority to say to-night that that can be done. We have no assurance that the Board of Trade will see that the maximum quantity does come in. He drew a pleasant, happy picture of the interests concerned coming together and arranging about the quantity of meat to be brought in, and how it shall be distributed between one interest and another, provided the programme is not exceeded. He pictured the shipowners, the exporters and the packing interests all coming together round a table to determine what quantities of meat shall come in and at what price. That conveyed to me a most forbidding picture of the possibility of rigging the market by people who have regard only for their own interests, with nobody at hand to protect the consumer, and least of all no intervention by the Government Department which ought to be mainly
    1712
    concerned. We quite agree that the intention at Ottawa was to raise wholesale prices in the interests of the home producer and the Dominion producer, but surely an agreement of that kind ought to have a complementary provision to secure the interests of the consumer, who is an equally important personage in this country. We on this side are very much disappointed that the Minister has not even shown us that there is even a remote possibility of intervention by the Board of Trade to protect the consumer. He appears to be sustained by a childlike faith in these vested interests. After our experience in the past we cannot place such implicit confidence in them, because we see an opportunity for the vested interests deliberately to curtail supplies in their own interests and to profiteer on an extensive scale.
    It will not only be a question of raising wholesale prices. These people are not only wholesale merchants, they are distributors on a large scale, and with this guarantee for five years, and this restriction which is under the control of the Board of Trade, they may extend their retail shops over all parts of the country and ultimately combine to monopolise the whole of the retail business. That will place the consumer of meat, the ordinary housewife of the ordinary working-class family, solely at the mercy of these giant interests, which are now to be strengthened and to be made supreme in the markets of the country. I hope the Minister has not said the last word, but that he will convey our apprehensions and protests to his chief. If he can give us a stronger assurance than he has given us we shall be pleased to receive it from him in the pleasant accents in which he addresses us, but if he has spoken his last word then we feel that he has but added to our apprehensions on this point.
    Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I find myself in a rather peculiar position, because quite frankly I do not see how the Government can accept the terms of this particular Amendment, which calls upon them to insert in this Bill a provision regulating the retail prices of these commodities. But although I cannot agree with the particular terms of the Amendment, I feel that it has raised one or two questions which are deserving of a little more full and complete answer than has

    1713
    so far been furnished by the representatives of the Government. As I understand it, it is the deliberate policy of the Government to increase the wholesale prices of meat. If their policy does not mean that it does not mean anything; but they frankly admit that that is one of the main planks of their policy. Then, as I understand, they go on to say that although they will increase wholesale prices they are not satisfied that the whole amount of the increase will be passed on to the consumer. I think it was the Under-Secretary for the Dominions (Mr. M. MacDonald) who said they were satisfied that the price of meat in this country at the present time was too low. He did not say for whom it was too low. It is not too low for the consumer. I imagine he means it is too low for the producer; but the producer is not the only man to be considered. The consumer deserves consideration to an equal if not to a larger extent. But even allowing his argument that from the point of view of the producer the price is too low, that is not a sufficient answer to what I conceive to be the underlying point of this Amendment.
    As I have said, I do not agree with the Amendment, but I do not think it is fair to ask the Government to assume the responsibility of fixing the retail prices in this Bill. I say quite frankly that I could not agree to that being incorporated in any Bill introduced by the Government, but that is a larger question of policy upon which I need not enter at the moment. I think the Government are on strong ground in resisting the Amendment, for that reason.
    I rise for the purpose of trying to ascertain a little more, if I can, of what is in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, from the statement which he made to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. He talked about the effect of wholesale prices upon retail prices. I observe, in the course of the arguments which have been presented by Members of the Government on many Clauses of this Bill, that they seem inclined to take a light view of the effect which an increase in the wholesale price would have on the retail price. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment spoke with a great knowledge of trade, and he said
    1714
    that in his experience an increase of a penny in the wholesale price might lead to an increase of twopence or threepence in the retail price. I am not committing him to that view, but to the statement that the increase very often had that effect, and I do not commit myself to it. I do commit myself to this, that it is very unnatural if an increase in the wholesale price is not equalled in retail prices by a rise which nearly corresponds to it. When we are talking about this it is no use haggling. If the policy of the Government is, as it professes it to be, to raise the wholesale price, that increase is going to be passed on to the consumer by, to a greater or lesser degree, being passed on to the retail price.
    I therefore ask for a little more elucidation of the statement which was made. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that if the condition of insufficient quantities of a commodity arose, the Government relied in the main upon the organisation of the industry to adapt prices to conditions. He seemed to indicate that if the industry in itself was not able to do that, the Government, as represented by the Board of Trade, had authority to adopt certain machinery in order to ensure that the consumer was not going to be exploited. I do not think it is right to insert this Amendment in the Bill, but I think that before we depart from it we are entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to enlighten us further than he did when he talked about the machinery which was in the possession of the Board of Trade for preventing the consumer being exploited.
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member for the Welsh University (Mr. E. Evans) mentioned that the present retail price was not too low for the consumer. The Committee will agree that it is not ultimately in the interests of the consumer to have any article sold for long at a price which is quite unremunerative to those who produce it. The acknowledged fact in regard to meat is that prices have come to such a level that it is no longer remunerative to producers and growers to produce and grow. Accordingly, Article 1 of Schedule H, the declaration of the United Kingdom Government in the Ottawa Agreements, on page 54 of Command Paper 4174, says:

    1715
    "The present wholesale prices of frozen meat are at a level which has resulted in grave depression in the livestock industries of the 'United Kingdom and the Dominions. This depression is likely, if continued, to bring about a serious decline in production and consequent ultimate injury to the consumer."
    In the long run a Government policy to get fair play for producers is essentially a consumers' policy, and the Government in attempting to bring some sort of order into the wholly chaotic conditions which at present prevail in the meat trade are attempting to carry out a long-range policy which may ultimately be described as a consumers' policy. There are at present large quantities of meat in London which are not even offered for sale, owing to the break that has occurred in the market. What the Board of Trade obtains as a result of Clause 7 will be power by Order to regulate the importation into the United Kingdom of certain classes of meat. There is no limit to that power. The Board may, in their wisdom, set up a licensing system. They may control by all the machinery of the Government, or they may adopt a method which is proved by experience to be very effective, consultation with the industry and the obtaining of adequate assurances from those in charge of the industry that certain Government wishes will be observed.
    I am sure that no remarks by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment or by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) were intended in any way to lessen the value which a responsible Minister of Government should put upon a formal assurance given to him by a responsible firm in a well-established trade. I am sure that nothing that either of those hon. Gentlemen said was meant to convey that a Government Department should not pay full attention and give full value to solemn assurances given in consultation in the conference rooms of Government Departments. That would strike at the root of many of the present relationships that exist in this country where so many of the powers of
    Government are kept in reserve, and not otherwise used.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: That is correct in the main, but I remember the pledges that were given to this House by the cinema industry.
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member cannot at this moment draw me off the succulent topic of frozen meat to the cinema, where so much is illusion. I am dealing with realities. The hon. Member for Gower very much paraphrased the Amendment in respect of which he was speaking. The Amendment asks that the Regulations shall contain provisions relating to prices. The burden of the speech that he made was that surely a Government Department will have regard to the quantities of meat coming to the market, and the effect upon prices. Of course, that is precisely what the Government Department intends to do. The Government Department intends to see that the flow of quantities is regulated, and that, if the supplies cannot come from the Dominions, adequate quantities are secured from other sources precisely with a view to prices being stable. The Government are unable to agree that, in regulations which they make under this Clause, there should be compulsorily inserted certain words. It may well be possible, as I have already indicated, that much of this can be done by negotiation without the employment of these powers at all. Therefore, the Amendment to some extent might be unnecessary, but it is outside the Clause. I cannot let the Amendment go without saying that the hon. Member who moved it credits His Majesty's Ministers with very little experience outside their official occupation. It is apparent that he has not been experienced in the sale of young bull calves or of pigs, and his arithmetical in quisitions as to there being 8 lbs. n a stone were received with interest by His Majesty's Ministers.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 243.

    Division No. 344.]

    AYES.

    [8.47 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Cape, Thomas

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Edwards, Charles

    Bonfield, John William

    Cove, William G.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Batey, Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgen)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Daggar, George

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lawson, John James

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Hirst, George Henry

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Milner, Major James

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    John, William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Price, Gabriel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mulls, Major J. D. (hew Forest)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Milne, Charles

    Bateman, A L.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Beaumont, M. W. (Backs., Aylesbury)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm th,C.)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Mulrhead, Major A. J.

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Munro, Patrick

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J H.

    Borodale, Viscount

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Nunn, William

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Pearson, William G.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Penny, Sir George

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Petherick, M.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Hartland, George A.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Headiam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Burnett, John George

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Rarnsay, T B. W. (Western isles)

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Ramsden, E.

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Hore-Belisha, Lesile

    Rankin, Robert

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hornby, Frank

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ray, Sir William

    Carver, Major William H.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Cassels, James Dale

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Rohner, Colonel L.

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Clarke, Frank

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Jennings, Roland

    Russell. Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Copeland, Ida

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Scone, Lord

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Daikelth, Earl of

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Levy, Thomas

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Smithers, Waldron

    Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Dickfe, John P.

    Lindsay. Noel Slur

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Donner, P. W.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    Loyat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey

    MacAndrew, Lt.-Cot. C. G. (Partick)

    Storey, Samuel

    Elmley, Viscount

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    McLean, Major Alan

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    1718

    1719

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Warrender. Sir Victor A. G.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Womersley, Walter James

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Wragg, Herbert

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Captain Austin Hudson and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    Earl CASTLE STEWART: May I ask, Sir, if it is your intention to call my Amendment—in page 10, line 29, at the end, to add the words
    "(4) Any Order made under this Section relating to the importation of foreign meat may be brought into operation immediately upon the passing of this Act into law."
    The CHAIRMAN: No, the Noble Lord's Amendment is not in order, because it goes beyond the conditions of paragraph (c) of the first Resolution. The Noble Lord must remember that this Bill is one that is based upon financial Resolutions, and, if he refers to paragraph (c) of the first Resolution, he will find that to antedate the period before 1st January of next year would be in excess of the terms of that Resolution.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. RICHARD EVANS: I think it is necessary to approach this question of the meat regulations from a rather different angle. Doubtless hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway will deal with the question from the point of view of the consumer. As representing an agricultural constituency, I think it would perhaps be as well to discuss these regulations from the point of view of the livestock farmer. We have been told more than once in the course of this Debate that the avowed object of the meat regulations is to raise the level of wholesale prices. That is a very commendable objective. Heaven knows, farmers in my constituency are in urgent need of an increase in the level of prices for their stock. I doubt if there ever was a time in Carmarthenshire, Cardiganshire, and doubtless in other shires where farming is carried on, when the depression was so deep. There are estates which cannot get tenants for their farms. I know an ideal landlord who has four farms and cannot get a tenant. The situation is really parlous.
    1720
    9.0 p.m.
    I want to examine these proposals from the point of view of the livestock farmer. The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said that this proposal, with its deliberate objective of raising wholesale prices, is intended to increase the purchasing power of primary producers throughout the world. I rather despair of a Government that aims at raising wholesale prices throughout the world by regulations of this kind. It is fairly obvious that the remedy should have same relation to the cause. Surely the collapse of the monetary machine, the growth of economic nationalism, restrictions in the matter of the flow of capital which is necessary for maintaining the economic machine—all these things are really relevant matters when you are discussing the question of raising the level of wholesale prices. If that is going to he the objective, obviously there is a great opportunity at the Economic Conference. If the economic philosophy of the Government is exhausted by proposals of this character, I am not at all surprised that Sir Walter Layton has found it necessary to dissociate himself from their preparatory efforts for the World Economic Conference.
    Let us take the home situation. Doubtless the depression in our wholesale level of prices here is part of a general world movement, but we have very special causes. Take the South Wales position, which I know best. There, of course, you have special circumstances. Between 1921 and 1931 something like 242,000 people left South Wales. You have a general paralysis of industry, you have some of the mining valleys utterly derelict, and obviously the curtailment of purchasing power there has had its tragic repercussion on the agriculturist. It is an old story in my part of the country that, if the miners are doing well, and iron and steel workers are doing well, then the farmers are doing well. Undoubtedly, the restoration of agriculture

    1721
    is bound up with the restoration of our general industrial position.
    Let us take these proposals in their relation to the avowed object of the Government, the raising of wholesale prices. I do not think these meat proposals will have the slightest affect on wholesale prices in this country. It is your objective, I take it, to transfer purchasing power from foreign countries to the Dominions. We must buy more meat from the Dominions and less from foreign countries. But that is a process that was developing before Ottawa. For the last two or three years the importation of meat from foreign countries has diminished, and one of the chief causes of the depression of wholesale prices at home has been the vast increase in the shipment of Dominion meat. Foreign imports of beef, mutton and lamb have fallen off in the last two years by 431,968 cwts., or a reduction of 3.3 per cent. Imports from Australia and New Zealand have increased apace. In 1929 we imported 4,394,000 cwts., in 1930 5,211,000, and in 1931 over 6,500,000.
    There you have had the natural play of economic forces, bringing about the result which you think now is desirable, buying less from foreign countries, and more from the Dominions. You have had that for two years and has it affected the home price level? In that time store cattle have dropped by at least 35 per cent., sheep have gone down by at least 50 per cent., and the last few months have seen a tragic slump. I have no doubt that the next few months will see a very large number of livestock farmers in my constituency going into the bankruptcy court. I do not think there is anything that can save them, at least there is nothing in these regulations that can save them. I hope the Government will regard the matter as one of great urgency. I have very little patience with those people who come here and vote for tariffs for all those commodities that the farmers buy. They are prepared to tax his feeding stuffs, his utensils and machinery and everything else that he buys, and then, with a rather contemptible form of hypocrisy, say that upon pure electoral considerations they will not tax the people's food. I can understand a man being a Protectionist. I can understand a man, like myself, who is a Free Trader being consistent in the application of his philosophy, but
    1722
    a man who believes that Protection is sound business for one industry ought to apply it logically and not shelter himself behind a very contemptible form of smugness or a muddle-headedness made all the more vicious because it is spiced with considerations of electoral expediency. The farmer at the moment is suffering through a depression in prices, and I cannot see that these regulations will help him. You are going to restrict foreign imports and to adjust certain quotas from the Dominions. With what result? I have worked out the figures—they are subject to correction, though I have been as careful as possible in their preparation—and I find that when the meat regulations are in full operation there will be given to the home producer of beef an extended market at home. of something like 1.5 per cent. of the total beef consumption of this country. In the case of mutton and lamb, the increase is to be something like 3.9 per cent. It is an increase of 3.9 per cent. and of 1.5 per cent, to stem a decline in wholesale values which already is 50 per cent. and 35 per cent. I cannot for a moment believe that these regulations will give to the farmer in this country in his desperate plight anything like an adequate bulwark against the bankruptcy to which he is steadily drifting.
    I am not going to stress the question of the consumer—there are others who will do that—but I wish to make an appeal to the Government. If they are anxious to restore purchasing power to the farmers, let them bring forward proposals which are really worth while. What is to be the consequence to the farmer? We know something of the kind of thing being said to-day: "Ah, you have the quota operating, and you are to have a larger scope in our home market. You can be assured of an extended area for your operations there." What will happen We know how the farmers will be disposed to respond to that kind of thing. They will increase their flocks or herds. But how are you to regulate the competition between the farmers for this new margin of the home market? If they increase their stocks, I can well imagine the competition between them becoming more vigorous and cut-throat than ever. You cannot do anything until you take up the problem of marketing.

    1723
    I am not perhaps like some of my hon. Friends here who have a banner on which is emblazoned "Free Trade" which they are prepared to wrap around themselves, and to die on some glorious height. I am purely utilitarian in my attitude towards these things. To me, it is entirely a question of whether a, proposition is good or bad business for the people of this country. I am adopting this attitude on purely utilitarian grounds, which; I think, would be sound for the economic policy of this country. If you had a great scheme before you for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of agriculture, I should be prepared to consider the question of the restriction of imports as ancillary to that scheme. But I think that the imposition of these regulations without some great plan for the proper marketing of commodities and for giving the farmer more security will simply make his last condition worse than his first.
    I oppose the regulations, because I feel that they will do nothing but create a false hope in the minds of the farmers. They will probably irritate the urban population. They may be sufficient to give the butcher hope of an increased retail price, but the farmer is not going to receive any benefit. If the Government had a great plan for making this basic industry worth while, they would have the right to ask the House for innovations in the economic sphere, but I feel that these regulations will carry us nowhere. They mean nothing to the farmer. Unaccompanied by a great marketing scheme and immediate financial assistance to the farmer, they cal, mean nothing. They will irritate the public and create in the urban mind antagonism which will grow into a revolt. You may find urban populations returning to the House of Commons at the next election men determined to wipe out these regulations, and you will simply create a situation of insecurity. I know it is hopeless to make an appeal to the Government, but, on behalf of the harassed farmers in my constituency who are having to face a black future, I wish to tell the Government that their proposals are inadequate, that they mean nothing to the farmer, that they will probably help the butcher, but will irri-
    1724
    tate the consumer, and that in the last state British agriculture will be worse for their operation.
    Mr. AMERY: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. R. Evans) in the conclusion that the Clause should be omitted, but with his main contention I think that most of us on this side of the Committee are in complete agreement. This matter clearly cannot be left as it is left in this Clause. The whole handling of the meat question reflects, I fear, very little credit upon either the foresight or the courage of the Government. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, meat ought to have been dealt with at the beginning of the year as part of the domestic policy of this country. In August the Government made themselves responsible for a declaration which has been quoted more than once in this House, namely, that:
    "The present wholesale prices of frozen meat are at a level which has resulted in grave depression to the livestock industries of the United Kingdom and the Dominions. Such a position is so serious that it is essential to take whatever steps may appear feasible to raise the wholesale prices of frozen meat in the "United Kingdom market to such a level as will maintain efficient production."
    That statement was true in August, but it was also true last February, and on merits, the policy which the Government ought to have followed was to have imposed then whatever measure of restriction and of duty was, in their opinion, adequate to give British agriculture a chance, and to have combined it with free entry of Dominion produce, subject, as in the case of other tariff measures, to discussion at Ottawa. In that way we should have had every advantage which we needed as far as discussion—bargaining, if you will—at Ottawa was concerned. But we should have begun by putting our own livestock industry in a reasonably sound position. Instead of that, another policy was followed—the policy of leaving the protection of British agriculture to be dealt with by the British Government at Ottawa as part of the general Empire settlement. That also was a possible policy for the British Government, had it, at Ottawa, really regarded itself as primarily concerned with the defence of British agriculture. Unfortunately, at Ottawa—though, of course, as is well known, every representative of British agriculture who was there pressed for both restriction and effective

    1725
    duty—the attitude of the British representatives was that neither restriction nor duty were things to be granted except reluctantly—a duty not at all, and restriction only after protracted and very keen debate and discussion. The result is that for such little assistance as British agriculture is to get out of this Clause, it has to thank the Dominions rather than its own representatives.
    It is essential that we should realise—the hon. Member who has just spoken has made it very dear—how inadequate is the measure of help that this Clause can give to British or Dominion agriculture. So far as all forms of meat outside bacon are concerned—and we are not going to deal with bacon until after next July—the restriction amounts to a reduction of a little more than one-half of one per cent. of the total supply in the first quarter of next year, and a little more than one-quarter per cent. in the following quarters. All told, at the end of 21 months from next January, or two years from now, the total supply fresh meat, apart from pig meat, will have been reduced by between 2 and 2½ per cent. That is really a derisory proposition. The declaration to Australia was admirable, and so was the statement of Government policy made by the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the other day, but when it comes to action, instead of marching the Government advance a yard at a time, and then mark step. The real fault of the Government in this as in a good many of their other actions, in a period of serious crisis, is that whenever they come to a 20-foot ditch, after prolonged deliberation they build a 10-foot bridge; and then they wonder that they get stuck in the mud.
    What is wanted to-day, if you have a policy, is to carry out that policy boldly, logically, consistently and with due regard to the fact that time is telling against you continually, and that action to-day is worth a great deal more than action three or six months hence. It does seem to me that while we may agree in passing this Clause to-day, with its schedule, which is only a minimum statement of what the Government are pledged to do, it would he very desirable that the Government should make a clear statement now that it means to go a great deal beyond the schedule, to apply it on a far more effective scale and at a much earlier date. If they will begin
    1726
    by applying in the first three months their programme for the first year, it might be a beginning. They would also make their programme a good deal more effective, if, now that they are more free to do so politically, they added to the weapon of restriction, however useful that may be, the alternative of the no less useful weapon of a duty.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day, very truly, that a duty by itself—he meant by that a light duty—might not be effective in raising wholesale prices, because it would be paid by the foreigner. Why does he reject that benevolence? Why should he not be ready to put on as much duty as the foreigner will pay? It might be used in a variety of useful directions, it might be used possibly to help the meat industry in this country, or, possibly by remissions to the taxpayer. Let him take what the foreigner can give. If the scheme of restriction becomes effective and improves the price, there is no reason why the foreigner should not pay something for the improved price which our efforts have secured for him. Whatever amount the foreigner is prepared to pay, if he still sends us his present supply, we can always by raising the duty a step further make certain that the price itself will be affected. That is the object—there are hon. Members on the Front Bench who do not agree with the object—I am dealing with the avowed and declared object of the Ottawa Conference.
    When the Government say that whatever steps may appear feasible, it is essential to take them, there is no longer any reason, political or economic, why they should not take all the necessary steps, and take them promptly. I would add, in particular, that it is very desirable that they should deal now with the bacon question. I hope they will declare that they mean to carry out the scheme laid before them by the Lane-Fox Commission. That scheme is, however, not to take effect until next July. Meanwhile, the disastrously low price of bacon is having its effect on the price of every other form of meat. It has been pointed out that to some extent all forms of meat are interchangeable and that a very heavy fall in the price of one form of meat reacts on the price of the others. Anyone who looks at the statistical and price position for the past few years can

    1727
    only come to the conclusion that it is the fall in bacon prices which more than any other reason has contributed to the fall in the price of other forms of meat. Pending the enforcement of a scheme for dealing with bacon on quota lines, is it not worth while considering whether a temporary effective duty could not be imposed on foreign bacon, not only in the interests of the bacon industry in this country, but in the interests of the whole livestock industry?
    I wish to urge upon the Government the importance of considering the time factor in this business. The whole of the livestock industry in this country is now in an absolutely tragic plight. There are many hundreds of farmers, maybe thousands, who will not be able to carry on for many weeks or months. There are many Members on these benches who can speak with far better qualifications on that matter than myself. I wish to urge on the Government that we are faced with a very critical, urgent and grave situation, and that whether or not this particular Clause is sufficient help to the Dominions, the problem of our own agriculture was not covered in that respect at Ottawa. Its affairs are too serious to be left while we tinker with one-half per cent. or one-quarter per cent. reduction per quarter in the meat supply. There is a grave and urgent case, and I do most urgently appeal to the Government to tackle it without delay.
    Mr. HENRY HASLAM: I should like to support the plea made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) that the Government should very considerably strengthen their proposals in regard to the livestock industry. That industry was in a very serious position at the beginning of this year. The position was more serious in the Summer, and now it is getting pretty well desperate. The hon. Member who opened the Debate spoke of the plight of the farmers in Wales. I, as representing an English constituency in the agricultural county of Lincolnshire, should like to say—and I have come fresh from a conference of Lincolnshire farmers which took place at Lincoln only yesterday—that the plight of the livestock farmers of Lincolnshire is not less desperate. These men do not know how to carry on and unless some measure of
    1728
    assistance can be devised we shall be face to face in the purely agricultural districts of this country with unemployment on a very large scale, combined in all probability with a breakdown of the wages board system. Farmer after farmer has written to the wages board committee pointing out that he has not got the money to pay the wages to his men, and asking if he can share out among them such money as he is able to raise. He has informed the men of that and has asked if he could do it and the reply has been "No." The only alternative is that he has to dismiss the men. That is the situation.
    The CHAIRMAN: The bon. Member is now discussing something in connection with the agricultural position which has certainly nothing to do with this question of restriction.
    Mr. HASLAM: I am extremely sorry if the depression of the situation has led me to go a little further than I ought, but I was endeavouring to point out that the consequences of not strengthening the proposal of the Government might be very serious indeed, and I was saying what I thought might happen. I will not weary the Committee with figures relating to the price of livestock, but I think it is generally agreed on all sides of the Committee that prices are not only such as to make livestock raising unremunerative but to put the farmer in the position of getting nearer and nearer bankruptcy every day. The situation is so serious that I do appeal to the Government to take some strong action in the as near future as they possibly can.
    I support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook in urging that a tariff on foreign imports of meat should be brought into operation as soon as possible. These regulations, which are proposed to give a small preference after 1st January are not nearly enough to save the situation which is so rapidly developing. It is developing far faster in a downward direction than perhaps the Government really realise. I urge the Government very seriously to take every means to carry out the intention and declaration of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom so well put on page 53 of this Bill. The situation is developing for the worse very rapidly, and I urge the Government to take into consideration not only the restriction of the

    1729
    quota, but an import duty and, indeed, even the prohibition of foreign meats so that the livestock farmer may have a chance of carrying on the industry and continuing to employ men on the land.
    Earl CASTLE STEWART: I desire to put to the Government a specific question in regard to Clause 7, which reads:
    "The Board of Trade.… may by order regulate the importation into the United Kingdom of frozen mutton, frozen lamb, frozen beef, and chilled beef, in accordance with the provisions of the Agreements."
    The phrase "provisions of the Agreements" is in startling contrast to the phrase appearing on page 53, line 33, where it says:
    "the agreed programme.'"
    9.30. p.m.
    The agreed programme is the quota restriction which starts on a certain date, namely, 1st January. The point I am raising is this: In Clause 7, line 20, we do not see the words "agreed programme." but the word "agreements." It is only the agreed programme which begins on 1st January. The agreements on page 53 run roughly as follows, that, in the first place, there is to be a declaration by the -united Kingdom Government, secondly, paragraph 2 says that they are to take whatever steps may appear feasible, and paragraph 3 says:
    "With a view to the earliest possible improvement,"
    which is during the currency of the Ottawa Agreement. On page 42, line 9, it defines the currency of Ottawa Agreements and says:
    "This Agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia is to he regarded as corning into effect as front the date hereof."
    That date is 20th August. The submission I make to the Government, and on which I ask their view, is this: If there is to be the earliest possible improvement of the position, His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom will, during the currency of the Ottawa. Agreements, arrange for the regulation of meat imports into the United Kingdom. If it is during the currency of the Ottawa Agreements, it might, if this Bill had been passed earlier, have been put into operation by now, but, in any case, as the Ottawa Agreement was signed on 20th August, it may come into operation immediately on the passing of the Act. I
    1730
    want to know whether these restrictions under Clause 7 cannot be brought into operation immediately on the passing of the Act, as otherwise it certainly seems to me that, instead of the phrase in Clause 7, line 20,
    "in accordance with the provisions of the Agreements"
    it ought to read
    "in accordance with the agreed programme."
    Then it might be said that the restrictions could only come into force on 1st January. I do press the Government on this point, for I believe that under this Bill and under the Agreement as it stands here they have full power, without any further amendment of the Bill, to bring the quota into operation the very moment the Act is passed into law, and I press them to make a statement that they are prepared to do so. This is a matter of vital importance to the meat industry. I have made some inquiries in the market, and I am told that if the right amount of quota were put on, it could affect market prices here within a fortnight, and to the graziers who want to get the cattle off their land in November, and particularly the beef interests who have the Christmas market, a fortnight is a matter of the most vital importance. It takes three weeks for chilled beef to get here from the Argentine. It is not stored when it gets here, but kept on ship and sold and off-loaded, and in consequence of that, a fortnight or three weeks will make all the difference to the price that the graziers receive.
    There is one other point. If you put your quota into operation now, you will at least have some little extra time to discover what degree of quota is needed. Here we have to proceed by trial of error. No one can foretell what degree will be required to raise the price which can be obtained by the producer in this country.
    "If it were done, when 'tis done, then' twere well
    It were done quickly."
    Under the Clause as it stands, the Government have power to act immediately the Bill is passed into law, and I ask whether they could not to-night give an assurance that they will do this.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: After the hearty welcome the Clause has received from

    1731
    hon. Members opposite, I am not sure whether we ought to support the Government or oppose the proposal in order to save the Minister of Agriculture. We are in some doubt as to the policy we ought to pursue in this Debate. A fortnight ago, speaking on the meat quota scheme, I submitted to the House that it would in no way affect wholesale prices for a very long period, as the Government hope, and, secondly, that the scheme, as propounded in the Agreements, would render no material assistance for a very long time to the home farmer. In the third place I submitted what has actually taken place to-night, that hon. Members would invite the Government to go a very long way beyond the Agreements. They want imports from the Dominions and from foreign countries to be further restricted, so that there will be a real opportunity for an increase in wholesale prices. Therefore, as I said on the previous occasion, instead of uniting the Empire one can foresee the possibility of the home producer of meat and wheat in keen competition with farmers in the Dominions; the home farmer wanting restrictions on Dominion imports and the Dominion farmer wanting an increased quota. Instead of tightening the ties of Empire they will be wearing still thinner. Every word I uttered on that occasion has been fully justified, if the hon. Members opposite are logical and if their statements are accurate.
    As I said a fortnight ago, the restriction on imports from the Argentine are countered by an excess of imports permitted to the Dominions, and, consequently, the net decrease in imports of beef, mutton and lamb, is about 2:1 to 4 per cent. in two years time. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) gave figures per cwt. which demonstrated that the position at the end of two years, so far as imports are concerned, would be much as it is to-day, and that the idea that by raising wholesale prices by compelling home consumers to pay higher prices and thus give the Dominion producers better prices and enable them to pay their debts to English lenders of money, is not likely to happen. The quota scheme has broken down at this point. The Dominions flooded the British market during the last three years. They
    1732
    are permitted to maintain imports based on the peak years, plus the excess conceded in the Agreements, and the excess is almost equivalent to the decrease in the amount permitted to enter this country from foreign countries.
    In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that foreign countries had agreed to work the quota scheme, although they are not necessarily in love with it. If we have secured the agreement of foreign importers to work this scheme, is it not fair to assume that the Government will not immediately reduce the quota for foreign countries. If foreign imports are to be recorded as in the Agreements, and if Dominion imports are to be permitted as recorded in the Agreements, the amount available for sale will only be reduced by 2 per cent. and the home farmer is, therefore, likely to get little or no value from the scheme. Consequently, I am inclined to agree for the first time for 10 years with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), that the Government are trying to bridge a 20-foot bridge by a 10-foot pole. It is admitted that there is an absolutely chaotic competitive scramble for what trade is going, and that because the scheme has hopelessly failed internally and externally, in the Dominions as well as in foreign countries, the only means of remedying the situation is to restrict imports from one part of the world, which will necessarily adversely affect our trade with that part of the world, so that imports can be increased from another part of the world, with no guarantee at all that English producers of other commodities are likely to recoup themselves in real trade for the losses which may accrue as a result of this policy.
    We feel, first, that the quota scheme is a very clumsy and incomplete method of dealing with the meat problem. Secondly, that the British farmer will get little or nothing out of it. Thirdly, we claim that there is a potential opportunity for distrust as between the home farmer and the Dominion farmer. If you must provide the primary producer with higher prices than he is now receiving, you can only do so by not encouraging a larger output of the particular commodity of which there is a surplus. We have the Argentine supplies available. If we reduce those supplies by 450,000 cwts. per

    1733
    annum, we can scarcely expect the Argentine producer of meat to go out of production. He will continue to produce meat and will try to sell it in other parts of the world. But, as you reduce the Argentine imports you say to New Zealand and Australia, you can increase your abnormal imports of 1932, although at the moment the United Kingdom is glutted with these particular commodities, and the price has fallen. By one stroke of the pen you are attempting to apply a quota system, a restriction, and at the same time you are encouraging an excess of output of that particular commodity. We feel that the scheme is not going to succeed in the sense that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or his colleagues who were with him at Ottawa really hoped.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will perhaps repeat what he said about a week ago, that if there is one section of the House who cannot complain of the quota system it is made up of those who claim to represent the mine workers. Perhaps the argument would be as strong to-day as it was when previously used, but there is a slight difference between the mining situation and this quota scheme as applied to meat. There is a general recognition in all coal-producing countries that the capacity for output is so far in advance of the consumptive capacity that there is a tendency to reduce outputs in all producing countries. Under this meat scheme you are deliberately encouraging the increased production of a thing that seems to have flooded your market. I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Spark-brook, the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) and the noble Lord the Member for Ilarborough (Earl Castle Stewart) that agriculture is in a very serious plight and needs something almost instantaneously. But this proposal will be of little value to it. While I am anxious to see something done for agriculture in a constructive sense, I am unwilling to give support to a scheme which sets out to do that which we do not believe it can accomplish, and we have no alternative but to oppose the scheme.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think my hon. Friends behind me who have been pleading the cause of the British farmer, will thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for his support, because it is obvious that the
    1734
    hon. Member approaches this subject from an entirely different point of view. He is opposed to the Bill and opposed to the Agreements made with the Dominions, and he hopes that they will be a failure. He anticipates with glee that they will be a cause of friction.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman is scarcely entitled to say that I hope that they will be a failure. I hope that every Member of the House, whatever his party affiliations, would wish that, whatever Government introduce a scheme, that scheme will succeed. I am not praying that the right hon. Gentleman's scheme will be a failure, although I see no possible hope of it being a success.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman does not hope and pray for failure. At the same time he would have a certain satisfaction if failure should ensue, because he prophesied that it would come and he would like to see his prophecy fulfilled. I am one of those who were responsible for the Agreements which were come to at Ottawa, and I have no reason to think that the course which we pursued there was a wrong course. On the contrary, I am still entirely convinced that it is in this way and in this way alone that we can obtain for the industry which is concerned in the production of livestock, whether at home or in the Dominions, security and stability that will be permanent. As I said before, when speaking upon this matter, we have in the case of meat all the ordinary factors which combine to bring clown the general level of commodity prices, and we have superimposed upon them the special circumstance that the market for meat in this country, the market which is really the only market for the surplus, has been glutted by a constant increase in the production in the Dominions, which has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the capacity of this market. Surely it must be obvious that if we are to overcome that state of things we must remove the cause which has produced it.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Are we not entitled to say in logic that, if the evil is as the right hon. Gentleman described it and has occurred because of an excess of imports from the Dominions, the cure for

    1735
    that state of things is to regulate the imports frown the Dominions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "Regulate"— I am perfectly agreed, and that is precisely what we are doing. What has been suggested is that we should reduce imports from the Dominions, and that is my next point. We have the home supplies and supplies from two of the Dominions and from the Argentine. The policy of the Government is stated in the declaration to which allusion has been made. The policy is that we should give first consideration to the needs of the home farmer, but that after that we give the next consideration to the needs of the Dominion farmer. We justify that on the ground that if we can increase the purchasing power of the Dominions we shall benefit ourselves, because that will mean that more of our manufactures will be taken by the Dominions. In pursuit of that policy, whilst we recognise that restriction has to take place, we desire to effect that restriction in foreign imports rather than in Dominion imports.
    I do not believe that that is a policy which will be challenged by any of my hon. Friends. It is the policy laid down in this declaration and in the Agreements. But I am quite ready to admit that the position has changed since we made the Agreement at Ottawa. The change is that there has been a further considerable and constant fall in the price of meat, which we could not have anticipated at that time, and the situation, which was serious enough at that time, has now become not only serious but critical. It is a situation that has obviously to be dealt with. The only question that can arise on this Clause is, can that situation be dealt with under this Bill? That is the question to which I want to address myself. In the first place let me deal with a point put to me by my Noble Friend the Member for Harborough (Earl Castle Stewart). He pointed out that Clause 7, line 20, says that the Board of Trade may regulate the importation of certain kinds of meat into this country in accordance with the provision of the Agreements. I think he was under the impression that such a programme was not in the Agreements, but was in the declaration on the part of His Majesty's Government, and as it was stated in that declaration that His
    1736
    Majesty's Government would arrange for the regulation of imports during the currency of the Agreements, it was open to us to vary the Agreements by anticipating the date at which the programme was to take place according to the statement on page 54.
    My Noble Friend has perhaps overlooked the fact that in the Agreement itself—I take the Australian Agreement as an illustration—Article 6 says:
    "His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia agree that arrangements shall be made for the regulation of imports. … in accordance with the declaration by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom which is appended as Schedule H."
    That is the Agreement referred to in Clause 7. It must be clear to my Noble Friend that what the Board of Trade may do is only what it has agreed to do in accordance with that declaration, and it would not therefore be possible for His Majesty's Government to vary the programme which is agreed upon without the consent of the other Dominions concerned.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On page 54, line 30, the word "maximum" appears, and it seems to confer on the Government a greater degree of freedom than the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicates.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, that is so. That shows "maximum quantities" of foreign meat and no doubt that would allow us, not under the Bill, but under other powers which we might take, still further to reduce the imports of foreign meat. I am only concerned at the moment, however, with what we can do under the Bill and, under the Bill, we cannot alter the programme which is given in the declaration. I think all my hon. Friends behind me are prepared to support the Clause as it stands and I would say to them that I hope they will realise that His Majesty's Government are entirely alive to what I have called the critical situation in the livestock industry, and if it is not possible to deal with that in the Bill, that does not mean that the Government are unaware of, or indifferent to that what is going on, or that they will not be prepared to consider what steps they can take to meet that situation. I hope that with that explanation my hon. Friends will be content.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make perfectly clear the reply which he has just given to the hon. Member opposite? Re states that the maximum importation of foreign meat could not be reduced under the terms of this Bill but might be reduced by some other action which might be taken by the Government. For clarity's sake may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, are we to understand that, if the Government did wish to reduce the maximum importation permitted from foreign countries, they would have to produce a special Bill for that purpose?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I did not say All I said was that we could not do it under this Bill. I did not say how we could do it.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say exactly what means could be adopted for that purpose? I think it is for the benefit of the Committee that we should be clear on this point. The right hon. Gentleman was interrogated at some length last week about this question and a similar process of interrogation has taken place this evening. If he would clear up this matter, our minds would be at rest and we should know the full purport and meaning of this term "maximum quantities."
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not at all sure that it is relevant to this discussion, but I have no objection to saying that powers could he obtained by means of a Bill.
    10.0 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: It is no pleasure to me to have to state to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the statement he has just made does not go nearly far enough, but I take I he opportunity, while doing so, of saying that all of us on this side recognise the very substantial achievement which he brought back from Ottawa. I wish to direct the attention of the Committee in another direction. I wish with the permission of the Committee to go into this matter a little more deeply than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done. In the first place, I call attention to a phrase which he has just used. He said—and I may remark that Members of the Government show a strange anxiety to avoid speaking frankly on this matter and using terms
    1738
    which will be "understanded of the people"—that the object of the Government in this matter was to obtain for the Dominion producer of meat and for the British producer that security which everyone agrees to be desirable. I would put it in much plainer language, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he and the Government agree with what I consider is the desideratum to be aimed at. It seems to me that the only question which arises from this Clause, and the Government's whole policy with regard to meat, is whether or not it will raise the price of stock, bred and kept for meat in this country and the Dominions, to a level at which it will he reasonably profitable, having regard to the fact that at the present moment it is at a wholly uneconomic level. The right hon. Gentleman may describe that as "obtaining the security which is desirable," but I prefer to describe it as raising the price level of the commodity, and the only question which arises is whether or not this Clause will bring about that result. On that we have not yet had a satisfactory answer from the Government.
    I do not wholly share the view of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) on this matter, but it is true that the British producer is suffering far more from the competition of the Dominions producer than from the corn-petition of the foreign producer. The right hon. Gentleman brushed that point lightly aside by saying that he thought it was the general view of those who sat on this side that we should prefer to purchase from the Dominions rather than from foreign sources. Certainly we should prefer to do so, but, in view of the fact that it has always been the stated policy of the Government in this matter to keep the interest of the British producer—in this case, the pastoral farmer—first and foremost, we are entitled to ask the Government a question which they have not yet answered in the course of these Debates, and that is whether or not the reduction in foreign imports is going to be sufficient to raise the price level of meat in this country. We have never had an answer to that question.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will my Noble Friend allow me to try to answer it now? I am sorry if I failed to make quite clear

    1739
    what I wanted to say, but I am sure that the Noble Lord will acquit me of any desire to evade any question put to me.
    Earl WINTERTON: Hear, hear.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I meant by security was that it was not sufficient to raise the price to a satisfactory level once. We want to be sure that it is not going back again, and that is what I meant by security. As regards price, I do not think that any of us expected that in this first experimental period we could ensure that the price would be raised to what my Noble Friend would consider a satisfactory level. We did think that by the immediate restriction of imports and by the knowledge, which would be spread throughout the world, that we had in prospect further plans in the regulation of imports, there would be an immediate rise of price. How far that would go it would be very difficult to say, but my Noble Friend will be aware that this period, as I say, was an experimental period and that it was the declared intention during that experimental period, and I may say at an early stage in that experimental period, to have a consultation with the Dominions with a view to formulating a more permanent scheme, which would no doubt mean further restriction on importation and a still further rise in the price, ultimately, to what we should hope to be a satisfactory level.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his courtesy, and I shall endeavour to use the same courtesy towards him, but I must make this observation—that this seems to be a type of experiment which is very interesting but meanwhile the patient will die. That is the unfortunate situation. My right hon. Friend is very fond, or rather the Government are very fond, of talking about experiments. The Leader of the Conservative party in the Government is constantly telling us that this is but an experiment, and that in two or three years time we shall find out whether the experiment has succeeded or not. I ask my right hon. Friend to deal with the present situation—and I am very glad to see, throughout this Debate, how deep an interest the Committee are taking in this subject, because there has never been a subject in my recollection as a Member of Parliament which has so agitated the minds of the rural community as this
    1740
    question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Those full-throated Tory cheers will, I hope, enable my right hon. Friend to realise that that is so. We are really not politicians in this matter at all. I speak for many Members of Parliament when I say that I do not care whether any line that we take on this matter helps or harms the National Government. The interest of agriculture is far more important than the interest of the National Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, and more important than that of any Government.
    We are faced with a situation graver than has existed, I think, for a century. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the situation is calamitous. I give the Government credit for having had the courage at Ottawa to state categorically that they were going to raise the price level of meat in this country, because that is what it amounted to. The only point at issue now is whether or not they are going to do it by this Clause. My right hon. Friend gets out of that rather interesting fact, or, rather, brushes it aside, by admitting in his speech that the situation is far graver than it was. They were significant words, but he did use the words, I think, that he did not think it could be dealt with under this Bill. I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that the Government are fully aware of the situation, what steps they are going to take to deal with it. They have had a deputation only to-day, representing a very strong section of the Conservative party, and they must be aware that this calamitous situation has been going on, not for a few days, but for weeks and even for months past. When are they going to deal with it?
    This is a very interesting experiment in itself, but the experiment is no good if it is not going to save the life of the patient. I do not suggest that the matter can be usefully dealt with on this Clause to any greater extent, but I shall not vote against the Government on the Clause, because I see no reason for voting against it merely because it is not, in our opinion, as adequate as it should be. While, however, it goes some way in the right direction we are entitled in the most categorical way to ask the Government to announce their meat policy as soon as possible. They will have very powerful forces, not necessarily of Mem-

    1741
    hers of this House, but very powerful forces in the country, of all kinds, arrayed against them if they do not do so.
    We have not had a. word of adequate defence from any Member of the Government as to why the quota was preferred to a tariff. Everybody knows—it is common knowledge—that one Member of the Government, in his obduracy, objects to tariffs, and, therefore, this quota system was adopted. It would have been better boldly to have said so, but, as it is, we have had no defence. I do not object to this quota system as it stands; it, is better than nothing, but I should like to know, and so too would a great many other people, why it is that the quota system was preferred to a tariff, if there is any other reason than that which I have given, which is the common talk of the Lobbies.
    Mr. MANDER: Would the Noble Lord mind saying to which Member of the Cabinet he refers?
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member, who is one of the most intelligent Members of this House, can perfectly well guess who it is. He is a Member of one of the numerous sects of the Liberal party. I do ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of a great number of people in the country, and of a great many of my hon. Friends in this House, to make an announcement with regard to the policy which the Government will put forward to deal with the situation which the right hon. Gentleman admits to-night. He made a most significant admission when he admitted that this Clause is not sufficient to deal with the situation, and that something must be done to deal with this calamitous fall in prices; and I say that not even the preoccupations of the Disarmament Conference, or of India, or of anything else should prevent the Government from announcing, at the earliest possible opportunity, what their policy is for dealing with this disastrous situation.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I must say that tonight, perhaps for the first time, I have considerable sympathy with the Government. I realise how great their problems were when they were at Ottawa, but I agree with the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that it would have been much fairer and
    1742
    franker if they had put on a duty, so that the country would know where they were. I cannot understand why they went in for a quota, unless it were for the reason given by the Noble Lord. I am not going to make any secret of it. I know who the Minister is to whom he referred. It is the President of the Board of Trade, who gave a pledge on the subject, and a quota was preferred to a duty, the nation can quite understand, in order to placate the conscience of the President of the Board of Trade. That, in any case, is my version of it.
    Lord Beaverbrook has come out with a sensational number to-day in his favourite papers, the "Evening Standard" and the "Daily Express," pointing out that the quota is not satisfactory to the farmers, is not satisfactory to the butchers, and, I might add—what is almost always forgotten in these discassions—is certainly not satisfactory to the consumers, because I think the interests of the consumers are more endangered by limiting supplies than by any machinery of tariffs. I have never been one of those who believe that the foreigner pays the tax. I notice that that suggestion was brought out again by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), but at any rate I can understand Members on this side, who believe that, feeling a certain amount of satisfaction that one of two things would happen; either under a duty, according to their theory, the wholesale price of meat would go up, or, alternatively, the foreigner would be made to pay a considerable contribution to the Revenue. But this particular scheme is going to limit the supplies, however much the demand may increase for the next two or three years, of meat that is going to come into this country.
    One of the reasons why prices have fallen and one of the very considerable factors which have caused the fall in prices, quite apart from the increase of production, is the decrease in the purchasing power of the people. You cannot have 3,000,000 out of work and expect to have the same standard of consumption. I have taken the trouble to make inquiries in the East End of London, and I find that where, a year or two years ago, the ordinary East End housewife was buying fresh, home-killed beef, she has in some cases not only substituted chilled beef, which has become very popular in many parts of the country,

    1743
    but she has been forced to go on to the very inferior diet of imported Australian frozen meat, which is very far from palatable and which is only used in ordinary working-class households when they are driven down by necessity. Then we have forgotten about the reductions in the insurance benefit and the consequent large decrease in the purchasing power of the home. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about the critical position of the farmer and the desperate condition of the agricultural interests, I think he should also remember the critical condition of industry and the serious condition of a large part of the working class.
    During the last year we have been through a very remarkable experience. The Prime Minister made a great plea to the nation to submit to sacrifices. Those sacrifices have been gladly borne, and it has been a very remarkable thing that, in spite of the decrease in wages and in spite of cuts made here and there, there has been very little complaint. The real reason is that there has been a general fall in wholesale prices which has lessened the shock of the lower wage level in the general industries. If, as a result of the declared policy of the Government to increase wholesale prices, retail prices are raised, and if, as a result of something they are doing in this Bill and something they propose to do in another Bill, a still further lower wage level is brought about, and on top of that a general increase of the retail prices of food, there may be a serious change in the attitude of the bulk of the working classes to law and order and to the policy of the Government.
    The great thing that we are able to say in this country is that we have always had a policy of abundance. We have always been able to draw on the resources of the world and to have a full supply of commodities in the shops. During the last few weeks I have had the experience of going to Russia. It was not a pleasant experience. They are experiencing a policy of scarcity. There, unlike this country, the shops are empty, they have famine prices, and the farmers are enjoying all the conditions of scarcity and high prices for their commodities. I tremble to think what will be the condition of the Russian people during the cold winter
    1744
    months. We have been spared from this in this country; in spite of the world depression, of unemployment and of the dis-organisation of trade, our shops have been full and prices have been low. The National Government will forfeit the trust of the nation, which was given to them 12 months ago by an overwhelming majority, if they take advantage of their power to bring about the policy of scarcity and high prices.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: We have had one rather interesting feature in this evening's Debate. That is the sympathy that has been expressed, both from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), with the Government in what they conceive to be their difficulties. I do not suppose that any Member of the Government, or anybody who has spoken from these benches, is under the least delusion as to the value of their sympathy for the Government or for the view we have been putting forward from these benches, or for what is the true worth of their sympathy for the farmer. I want to put a brief point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is a Division on this Clause, we shall obviously support the Government, but, if the Clause is inadequate to deal with the situation, we shall really take what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said as an undertaking that the difficulty will be dealt with at the very earliest opportunity. This is really not a long-range problem. It is a matter of vital, urgent and immediate interest.
    I can only say for myself, as other Members know from their own experience, what is the position of farmers to-day. I have been going to and fro among farmers in Scotland and in the Midlands in the last two.or three weeks. I have been shown their actual balance-sheets giving their precise financial position. It is not a question of farmers grumbling. Many of them are on the actual brink of collapse, and they are men, many of them, of quite undoubted capacity, not paying extortionate rents, having had them reduced. It is not only a long-range policy that is wanted. Something will have to be done quite soon. Just as we are, of course, going to support this Clause to-night, so we hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the

    1745
    Government will take that action which he has foreshadowed, and take it quickly.
    Viscount LYMINGTON: We have listened to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) describing to us every single symptom which has led to our having three million unemployed to-day, through the lowering of prices, and has led to the degeneration, to a large extent, of our people. Surely the problem is a little different from that. Those of us who would gladly vote to-night for Clause 7 feel that we are only going to vote for it because it is part of a long-term programme; and because the Government are asking us to support them on this we are going to vote with a feeling that they are morally pledged to do something to redeem the present state of agriculture before it is too late. It, is no earthly use having a long-term programme if in the meantime you have killed those conditions in the industry which will do more than any other single industry could possibly do to revive employment in this country. If the Government are not going to bridge the gap it is useless to vote for this Clause, it is useless to vote for anything that will bring the Empire more closely together, because the means by which we may ultimately accomplish it will have passed away. I believe to-night that if we pass this Clause we shall have something which will not only be of hope for a future time but a pledge that the Government, whatever else their faults may have been, whatever their sins of omission, will undertake to devote themselves not only to the employment of more people on the land but to the desperate state of those who are now on the land and who are in fear of losing all hope of employment at all.
    Mr. HANNON: I rise only to impress upon the Committee the importance of the appeal which has been made to the Chancellor by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I have had the privilege in the last few years of being closely identified with the activities of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, and have been from day to day in constant contact with the serious and expanding grievances which are brought forward by the farming community from every part of the country. What the Noble Lord the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount
    1746
    Lymington) has just said does not in the least degree exaggerate the importance of this subject, and I hope very much, in view of the sad situation in every branch of agricultural enterprise, that the Government will shortly announce a policy which, as indicated in the Chancellor's speech, will give some hope to the farming community in connection with meat production.
    The livestock industry has been in the past the most important branch of farming from a profit-making point of view, and unless we can deal with meat production on practical commonsense lines, raising the level of prices so as to enable this great branch of their industry to be carried on by our own farming community, we may look for a practical collapse of farming as a, profitable pursuit. I was very much impressed by what the Chancellor said as to how he regards the gravity of this problem. Probably he will find it possible to do something when he comes to consider the public finances of the forthcoming year. This strikes at the whole of the sources of revenue of the nation. No bigger service could be rendered by the National Government, for the future prosperity and stability of the whole community, than to declare their policy in relation to the meat industry at the earliest possible moment.
    Of course, we support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in carrying this Clause. We congratulate him in having got so far at Ottawa in securing Agreements with the Dominions on this question. Unless His Majesty's Government realise the position in which the farming community finds itself, arid are prepared to introduce far-reaching and fundamental measures to deal with a situation which has never been so dangerous before—I think "dangerous" is the word to use—they will not be discharging the first and most obvious duty of any Government, which is that they should protect the people and the country's greatest industry, and secure the expansion of the purchasing power of the farmer. I hope, in view of all the representations that have been made and will be made, that this one burning question will be dealt with in a practical and constructive manner by the Government.
    10.30 p.m.
    Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I do not, wonder that some supporters of the Gov-

    1747
    ernment are slightly vexed with them on this question, but it is always understood that, there is never any possibility of their voting against the Government. The Committee would have realised the position rather more clearly than now if the Government had told us, about these meat Agreements, not merely the truth, as, of course, they have done, but the whole truth. Nothing is of any real good to the farmer in regard to meat unless there can be a, really sound limitation or duty on supplies from the Dominions as well as on those from foreign countries. When the idea of that, which the farmers have very firmly in mind, was suggested at Ottawa, it was a new idea to the Dominions and such a shock to them, largely owing to the fault of our farmers themselves. Whenever representatives of the Dominions were over here, or representatives of our farmers were over in. the Dominions, they have been encouraged to think that all that was necessary was for our producers and their producers to make common cause against the suppliers from foreign countries. The idea that what the farmers really needed was limitation against the Dominions, was so strange to the Dominions that although, verbally, some limitation of Dominion supplies was put into the Agreements, that limitation comes to nothing at all. They have limited the supplies of a peak year in regard to mutton and lamb from New Zealand, but I see from a return already published by the New Zealand Government that that situation cannot possibly be realised, because the stock of ewes has been decreased and there cannot possibly be so many lambs sent over during next year as there have been during the Ottawa year. That, I think, would have explained the position rather more than what has actually been said; and the Government might have added what I believe to be true, namely, that in the long run the farmer has nothing except confusion to expect from any form of Protection like duties or a quota, because, if they are to be of any use, they will have to be high, and, if they are so high as to be really acceptable, they are perfectly certain to be wound up if there is any change of Government after a general election in this country. The only hope that farmers have is in an improvement in the purchas-
    1748
    ing power of their customers, and that will not be brought about unless there is a reversal of the fiscal policy of this country and the other main countries of the world. If the Government had added a statement to that effect, they would have been telling the whole truth, and we should know more about this matter than we have been told hitherto.
    Major BRAITHWAITE: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question, which I consider to be of great importance. We appreciate the statement to-night that the Government realise that an alteration has taken place since the Ottawa Agreements were made. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if the Government find that wholesale prices cannot be raised without the imposition of some duty upon meat, we shall be hound, if we pass Clause 7 to-night, to consult the Dominions and Colonies before we can have their consent to the putting of any policy of that sort into operation?
    Mr. CHARLES BROWN: We have witnessed in this Debate the most amazing spectacle that we have seen for many decades. The Tory party has pretended to be the special guardian of the British farmer, but, in spite of that guardianship which has been exercised over farming interests by the Tory party for so many decades, we are told to-night that the net result of it all is that the entire farming community of this country is on the brink of ruin. I have never witnessed, since I have been a Member of this House, a more amazing spectacle than we have seen this evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and others, are all willing to wound the Government, but every one of them is afraid to kill. Immediately it comes to the real test, not one of them dare go into the Lobby in opposition to this particular Clause, and yet they tell us with one voice that the Clause can do nothing at all unless something far more drastic—
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member must not put into my mouth words which I did not use. On the contrary, I said that the Clause went a certain way, and, therefore, I should vote for it, though I am not satisfied with it. I happen to prefer half a loaf to no bread, like the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. BROWN: The Clause goes a certain way, but, even taking it as it is, it still means that the British farming industry will be ruined if something further is not done, and, consequently, the Noble Lord's explanation does not in any way justify what he said in closing his speech, namely, that he would not go into the Lobby in opposition to the Government. If the Noble Lord really did care about British farming interests, he would do everything that he could to-night to remove that Government from office, because, on his own showing, it is doing nothing for the farmers at all, and, if he were really honest in the speech that he made, he would support those of us who are going into the Lobby in opposition to this Clause. I think that if, when the British farming community read the story of this Debate in the newspapers to morrow morning, they do not at once transfer their political allegiance from the party opposite to a party which will really do something for them, the farming industry will deserve its fate.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is a disadvantage from which the Government always suffer in these Debates, and that is that virtue is never praised, and attention is only drawn to the occasions when it has failed. Therefore, most of the Members on this side who have taken part in these Debates have done so for the purpose of criticism, because they have supported silently the great bulk of these Agreements. It is only fair that that should be made quite clear. I myself have taken as large a part in both the support and the criticism as anyone else, but that is because I happen to be rather particularly interested. The Chancellor of the Exchequer encouraged us very much tonight by his statement frankly realising that the situation which exists to-day is different from that which existed when he and his colleagues arrived in Ottawa some three months ago, and he has indicated to us to-night the possibility of some further action for the purpose of assisting home agriculture in connection with livestock. Every Member on this side of the House rejoiced when we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer make that declaration. It may be unfair for us to press him to-night in asking the two questions of "What?" and "Where?"
    1750
    I am not particularly in love with the quota. I have been trying to examine the situation and to see exactly what is likely to be the result of this scheme. Our delegates at Ottawa properly based their scheme on the most recent figures at their disposal. They took the situation as it was in the 12 months that ended on 30th June. No one would criticise them for making that period the standard period for the purpose of these percentage reductions, but I am a little surprised that they did not take sufficiently into account the fact that that period was apparently rather an abnormal period. In 1930 the imports of beef and mutton, either frozen or chilled, were 18,000,000 cwts. In the standard period the total is 18,700,000 cwts., so that there has been an enormous change in the position between the calendar year 1930 and the standard period ending 30th June, 1932.
    I then applied to the six quarters to which the reductions in the provisional scheme apply, and I find that from January to March, 1933, the permitted imports, on the assumption that the imports from Dominion countries come in unchanged, will be substantially more than in 1930. In the second quarter that will still be true, in the third quarter it will be true, and it is not until 12 months from now that this scheme will involve the slightest reduction in the imports of meat into this country as compared with 1930. It is not until April and June of 1934 that we get any appreciable reduction, and that reduction only 1 per cent. of the imports of 1930. If you apply that not merely to our imports, but to the total supply of meat, on the assumption that the latest figures that was able to get from the Ministry of Agriculture are representative of the present position—presumably they are substantially representative of it—in 21 months from now we are only going to skim off the supplies of meat to this country less than 1 per cent. of the total supply.
    I feel inclined to repeat what I said on the Report stage of the Resolutions that this quota scheme is revolutionary in principle but timorous in detail. It is manifest that it is not going to save the deplorable situation that has been so eloquently put before the Committee by many who are more closely connected

    1751
    with agriculture than I am. I hold the view that other measures are necessary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us enormous encouragement by his indication that, after all, that is his view. He said quite frankly that the position is different from that which was visualised when these Agreements were drafted. He has not ruled out other action. But this Session of Parliament will come to an end in less than three weeks as far as we know and a new Session will begin, with its week or 10 days of general preliminaries and, from what I know of the agricultural situation, unless some action is taken before Christmas there may be a. first-class disaster in the rural districts.
    We do not want to hamper the Government. [An HON. MEMBER "Turn them out."] If we turned them out, whatever their demerits may be, just look at what faces them. But let us be serious. This is not a matter of party prejudice or personal criticism. It is obvious that there are merits and demerits in a National Government. There is a conflict of view that you do not get in a purely party Government. On the other hand, the
    National Government has been able to carry through a complete reversal of our fiscal policy which is likely to be permanent. That is the supreme advantage, in my opinion, that we are going to have from a National Government. On the other hand, perhaps it has not carried it out with quite the ruthlessness that my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) might have done. I appeal to the Government in the name of the vast number of agriculturists who literally do not know which way to turn and who are fearing this winter as they have never feared any winter before. If they fail, they will march into the towns—not like those who have been marching half-a-mile from this House to-night, but strong, healthy men—for the first time in their lives having failed to earn a living in their own occupation. They will tramp into the towns and make the position infinitely worse than it is at this moment.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 302; Noes, 65.

    Division No. 345.]

    AYES.

    [10.42 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Burnett, John George

    Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Albery, Irving James

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Elmley, Viscount

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

    Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cassels, James Dale

    Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Castle Stewart, Earl

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Chalmers, John Rutherford

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Bateman, A. L.

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Christie, James Archibald

    Ganzoni, SR John

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Clayton, Dr. George C.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Cooke, Douglas

    Goodman. Colonel Albert W.

    Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

    Copeland, Ida

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Borodale, Viscount

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Greene, William P. C.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Boulton, W. W.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Talton

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Daikeith, Earl of

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Davison. Sir William Henry

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Donner, P. W.

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Brown-, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hartland, George A

    Burghley, Lord

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenn'gt'n)

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Salt, Edward W.

    Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Millar, Sir James Duncan

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    M line, Charles

    Scone, Lord

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Mousse, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Hornby, Frank

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Slater, John

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Somervell, Donald Bradley

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Muirhead, Major A. J.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H,

    Munro, Patrick

    Sotheron-Estcourt. Captain T. E.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fyide)

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Jennings, Roland

    North, Captain Edward T.

    Storey, Samuel

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Nunn, William

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Pearson, William G.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.

    Penny, Sir George

    Templeton, William P.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Thompson, Luke

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Leckie, J. A.

    Petherick, M.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Pets, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Levy, Thomas

    Pets, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

    Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Todd, A. L, S. (Kingswinford)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Train, John

    Lindsay. Noel Ker

    Pybus, Percy John

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Wallace. Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Ramsbotham, Herwold

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Ramsden, E.

    Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Rankin, Robert

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Ray. Sir William

    Weymouth. Viscount

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Robinson, John Roland

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    McLean, Major Alan

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Rosbotham, S. T.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Macmillan. Maurice Harold

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Womersley, Walter James

    Maqnay, Thomas

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Wragg, Herbert

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo

    Mr. Blindell and Commander Southby.

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Salmon, Major Isidore

    NOES

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lawson, John James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Banfield, John William

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middiesbro',W.)

    Lunn, William

    Batey, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    McGovern. John

    Bernays, Robert

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McKeag, William

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Buchanan, George

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Milner, Major James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Price, Gabriel

    Curry, A. C.

    Hirst, George Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Daggar, George

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Danner, Barnett

    Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. He. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Edwards, Charles

    John, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    White, Henry Graham

    1754

    1755

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Williams, Dr. John H (Llanelly)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of law as to importation of Canadian cattle.)
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) to move his Amendment I may say that I understand his three Amendments are to be taken with one to the Third Schedule.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move in page 11, line 4, to leave out the first word "amendments," and to insert instead thereof the word "amendment."
    I move this Amendment for the purpose of obtaining information from the Government on this subject of Canadian cattle. Ten years ago this subject was a very burning one. One of the Press lords—I forget whether it was Lord Beaverbrook or Lord Rothermere—made a great stunt of it, and the result was that four Ministers were knocked out and could not get in again. I remember there were very considerable discussions in this House on the question of the importation of Canadian cattle. The present Minister of Agriculture took a prominant part in them, and most of the Debate was a series of arguments put up by representatives from rural constituencies urging the need for great care in the matter of the importation of Canadian cattle. The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) took a prominent part in it. The particular Amendment which I am moving refers to two special provisos which were thought necessary at that time. One was that cattle for shipping should be marked indelibly. It is now proposed to leave out the word "indelibly." The other was that the cattle must for a period of three clear days be kept separate from other animals. This is now to be reduced to one clear day. If one looks up the discussions in 1922 one finds that there was a very long Debate in regard to the precise humane and effective method of marking cattle and also on the subject of the three clear days.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should be very much obliged if the hon. Member would indicate which Amendments he proposes to deal with. There is the Amendment to paragraph (a) of Part II of the Third Schedule regarding the
    1756
    omission of the word "indelibly," the Amendment to paragraph (c) in which "one clear day" is substituted for "three clear days," and there is the Amendment to sub-paragraph (iv). Which Amendments does the hon. Member propose to deal with?
    Mr. ATTLEE: The two I am dealing with refer to the proposal to omit the word "indelibly" and that relating to one clear day.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that that does not correspond with the Amendment to the Schedule in which the hon. Member proposes to leave out the word "indelibly," but desires that the requirements of three days' separation for Canadian cattle and their accompaniment across the Atlantic by a veterinary surgeon should remain.
    Mr. ATTLEE: If I carry this Amendment I shall have to make a similar Amendment in the Schedule. I should like to know exactly the alterations in the conditions which have taken place since 1922. There has been a long controversy on the subject of taking off the embargo on the Canadian cattle, and this House was assured at that time that provided you had these regulations it was fairly safe because Canadian cattle were free from disease. Are they now freer from disease than in 1922; or why is it that we have had to yield to this Canadian representation? The most important question is that of the three clear days. It was resisted op the former occasion by Members of this House with great knowledge of agriculture, and I want to know why it is that this condition has been altered.
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: I think I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member, and he need not bother about his Amendment to the Schedule. We are given to understand that there is no longer any ground at all for excluding cattle from Canada on the ground of disease and, therefore, this agreement has been reached with the Canadian Government. He has raised two questions. The first in regard to cattle being marked indelibly. The proposed change is this. Until now it has been required that the cattle should be

    1757
    branded on the cheek, but that kind of mark has had certain objections raised to it by the Government of Canada, and instead it is now proposed that the cattle shall be punched through the ear—
    Mr. ATTLEE: Can you wash that out?
    Mr. M. MacDONALD: I understand that the word "indelible" in this connection has some kind of technical significance. It is simply this, that the cattle should be easily recognised when they get to England, and the new proposal is more satisfactory in that way than the old procedure. The second question the hon. Member asked is why we are proposing to reduce the period of detention in Canadian ports before shipment from three clear days to one. That is a matter on which the Canadian Government place considerable importance. In the first place, it is expensive, and in other ways the longer period is inconvenient. The United Kingdom delegation at Ottawa was assured by the veterinary experts of the Ministry of Agriculture that the three days were not necessary from the point of view of disease, because the period during which the cattle are on the ship in coming across the ocean was quite sufficient to fulfil the requirements. Therefore, in view of the special requests made by the
    1758
    Canadian Government, and in view of the fact that one clear day does fulfil requirements, the United Kingdom Delegation felt that there was no reasonable cause for resisting the request of the Government of Canada.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to. —[Captain Margesson.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    FAIRS BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  COAL INDUSTRY (HORSES AND PONIES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (HORSES AND PONIES).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (STAFF AND COST).
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT (STAFF AND COST).
  CATTLE (SPAHLINGER VACCINE).
  CATTLE (SPAHLINGER VACCINE).
  BEER (PRODUCTION).
  BEER (PRODUCTION).
AGRICULTURE.
  FRUIT (PRICES)
  FRUIT (PRICES)
  POLICE RESERVISTS (EX-SERVICEMEN).
  POLICE RESERVISTS (EX-SERVICEMEN).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRACTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee.

EDINBURGH ROYAL MATERNITY AND SIMPSON MEMORIAL HOS- PITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Edinburgh Royal Maternity and Simpson Memorial Hospital, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

MACDUFF HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Macduff Harbour, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to intro-
920
duce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Aberdeen Harbour, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD rose to ask His Majesty's Government, in view of the development of semi-automatic signalling on motor vehicles, if they intend to issue suggestions or regulations as to their construction and adoption, and their future policy towards automatic and semi-automatic signalling for facilitating the movements and the safety of the users of the roads; and to move for Papers?
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not detain the House more than a few moments in submitting my Question and moving my Motion. When I first put the Question on the Order Paper nothing had been done to suggest that the Government were taking any interest in the direction of semi-automatic signals on motor vehicles, and, after I had sent the Question in, the whole matter was referred to a Departmental Committee on Road Traffic. Knowing Departmental Committees and Committees in general I was quite prepared to leave it there for some considerable time and not raise the matter at all, but on October 6, in the News-Chronicle, much to my surprise, I read a full account of a report which this Departmental Committee was supposed to be making to the Minister of Transport, including a report on this very matter which I raise in my Question. This report appeared in a large number of other newspapers, and, finally on October 11, it appeared in a certain technical journal and was quoted there as being premature and unauthorised. I looked at the copy of the report which appeared in the News-Chronicle, and to my mind it bears every indication of being entirely authentic, because there are certain very well-drawn designs and signs reproduced, and one or two other things, and actual words from the report are quoted.
I can quite believe that this report is premature and unauthorised, but I do think the noble Earl who replies to this Question for the Government might give us some indication as to how this leakage of information occurred, because it is to my mind a very serious matter. Perhaps he can tell us whether the Minister has had a report from this Committee, and, if so, whether it is as it was published in the newspaper; and, further, how a copy of the report managed to get to the Press. How did the News-Chronicle manage to get the article, and is it really in the public interest that official documents, presumably confidential, should be permitted to leak out? Has any inquiry been made as to the origin of this report and if none has taken place will some inquiries be made? This may appear to be only a small matter, but in certain other cases it might be a very serious matter. I think some steps should be taken to stop the leakage of information.
In consequence of this I speak this afternoon under some difficulty, not knowing whether I am talking to the converted or to the unconverted. I think that all noble Lords will agree with me that some uniformity in automatic signals on motor cars should be obtained. Several large manufacturers have started to make a variety of signs and I think that a very grave error is being made in some of them. It is essential that we should have development of automatic signalling. It is undoubtedly necessary because modern body-work makes it almost impossible to give correct signals from inside a car. Moreover, many people fail to give correct signals not only because of that impossibility but because they are too idle to give them or do not know them. I put down this Question because it seems to me essential that there should be simplicity of operation of these signals and that the signals themselves should be simple to understand. Anything like coloured flashing lights which may distract a driver's attention is a bad thing. There are some simple indicators and perhaps the noble Earl will be able to tell us whether the Commissioner of Police has had any reports on the very admirable indicators fitted to a certain number of taxicabs.
There is another point to which the Minister might give attention. I think
922
it is essential under modern conditions that every motor vehicle with electrical equipment should have a stop light. I drive a great deal myself and I know from experience that it is extremely rare for drivers to make any attempt to show that they are stopping or applying their brakes. More particularly essential is the fitting of stop lights on tramcars. They are the quickest vehicles to stop, and since it is now an offence in many places to pass a stationary tramcar, whether people are alighting or not, motorists ought to have the longest possible warning of the intention of the drivers of these vehicles to stop. I would suggest to the Minister that if he is going to make regulations on this matter of signals on vehicles, he should make them compulsory not on private vehicles but on public service vehicles. It is impossible when you are driving behind a big char-a-banc or a big omnibus to understand what signals the driver is making. You have a tremendous length of vehicle along which to look and a man's hand, probably only just showing out of the side window, is extremely difficult to see. I think, therefore, that it should be made compulsory for all public service vehicles to be fitted with indicators. I think that an increasingly large number of manufacturers will fit some kind of indicator to motor cars and, therefore, it need not be made compulsory for every one to have one because ultimately that will come about voluntarily.
I come now to the question of automatic signals as used in streets. I do not think it will be denied that these signals have been a very wide success and I hope that we shall see large extensions of them. Before that comes about, however, I think we must have certain revisions of the regulations governing the movement of traffic by these lights. Complaints have been brought to my notice, and I have personally cause for complaint, as to the size of these lights. They are very difficult to see in certain cases owing to the fact that they are too small. It is obvious that these lights must be seen before they can be obeyed. Therefore I suggest to the Minister that he should pay serious attention to the size of these lights before making further regulations. Another difficulty which strikes me as rather important at the present moment is that where these lights are installed drivers tend to race, or attempt to race, the

923
lights. I have seen that done myself and any noble Lord who passes along Oxford Street can see, almost any day, people trying to beat the lights. One of the things which struck me very forcibly when I was visiting the United States some few years ago was that it was possible to enter a town and drive through it perhaps for three or four miles, and by keeping a steady pace of fifteen miles per hour, or even up to twenty miles per hour, go through it from one end to the other without ever pausing, the traffic being entirely controlled by lights.
There is another point on which I think the Minister might take some action, not necessarily, perhaps, by regulation, but by laying it down in the Highway Code that an amber light when shown after green is the same as a red light and that it is obligatory on motorists to stop. It should be made equally clear that an amber light shown after a red light is not a permission for motorists to try to race each other from a traffic jam. There is a tendency to get that state of affairs, so that two streams of traffic are moving at cross roads at the same time. It ought to be definitely laid down that an amber light has the same meaning as a red light and that traffic should become motionless. Another very important point is that, especially in busy streets, the pedestrian should be made to realise that traffic lights are for his control as well as for the control of people in vehicles. It is very annoying—or even pathetic, according to the point of view from which you regard it—to see people dodging in and out of traffic when by waiting for a few moments they could cross the road in perfect safety. There is still one more matter which I should like to ask the Minister to take into consideration, and that is the extension of these lights to main roads outside towns and to the suburbs. If people will not slow down at cross roads or main roads and in the suburbs they must be made to do so, and these lights provide the very best method we can possibly have of ensuring caution.
Perhaps the noble Earl has some information that lie can give us about the system adopted in certain London streets whereby traffic lights are worked by the traffic itself so that the traffic passing over pads in the roadway sets signals
924
against traffic coming from cross roads, or automatically, after passing over the cross roads, releases the traffic in the side roads. I wonder if the noble Earl could give any information as to whether it would be practicable to instal such lights at big main road crossings and in the suburbs. People must be made to be cautious. Safety is paramount on the roads in these days and a large extension of these lights is one of the best ways, I believe, in which we can secure it. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am pleased this Question has been raised, although on questions relating to motor cars our little Party on this side is usually split. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, will always go into the opposite Lobby to the one I go into on these questions. The noble Lord opposite has left me practically nothing to say, but he did mention the subject of tramcars. Tramcars have magnetic brakes which will stop them at least twice as quickly as any motor car and there is nothing to warn you that they are going to stop. I was driving a motor car this wet afternoon behind a tramcar which pulled up smartly and it was with great difficulty I managed to avoid bumping into it. I hardly knew whether to take the right-hand side or risk knocking someone over on the left; and that is usually what happens. It is essential that some warning should be given that the tramcar is going to stop. With a motor car the foot brake operates the light at the back and I suppose some such device could be used on tramcars. At any rate motorists should be given some indication of what a tramcar is going to do.
Take the example of ships. You do not get ships adopting different signals. I used to have a small motor cruiser and come up what is called London River on it, and I had to get to know the various siren toots of the tugs. If they blew four short and one long it meant turning to port, and so on. You did not find that they had different systems of signalling. In the case of bicycles there are reflectors in a certain place; you do not find a bicyclist at night with it on the top of his head or in the middle of his back. I hope the Government will give some satisfactory reply on this Question, which I regard as a serious matter in view of the enormous number of accidents to-day on the roads.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I have absolutely no quarrel to pick with the noble Lord for the way in which he moved his Motion and I am very glad to have the opportunity straightaway of correcting the misapprehension that this very important subject has not been interesting closely the Minister of Transport. It has been interesting the Minister for a very considerable time and he has given the whole subject a great deal of careful thought. As your Lordships know, amongst the many provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, there was one which empowers the Minister of Transport
"to make Regulations with regard to appliances to be fitted for … intimating any intended change of the speed or direction of a motor vehicle and the use of any such appliance."
Up to now it has not been considered necessary to make the fitting either of direction indicators or of stop lights compulsory, but the use of such appliances as an alternative to hand signalling is recognised in the Highway Code.
The advisability of making regulations laying down requirements with which such devices, if fitted, should conform, has been considered from time to time since the Road Traffic Act was passed. Early this year, however, it was decided not to make regulations on the subject, but to write to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and inform them, and through them the motor trade generally, of the Minister's views on the subject. The motives which actuated the Minister in adopting this course were, in the first place, that he was loth to make additional regulations. There were already a large number of them and he did not want to make any unnecessary regulations. If he had adopted certain definite and specific regulations the effect might have been to stifle any inventive-minded person likely to devise something satisfactory. Admittedly the whole position with regard to these direction indicators was in a more or less experimental stage and it might have been unfortunate to come to a final decision until it had been possible to try out a large number of devices.
I should like to quote a considerable portion of the letter which the Minister
926
wrote to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders because I think it lies at the root of the whole matter. The letter is headed: "Direction Indicators on Motor Vehicles" and proceeds:
"The Highway Code, as your society will be aware, contains the following paragraph under the heading of 'Signals.'
When you intend to stop, slow down or change direction, give the appropriate signal clearly, definitely and in good time.
('Hand signals for this purpose are fully described and illustrated in the Appendix (see page 18). Where the appropriate signal can be given effectively by a suitable mechanical or electrical device, there is no objection to its use')."
The letter continues:
"The Minister has carefully considered whether or not he should exercise his powers under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to make regulations controlling the design and use of these devices. He is opposed to the making of unnecessary regulations and he does not wish to do anything which would discourage the production of effective devices for this purpose.
"For the present, therefore, the Minister does not propose to make any regulations on this subject. At the same time I am to point out that if signalling devices are to be relied on instead of hand signals, the indications which they give of the intentions of the driver must be clear and unmistakable and easily visible to the drivers of other vehicles by whom it is intended that they should be seen. They should not depend for their efficacy upon any arbitrary interpretation to be attached to any particular symbol or coloured light other than the ordinary significance attached to an arrow and to a red stop light.
"It may of course be necessary for the Minister to make regulations on the subject if unsatisfactory devices for the purpose under consideration are marketed or if for any other reason regulations appear to him to be necessary in the interests of public safety."
I think that letter was couched in very clear terms and I believe it commanded the general assent of the various organisations which were interested in the subject. It was undoubtedly hoped that this letter would be a sufficient safeguard against the adoption on any considerable scale of direction indicators which did not conform with the views expressed by the letter. During the course of this summer certain devices were put upon the market which did not appear prima facie to conform to the views distinctly expressed in this letter, and as a result, as the noble Lord has told the House, the Minister referred the whole of this subject to the Departmental Committee which had already been set up to consider

927
the question of traffic signs generally, and they were asked to deal with this matter as a matter of urgency. The terms of reference to the Committee were as follows:
"To consider the proposed use of certain types of direction indicators on motor vehicles on a large scale and to make recommendations at an early date as to whether the powers of the Minister of Transport to make regulations with regard to such devices should be exercised and, if so, in what manner."
I am only able to say that the Committee have examined various devices of this description which are, or have been, proposed to be used on a considerable scale on motor vehicles, and I understand that their report will be very shortly in the hands of the Minister. Clearly until that report is received the Minister is not able to announce his policy definitely with regard to the matter, but I may inform the House that the report of the Committee will be published as soon as the Minister of Transport has had time to consider it.
Lord de Clifford referred to what he described as a leakage of information on the subject with regard to the deliberations of this Committee. I regret that I am not in a position to tell him anything with regard to the matter. I know nothing about it whatsoever, but what I can say is that the statement in that newspaper on that day was entirely unauthorised. He further asked me a question as to the action of the Commissioner of Police with regard to these devices. I can only tell him that we do know that the Commissioner of Police has tried out a certain number of devices on taxi-cabs in London, but up to now we have received no report with regard to the matter. I am afraid that that is all that I can tell him with regard to the first part of his Question, but I hope it will go to show the House that the Minister is giving the matter very careful thought, and hopes to be in a position to make a more definite statement at a very early date.
I confess I did not realise that the noble Lord's Motion dealt with the question of other types of automatic and semi-automatic signalling on the road. It may have been my fault but I did not realise that it dealt with more than signals on cars. The noble Lord did raise the matter, however, and it is of course of the very greatest importance to the
928
users of the road generally. I do not know if he remembers that I had an opportunity of explaining the position of die Minister, and of the Government generally, with regard to this matter at the end of last summer, and I think I made it quite clear then that although there had been certain delays in London, and progress was not quite so quick in London as in the provinces, at any rate the matter was being pressed forward and there was a likelihood of a considerable increase in the number of points and streets where these automatic signals would be used—a likelihood of a considerable increase within a comparatively short time. The Minister is certainly fully aware of the value of this form of signalling, and is fully aware of the success it has attained where it has been tried. On the other hand it is only fair to issue one note of warning, and that is that I think it would be fatal, as it were, to adopt these signals broadcast throughout London and the suburban areas in places where their location is not really warranted. Probably it would only have the effect of having these signals disregarded, and result in a worse situation than before.
The noble Lord referred to what he had seen in New York when he went over to the United States, and described how a motor car was able to pass the whole way through the City at a level fifteen miles an hour without being stopped or interrupted. I personally have not myself indulged in, or seen anybody else indulge in, the new game of "beating the light" in Oxford Street, but I can tell him that these lights are designed for this very purpose, that you can travel down Oxford Street at sixteen miles an hour, if the road is clear, and be entirely uninterrupted, and that is the point in instituting these new automatic signals throughout the country. This point is very carefully considered as one of the primary essentials that are necessary. The noble Lord also referred to traffic actuated signals being used. They are being used in increased numbers, and are proving satisfactory. At first it was thought in the Ministry that only light traffic could be dealt with by means of this type of signal, but it was found possible to deal with heavy traffic as well, and further experiments are being made. I do not know whether

929
there is any further point made by the noble Lord that I have missed, but if so I will try and give an answer to it. I do assure him that the matter he has raised is considered to be of the greatest importance by the Minister, and that we hope considerable progress will be made in London with regard to it within a short time.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I be forgiven if I say a few words on the speech which we have just heard from the noble Earl? First I should like to say how much I welcome the announcement he made of the general principle followed by the Ministry with regard to motor vehicles—namely, that they are opposed to unnecessary regulations. Many sections of the motor trade, and ninny motor car users, have been very nervous in regard to the very great powers vested in the Ministry for making regulations affecting the motor traffic, and the announcement which the noble Earl has made, that the Ministry is opposed to making unnecessary regulations, will be very well received indeed. The subject which the noble Lord has raised is one of the very greatest importance and I was relieved to hear what the noble Earl has said with regard to the question of signalling on cars. There is danger that signals which do not conform to the memorandum read out may be widely adopted. There is a type of vehicle being fitted with light signals, the meaning of which certainly is not obvious to everyone, and I hope that the Minister will keep a careful eye upon them.
With regard to the question of signal lights in the streets, there is one point which I desire to submit to the Minister, and that is the question of the location of these lights. At present they are fitted at the side of the street, and that is exactly the place where they should not be. There are two reasons why they should not be there. First of all, the careful driver should keep his main attention fixed upon the roadway ahead of him, and should not be concentrating his mind on the side of the road, which he must do if he is going to pay attention to a large number of signal lights, such as you find in Oxford Street. Again, the lights at the side of the road may very easily be obscured by certain classes of vehicle, in which case the motorist may quite easily over-run the lights without being aware of it. I know that careful
930
trials have been carried out, but abroad in several cities which I have driven through you sometimes find lights hanging right over the centre of the crossroads, suspended from wires. In that position they are very much more clearly visible to drivers. They are not nearly so liable to be obscured. I know the answer is that they may be obscured by the construction of the bodywork of cars, but that all depends on the height at which they are suspended.
I hope that, this particular matter can be explored a little more. I should imagine that one central light, as compared with four lighting positions, at a cross-roads would be much cheaper, and therefore we might get an extended use of light signals. I am quite certain that light signals very definitely make for safety on our roads, and I do very much hope that it will be found possible for public authorities and for the Ministry of Transport to do everything in their power to encourage them. On the whole I welcome very much the Minister's statement, and I hope that this important question will be kept carefully under review.
There is only one other point, and that is the question of the pedestrian. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, mentioned this in his remarks. At present pedestrians do not seem to realise the significance of the lights. I do not know what can be done to help them, but I am perfectly convinced that if we in this country could have definite crossing places for pedestrians, such as you find in practically every large city throughout Europe, it would make for greater safety for them. If those crossing places could be marked out by studs on the highway I am sure that, in the event of any pedestrian being injured between the studs, the magistrates, as in the case of French cities and Italian cities, would deal very severely with the motorist who was responsible. At the same time, the pedestrian could be encouraged to look at the lights. But something ought certainly to be done to help the pedestrian to understand the significance of the lights. The Ministry is opposed to having signs in unnecessary places, and signs are dotted about in places where the necessity for them is not quite clear. There are two lights on the road leading to Croydon for the use of pedestrians, which are very largely

931
used as a new game for children. We do not want to cry "Wolf !" in connection with these light signals. They must either mean something or not, and I am not at all sure that those signals erected for the use of pedestrians, being taken advantage of, as they are, by small children, can always be justified.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I know that type. It is not the exact type that I was referring to when I spoke.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for his reply. I especially desire to join with my noble friend Lord Howe in saying how glad I am that the Ministry realises that a mass of regulations is not good for the motor trade. While I shall be very interested to see the final results of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, I shall also be very interested to see how they compare with the report which has already been published. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TRADE WITH RUSSIA.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House no export credits should be provided for Russian trade, nor any further commercial agreement, temporary or otherwise, concluded between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Soviet Union, till that Union has taken some steps to liquidate its debts to the British Government and British nationals.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject of Russia is always one which interests your Lordships' House and the country as a whole, and therefore I make no apology for bringing it up again for discussion to-day. It is now six months since my noble friend Lord Lloyd initiated a very interesting debate here, though I am afraid he did not get much satisfaction from His Majesty's Government. But there was one statement made by a then member of the Government, Lord Snowden, which seemed to me one of the most remarkable statements ever made by a British Minister. Lord Lloyd had made his Motion, and others had
932
spoken to it, including myself, and, dealing with a statement that I had made, Lord Snowden said that we must not do anything of that sort, because, if we did, the Soviet Government would redouble their propaganda against us. That seemed to me one of the most defeatist statements ever made in the British Parliament. We were told that we should not do what we think right because, forsooth, some people overseas might try to make themselves disagreeable to us. I trust that no such statement will ever be made again by a British Minister.
Apart from the fact that the passage of time would justify me in bringing up this question again, there are two circumstances which have occurred, either of which would, in my opinion, justify a debate. The present National Government, containing as it does a vast majority of Conservatives, has done what it vehemently denounced when in opposition: it has followed the example of its Socialist predecessors, and has extended further export credits to British merchants trading with Russia. It has also, as the result of the Ottawa Conference, denounced the Temporary Commercial Agreement which was signed in April, 1930, by the then Socialist Government. I welcome the denunciation of the Temporary Agreement, because I never was in favour of any agreement at all, and therefore any steps which can be taken to terminate that Agreement, which has been of no benefit to us, I welcome. But the Government did not do that because it thought the Agreement was bad. It did not do so because it dissented in any way from the policy of its Socialist predecessors; it did it simply because the Canadian Government showed it the right way. The Canadian Government, as part of the terms of their making an Agreement at Ottawa, stipulated that this Temporary Commercial Agreement should be denounced because, if it remained in being, it might nullify all the preferences which we are gladly giving to Canada.
But the Government are so anxious to placate, and to be subservient to, the Soviet Government that in the same announcement in which they state that they are denouncing the Agreement of 1930, they say they are at once going to get into communication with the Soviet Government with a view to entering into discussions upon the situation created by

933
the denunciation of the Agreement, with, I presume, the idea of making another agreement. Why does the present Government, why did the Socialist Government, want to have these Agreements at all? The Conservative Government in 1927 denounced the Commercial Agreement entered into by a preceding Government in 1921, and I have yet to be shown that any evil results followed from the denunciation of that Agreement in 1927.
Apart from that, take the United States. The United States have no agreement with the Soviet Government; they have no diplomatic relations; yet they, without any of these precious trade agreements, without any diplomatic representation at Moscow, or Soviet representation at Washington, are able to do a far more profitable trade with Russia than we do, with a trade balance in their favour. With all our efforts, with all our trade agreements, with all our export credits, the balance is immensely in favour of the Russians in the trade between this country and Russia. Indeed, the Lord President of the Council, only last week or the week before, in the House of Commons, stated that the trade that we do with Russia is only a fraction of the trade which they do with us. I think he said it was one-fifth. Therefore, any change that happens cannot be to our detriment and must be to the detriment of the Soviet Government.
I hope and trust that if a new trade agreement is made the Government will not fall into the error which was made by all preceeding Governments of inserting any clause in that agreement prohibiting the Soviets from making propaganda against this country. For eleven years now we have had this clause in various Agreements with the Soviet Government. It has not had the slightest influence in preventing the Soviet Government from propagating their ideas against this country. It has been a most humiliating position for this country to be in. It began when the late Lord Curzon protested in 1921 and it has gone on through the terms of office of the various Foreign Secretaries, including poor Mr. Henderson, who begged and prayed the Soviet people to give him something to show to the House of Commons. I do not know whether the present Government have protested in any way; we do not know whether they
934
have. At any rate, unless you are going to take steps to enforce such a clause in an agreement, for heaven's sake do not put one in and continue to be the laughing-stock of the world, as we have been for the last eleven years, owing to the way in which the Soviet Government have treated us.
May I say one word about this propaganda? It is common knowledge that this propaganda against us has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. I will not call them "riots," but these disturbances in Hyde Park and elsewhere during the last few days and the proposed march on the Houses of Parliament this afternoon are not genuine displays of discontent by the ordinary unemployed man or woman in this country. They are the organised results of Soviet money sent into this country. As long ago as 1921, Lord Stonehaven, then Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, stated in the House of Commons that Soviet money was coming into this country to the tune of £250,000 every year for propaganda purposes against us. During the Arcos raid by the Conservative Government in 1927 we had numerous papers published which proved conclusively that, in the opinion of the then Government, large sums of money were coming into this country to stir up sedition and strikes; and only last March in the House of Commons the then Home Secretary, Sir Herbert Samuel, said that the Communist propaganda against this country was being intensified and was stronger than it had ever been.
That means that more money is coming in here in order to do us as much harm as possible. I admit that it is no use for anybody to appeal to this Government or any Government to stop Communist funds coming into this country. No Government can do that. There are many ways of sending money through banks and other channels into this country which no law can stop, though you may hamper it. But you facilitate it if you have a Soviet Ambassador here and a Trade Delegation here with diplomatic immunity. I can understand that if you have an Ambassador here you must give him and his entourage diplomatic immunity. But why in the name of common sense should you so favour the Soviet Government that they alone, as I understand it, are allowed to have a Trade

935
Delegation of four members with diplomatic immunity? You simply make a grand high road for their money to come in here, and then you feel quite astonished when these riots take place.
Although it is incidentally relevant, it is not strictly relevant to this Motion, but I hope you will allow me to say one word about the insufficiency of the law to deal with agitators who are trying to stir up strife in this country. I am all for liberty of speech. I am all for giving the greatest possible chance to everybody to express his opinions; but I do think that it is a pitiful spectacle which this country presents to the world—that there should be no means known to the law to prevent the organisers of these hunger marches from organising these marches and bringing their wretched dupes hundreds of miles up to the chief City of the Empire and then leaving them without any means of getting food and without any opportunity of securing shelter. Surely some steps could be taken to make that an illegal act.
Further, my Lords, are we really right in allowing these organised processions to fill our streets day by day and week by week? We have at the present moment in existence, not, I think, a law, but a Resolution of the House of Commons which directs the Commissioner of Police to prevent any organised procession approaching the Houses of Parliament while Parliament is sitting; and a very sound rule it is. Cannot we somewhat enlarge the radius of the action of that Resolution or law and say that, at any rate in the chief streets of this City, we are not going to allow processions to take place unless they are authorised by the Commissioner of Police as being legitimate processions and ones which are necessary for the wellbeing of the community? It is really very hard indeed upon our police and upon the special constables that, day after day, they should be kept for hours and hours on duty to deal with what is an insignificant fraction of the population of this country.
Now, if I may switch over for a moment to another part of my Motion, I should like to ask the Government what they are doing about the Russian debts which are owed to this country. I wonder if the nation as a whole realises the vast sums involved, the really enormous sums involved, in the case of the debts owed
936
by the Russian Government to this nation, excluding private debts. It is over one year's income of this country. It is considerably more money than is voted in the annual Budget in the House of Commons. What are the figures? The Soviet Government owe more than £1,000,000,000 to this country. Take the individual claims on the Soviet Government. There are 50,000 private claims registered at the Board of Trade by British subjects who assert that the Soviet Government is responsible for the robbery of their goods and property in Russia, and they claim that the amount they should get is round about £400,000,000. We all know when people make claims that they are apt to exaggerate a little, but I think a conservative figure would indicate that at any rate the private claims can legitimately amount to £300,000,000, and, therefore, we reach the gigantic figure of £1,300,000,000, which, undoubtedly, the Soviet Government is responsible for and ought to pay over to the taxpayers of this country and to a large number of private individuals.
What answer have the Soviet Government always given to our Foreign Office representations when we have asked for payment of that £1,000,000,000 owing by the Soviet Government to this nation? "Oh," they say, "we are not liable because all of it was lent to the Czarist Government, and we are not responsible for it." A more flimsy excuse cannot be imagined. We might just as well get rid of our National Debt by proclaiming a Republic and saying we are not responsible for the money owed by this country when it was a Monarchy. Therefore there is no excuse possible; it is pure and simple repudiation.
I wonder if the country realises what this repudiation of the money owed by the Soviet Government to this country really implies. I am dealing not with the private claims but with the Government claims alone. If you turn up the House of Commons Debates for July 23, 1930, you will see that the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer said—I would draw the attention of your Lordships to this very remarkable statement:
"The money lent to Russia during the War was borrowed by His Majesty's Government at over 5 per cent. interest, and the

937
annual sum now paid by the British taxpayer for interest thereon accordingly amounts to over £45,000,000 a year."
That is to say the British taxpayers have to pay £45,000,000 every year—and my authority for that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1930—because the Soviet Government have defaulted. I will indicate presently what I would do. Surely it does justify some rather drastic action, some energetic action on the part of His Majesty's Government. £45,000,000 a year ! The columns of our newspapers were crowded with paeans of praise and rejoicing because the Conversion Loan saved £21,000,000 net to the British taxpayer, but nobody seems to worry in the least that £45,000,000 have to be found every year by the British taxpayer because of the repudiation of the Soviet Government. Successive Governments—I blame all Governments—have taken no drastic steps to deal with the situation.
Then take the private individuals. How have they suffered at the hands of the Soviet Government? The Soviet Government have confiscated the oilfields and timber forests developed by British capital, and sold the produce to the people from whom it was stolen. What has been done to help those people? Nothing at all. Take the most glaring instance of Soviet perfidy and absolute disregard of all honesty, the Lena Goldfields Concession, of which some of your Lordships may have heard. At the risk of repeating I will, for the benefit of some who may not know about it, sketch the situation in half a dozen sentences. The Lena Goldfields Concession was a mining concession in Russia. From 1925 —the date of the Concession signed, sealed and delivered by the Soviet Government—to 1930 this company sank £4,000,000 sterling in developing the property. They did not simply hold the Concession and wait for something to turn up, for in those five years the shareholders in the Lena Goldfields Concession sank £4,000,000 sterling in the enterprise. There happened what always happens when you have a concession in Russia. The Russian Government thought it was in nice working order, British money had put it in working order, and they stole it by the Russian method of preventing the workmen going to their work and charging the officials with plotting against the
938
State, and resorting to the hundred and one ways by which you can make business impossible in that country. Then, under the terms of the Concession—and this was embodied in the Concession, signed by the Soviet Government—the dispute went to arbitration before an international tribunal. That international tribunal went carefully into the matter and awarded Lena Goldfields £13,000,000. What was the attitude of the Soviet Government? Cynical indifference. They simply said: "We are not going to pay any attention to the award."
Promises are no good. What the country has to consider now is whether the use of the big stick is not preferable to these piteous implorings of the Soviet Government extending over eleven years. I suggest—it is only the suggestion of an individual and is sure not to be agreed to by the Government even though it came from heaven, because naturally the Government can never receive any sound suggestion from a private member—I suggest to the Government that, as they are proposing to sign a new agreement, they should intimate to Russia, in the first place, that we will sign no further agreement till we receive some money on account—nothing doing until we receive some money on account. I know they cannot pay very much, but some money on account would show their willingness to acknowledge this past debt which they owe to us. I should myself, if I had the handling of it, allocate that money not to the British taxpayer but to the wretched private individuals who in many cases have lost their all owing to this robbery by the Russian Government. Secondly, we should tell them when we sign the Agreement: "It will only have force as long as you continue to pay. Directly you cease payment the Agreement will come to an end; and if you refuse these two clauses then we will treat you as we have treated the Irish Free State." Nobody pretends—I do not at any rate—that the present situation with regard to the Irish Free State is all on one side, that they suffer all the loss and we have all the gain. We suffer, too, but our gains are immeasurably greater than our losses, and I venture to prophesy that in three or four months what we have fought for in the case of the Irish Free State—namely, payment of our just debts —will be arrived at.
If you do the same thing as far as Russia is concerned I am not pretending that it will not to a certain extent hurt some of our export trade. But remember that Russia must have cash. She is obliged to have cash to finance her five-year plan and her ten-year plan. The balance is in her favour by four or five to one. We pay the Russians in cash and they only pay us in credit. We are the only country where they can get cash. They do not get cash in America, because there the boot is on the other foot. The Americans do four times as much trade with Russia as Russia does with them. Therefore, Russia would be in as equally a disagreeable position as Ireland is now because she must have cash and we are the only people to provide her with cash. Surely, when we consider our self-respect and our position in the word, when we consider the patience we have had for eleven years, and when we consider above all the vast sums involved and the £45,000,000 which the taxpayers in this country have to find, then I think I am justified in saying that although my plan may not be ideal—the Government may have a better plan—they ought not to stand still and do nothing. They ought to take some steps to show that this sort of thing cannot be allowed to go on.
I apologise for occupying the time of the House so long, but this really is an important subject and one which takes some little time to treat sufficiently well in its various aspects and from its various angles. May I say a word now about the export credits for Russia to which I also refer in my Resolution Your Lordships will probably know that up to the end of May this year the Export Credits Department had assumed Russian trade liabilities up to £10,000,000. Of course, I know—and the Government in their reply will, no doubt, make it quite clear—that these export credits are not given as a douceur, or as a tip to the Soviet Government. This money is used to facilitate trade between this country and Russia. The Government, therefore, back the credit of the private trader, the idea being that he should do more trade with Russia. It was announced in May this year, to the indignant surprise, I think, of a vast number of people in this country, that the National Government—four-fifths or five-sixths of the members of which are Conservatives—had done what they denounced in every term and
940
tense when they were in Opposition—namely, they had given further export credits to the traders with Russia. In May it was announced that a further £1,600,000 was to be given, but that each credit was to operate at the most for not more than eighteen months.
It does seem to me (I regret to have to say it) very extraordinary that several distinguished statesmen, who are naturally regarded as the brightest ornaments of the Conservative Party, support—they must support, because they are still in the Government—action which a year or eighteen months ago they were denouncing as the most stupid and the most unpatriotic thing that could possibly be done. In February of last year the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who leads your Lordships' House, spoke most strongly, I think I am right in saying, against lending money to Russia. But let me quote an even more important person than the noble and learned Viscount, if I may say so, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin, speaking at Newton Abbot in March this year, said:
"Russia needs no credits to buy from us. She sells us four or five times as much as she buys."
If Russia needs no credits from us, according to the Lord President of the Council, why should we go out of our way to grant them? Russia has an enormous trade balance in this country which she can use for purchasing our goods. Why does she not use it? Is it because she uses it to buy in America where she has to pay cash?
These statements are not very specific, but I base my objection to export credits on a remarkably able speech made by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies, as we know, is a man expert in trade and finance, and in the House of Commons last year—to be exact, on July 22, 1931—he made a violent attack on export credits to Russia. I would invite your Lordships' attention to what he said, because I am not going to make any comments on export credits but intend to base my case entirely upon the views of the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister said:

941
"In volume alone it far overshadows all other credits which the Government are giving to all other countries put together, not excluding the British Empire. As far as I can see from the official figures, in the six months ended 30th May, 1931, the credit given to the Russian Government amounted roughly to £2,500,000, while the credit given to all other countries put together amounted to £1,419,000.….
"I take the Board of Trade figures for the year 1930. The imports from Russia to this country were £34,200,000 and the British exports to Russia were £6,800,000."
That is nearly 5½ to 1.
Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister went on to say:
"British re-exports to Russia.…were £2,500,000. What does that mean? It means that if you take the trade, apart front re-exports, between this country and Russia, Russia had last year"—
that is, in 1930—
"a balance of nearly £27,500,000 in her favour."
Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister also said:
"Where you get a position in Russia is selling for cash in this country more titan four times as much as she is buying here on credit, what necessity can there be to find Government credit with which to do the business?"
That is what the present Secretary of State for the Colonies said only a year ago. He went on to say:
"Therefore, the result of your priceless Trade Agreement and your extended credit is that you have in fact done less business than you did before.…"
What about the United States? Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister said:
"In the United States, as is well known, there is not, and never has been, any recognition."
With no credit, Sir Philip went on,
"Russia sold to the United States 38,400,000 roubles' worth of goods and bought 152,900,000 roubles' worth of goods.…Well, take the next year, 1929–30. Russia sold to Great Britain 237,600,000 roubles' worth and Russia bought from Great Britain 83,700,000 roubles' worth."
I would like to call the attention of your Lordships to these further figures which Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister gave:
"In 1923–30 Russia sold there [in the United States] 44,500,000 roubles' worth and Russia bought from the United States 280,000,000 roubles' worth of products."
What I would put to your Lordships is this. We give Russia credit which she uses to buy goods from other countries, and by conscript labour she launches an attack on our labour conditions here. I say nothing more myself. I am quite
942
willing to base my opposition to export credits, and to ask your Lordships to oppose export credits, on the able speeches of the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for War and the present Secretary of State for the Colonies. I will not detain your Lordships much longer, but I would ask what does all this imply as far as Russia is concerned? It means that the National Government, including all the Conservative Ministers—of course if they did not agree they would not be in the Government—have definitely adopted the Socialist view-point on Russia. I will prove it. The Government rejoice in the presence of a Soviet Ambassador in this country. They are so pleased with this Ambassador that they sent a special representative of the Foreign Office to meet him last week at Victoria. What did the Conservative Administration of 1927 do? There was no question of meeting him. It sent him packing and gave him his passport without delay. Most unwillingly the Government have denounced the Socialist Commercial Agreement of 1930 and have done so under pressure from Canada. They are anxious to sign another commercial agreement with Russia. The Government of 1927 terminated a Trade Agreement. The present Government give further export credits and allow open propaganda against us in this country and all over the world and takes no action. That is following Socialist precedent. But the Socialist Foreign Secretary did at least negotiate with a view to some payment on account of the money owed to us whereas the present Government take no action at all.
Why not follow the dignified, statesmanlike and businesslike attitude of the United States? Allow private individuals to trade with the Soviet Government if they so wish. There is nothing to prevent them. It is not necessary to have your Trade Agreement to carry on trade. The little increase you may get as the result of export credits is no compensation for all the disadvantages pointed out by the Colonial Secretary. If the Government would only show some backbone I am sure they would have the overwhelming approval of the country. Wash out all these debts with Russia, treating her exactly as if she was the most friendly country in the world, which is obviously

943
absurd, or face up to the situation and deal with her as she was dealt with in 1927, plus the precedent of Ireland, and then you would get something back, I believe, for the hard pressed taxpayers of this country and the robbed and impoverished private individuals who have lost their all.
Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House no export credits should be provided for Russian trade, nor any further commercial agreement, temporary or otherwise, concluded between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Soviet Union, till that Union has taken some steps to liquidate its debts to the British Government and British nationals. — (Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before the Government deal with this Motion I venture to put forward one or two considerations. The noble Lord appeared to me to be somewhat confused. His reasoning was a little hard to follow and he dealt with a considerable number of matters not contained in the Motion. He dealt with disturbances in Hyde Park, with the breaking off of diplomatic relations—"kicking out" I think was the term he used—with the Soviet Ambassador and with the vast sums spent on propaganda. But I trust the Government will deal mainly with the actual terms of the Motion.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am sorry to interrupt. I admit I did introduce one or two extraneous matters, but I thought I dealt at some length with export credits and the Trade Agreement.
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord admits that he dealt with extraneous matters and that was what I was saying. The question is peculiar because the noble Lord has linked up two separate questions, export credits and debts, and the only connection between them that I can see is that in either case a great deal of harm to this country might be done. With regard to export credits it is a fact that, whenever there has been an interference with them the result has been to lower Russian purchases in this country. If the noble Lord says he sees no evil results, for example, from denouncing the Agreement in 1927 I would ask him to look at
944
the purchases in this country, and I think he would then realise that the effect was a drop of £3,000,000 in the first year and of another £7,000,000 in the next year in those purchases. That may be nothing to the noble Lord, but I would remind him that every million less spent in this country means unemployment for another 8,000 persons. Has it occurred to the noble Lord that there is some connection between growing unemployment and the disturbances in Hyde Park? Has it occurred to him that unemployment is unpleasant for the unemployed and that interference with trade may bring a good deal of misery and unhappiness to countless British homes?
The noble Lord referred to the Arcos raid a few years ago. The immediate effect of that was a heavy drop in the export of British goods to Russia with an increase of the unemployed, in the neighbourhood probably of 60,000 or 70,000—with their families probably a quarter of a million of people. The noble Lord says something about our unfavourable trade balance. The trouble is that his figures are hopelessly out of date. It is true we had an unfavourable trade balance with Russia, but every time there is interference with exports by non-recognition, or by "kicking out" the Soviet Ambassador, or by lowering our export trade facilities, there is a definite increase in the amount of the unfavourable nature of our balance, which reached the maximum at the time of the Arcos raid. I do not think there is a great deal in this argument about unfavourable trade balance because of course there can never be an exact balance between one country and another; but I did not notice the noble Lord protesting against the unfavourable trade balance between this country and the United States, the unfavourable balance with the Argentine, with Canada—£15,000,000 a year—New Zealand, Germany or France. These unfavourable balances are not mentioned by him. All his anxiety is devoted to Russian trade.
If he had looked at the most recent figures he would have seen that the unfavourable balance has in the first six months of this year been turned into a favourable balance. Any one would think that the unfavourable balance was against us to this day, but that is not the case. British exports to Russia in

945
the first six months of this year increased by 31 per cent., and we are now in the position of an even balance. In the same six months American exports to Russia decreased by 86 per cent. as a result of the American failure to give credits and recognition. The fact is the noble Lord has not been given a good brief. The credits given by other countries to Russia are far higher than the credits given by this country. Germany is giving credits up to fifty-four months. Italy is giving credits for four and a-half years. The United States credits are given by private firms, and not by the Government, and these firms give credit amounting in many cases to four years and more. And I would remind the noble Lord in that connection that some at least of the German credits are financed by patriotic British banks, who give money to Germany in order that Germany may give credit to Russia and so get orders which Russia otherwise would place in this country. Then we have this kind of argument cropping up, and we find as a result of failure to give credits that in the first six months of this year orders amounting to £6,000,000, actually offered here, were cut down by half because credits were not available.
Where did those orders go? £1,000,000 of them, for machine tools, went mostly to the United States, and £2,000,000 for iron and steel went to Germany, giving employment to American or German workers and causing unemployment in this country. Yet that is the sort of policy to which the noble Lord is asking the Government to assent. Let me remind him that industrialists do not take this point of view. The Federation of British industries, in an interview a few days ago, dealt with this matter and complained of the failure to give additional credits. Mr. Greenwood, the manager of the insurance department of the Federation, said:
"A great number of British manufacturers depend to a great extent, if not mainly, on the Russian market for the sale of their products, and unless that market is fostered, many of the firms who look to Russian orders to keep them alive until the present conditions improve will be forced to close."
Does the noble Lord differ from the Federation of British Industries, or does he know more about British industry than the Federation?
The Federation goes on to say:
946
"We are constantly being told by firms in this industry (engineering) that the Soviet Government is now practically their sole market, and that unless they can accept the orders offered to them from that source they will have to dismiss their employees and close, with the result that when ultimately other markets arise we shall have ceased to manufacture … and the orders will go to other countries."
British manufacturers, Mr. Greenwood says, look in vain to the Government Export Credits Guarantee Department to assist them in discounting the bills at a rate that is not prohibitive. "Therefore," he adds, "we seem to be in the unhappy position of seeing this business slip through our fingers and go to another country where the required credit can be obtained." This is the sort of result to which the noble Lord is asking this House to give its assent—more unemployment by losing these orders, which will go to other countries. Many Manchester firms have been communicating with the Government and with the Press in the same direction. It is impossible to quote them all, but as an example Messrs. Craven Brothers said they had orders offered to them which would keep them busy until the end of 1934 if only they could get the necessary credits. They then go on to say:
"The contracts (with Russia) we are now completing were entered into in September, 1931, as a result of the extension of the export credits scheme. … These contracts were to the value of £423,000 and have enabled us to keep seven or eight hundred additional workpeople employed during the past year. But this work is now drawing to an end … unless we can secure these new contracts after November we shall only be employing three to four hundred men, mainly for the home market."
So that is the sort of policy to which the noble Lord is asking this House to agree, and I hope very much that the Government will not look at that type of suggestion.
The noble Lord knows, surely, and it was stated by Lord Snowden, that many industries are dependent to the extent of something like 80 per cent. of their exports on Russian orders—not one piece of production but a considerable number of British productive enterprises. That fact was emphasised in a letter to the Press only about a week ago by Sir Alfred Herbert, who said:
"Many Russian orders destined for this country were diverted to foreign engineers during the suspension of the export insur-

947
ance scheme, and now that this insurance is again available a further obstacle to Russian business has been created."
Then he goes on to point out that the trade which can be given by Canada is only a fraction of that which can be secured from Russia. That is the point of view which is supported by a well-known backer of this Government, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, who has just come back from Russia, and who said in Edinburgh, only a few days ago," I am in favour of increasing trade with Russia as much as possible." I hope this advice will be followed. When I was visiting Russian factories a few weeks ago I came across many instances of United States and German machinery in use, and again and again the directors of those factories said: "We prefer British machinery and would like to have it, but we are not able to get the credits which would enable us to buy."
I am not going to pretend that the Export Credits Department is perfect, and I would like the Government to indicate whether they can improve that Department. I think the premiums charged are too high, especially to Russia, when there has not been a single default in payment by Russia, and Russia is the only country in which that is the case. It is a fact that our Export Credits Department is making high profits. I have not the figures, but it must amount to several million pounds of profit. That is very nice for the taxpayers, and reduces their taxes, but I think that these profits are too high and some of them might be put into lower premiums. Equally, I think, our term of eighteen months is far too short, when compared with the credits of fifty to sixty months given by other countries. I also think that the amount of the credits is far too small. Germany offer credits up to £70,000,000. And it is entirely wrong to say that there are £10,000,000 of credits outstanding. The actual amount outstanding, according to the most recent figures given by the Secretary to the Overseas Department in the House of Commons, is only £3,900,000. The effect of this policy is suggested by the Berlin Correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. He writes:
"No doubt Germany will gain in trade what England loses, unless the gain is shared by the United States, whose relations with Russia are steadily improving."
948
Then the noble Lord dealt with the debt question. He objected that he did not like the Russian Government saying that they did not recognise the debts contracted by the Czarist régime. I would remind him that large sums of money were owed in this country by the United States Government under the old Civil War "greenback" note issue. We do not hear anything about that. We do not hear anything about the debts unpaid by Italy and France—France who not only repudiated 80 per cent. of her debts by lowering the value of the franc, but was actually let off by a British Government £373,000,000 of her War Debts, costing the British taxpayers £18,000,000 a year. There is no mention of coercing France with the big stick to which the noble Lord refers. In the case of Italy the British Government let off that country £500,000,000, which means that the British taxpayer is paying £25,000,000 a year. The noble Lord does not mention the big stick for Italy. Why reserve it for Russia? The Russians have been perfectly fair in negotiating. They did negotiate at the Genoa Conference, and they pointed out that, as a set-off to the debts owed by them, they would require the consideration of the debts owed by us to Russia as the cost of our intervention in Russia—an intervention which is estimated to have cost the British taxpayer £250,000,000, meaning £12,500,000 a year now, for which we obtain absolutely nothing. Mr. Lloyd George, speaking in the House of Commons shortly after this, said that Britain had contributed more than all the other Powers put together in supporting the anti-revolutionary elements in Russia.
LORD LLOYD: Will the noble Lord forgive me? I am not quite clear. I think the noble Lord is suggesting, is he not? that the Russian Government is worthy of our trust and credit. If that is the case, perhaps he would just touch on the Lena Goldfields question.
LORD MARLEY: The interest of the noble Lord in the Lena Goldfields question is remarkable when we realise the fact that of the debt in connection with that 80 per cent. will go to America, and £600,000 to the Deutsche Bank in Germany.
LORD LLOYD: I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the repute

949
of the Russian Government. Are they fit to be trusted? I do not care whether it goes to America or to Germany.
LORD MARLEY: As long as this country is in friendly diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government the noble Lord has no right to make the suggestion that the Soviet Government are not to be trusted. That is definitely an unfriendly act, and should not be permitted in this or any other assembly.
LORD LLOYD: But have they, or have they not, refused to pay £13,000,000 which was awarded to the Lena Goldfields by an International Court?
LORD MARLEY: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the £13,000,000 is a grossly exaggerated sum, and that the Russian Government offered a lump sum payment—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: £1,000,000.
LORD MARLEY: —in settlement, which was refused by the bondholders. Now, the total invested in the Lena Goldfields was nothing like £13,000,000. The total sum invested was, as regards this country, £400,000, as regards the Deutsche Bank £600,000, and as regards the United States £3,000,000—a total of £4,000,000. There could be no possible justification for a swollen claim of £13,000,000 for a total investment of £4,000,000, only ten per cent. of which was invested by this country.
LORD LLOYD: The Court awarded it.
LORD MARLEY: This intervention, which the noble Lord so conveniently forgets, let me remind him, was enquired into by a British Government Committee, the Emmott Committee, who in their Report said:
"We doubt whether so much human misery as has existed in Russia during the last three years (1918–20) has ever been the lot of any people within so short a time in the history of the modern world.…We are prepared to admit that the intervention was a contributory factor in causing this misery."
What compensation can we offer to a country for misery referred to in those terms? The actual damages have been estimated at £4,000,000,000, and if the Russians pressed a counter-claim against any British claim, however large, the balance might very well be in their
950
favour. It was interesting that a group of people which went out to Russia to enquire into this question in 1920 made a similar report. They said they were profoundly impressed by the effects of the intervention policy which was at the root of the worst evils which were afflicting Russia, and which caused the loss of thousands of lives by infectious disease. That group included a member of your Lordships' House, a keen supporter of the present Government, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, and also a very well known Peeress, Viscountess Snowden. Their report is, I think, well worthy of your Lordships' study as some indication of the amount of suffering inflicted by the intervention in Russia which the noble Lord forgets.
What is the effect of the proposals contained in his Motion? First of all, the stopping of the credits would lower the exports from this country, and therefore cause more unemployment and more suffering. His proposal to force Russia to pay her debts indicates that he has no memory of what is universally admitted to be the effect of War Debt payments between countries since the War—namely, that they cause far more harm than good, being the source of unemployment, suffering and misery. The effect would be an increase of exports from Russia, and therefore what the noble Lord might reasonably term dumping. In fact, the noble Lord's suggestion is an attempt to collect the bad debts of the rich at the expense of the standard of life of the poor. We, and not Russia, would suffer. Russia can turn to other countries for the goods that we want to export and that she requires, and we should be the sufferers. I hope that the Government in replying will give consideration to the possibility of more and better credits. I should like to see the cancellation of the War Debts, I should like to see these other claims and counterclaims written off, as was offered by Russia.
LORD LLOYD: What about private debts? Will you cancel them?
LORD MARLEY: As regards private debts, the Russians have always been prepared to discuss any question of hardship. Finally, I want to suggest that a very interesting proposal was put forward by a noble Lord who made his

951
maiden speech last week, Lord Revelstoke, who suggested that there should be a long-term industrial loan to Russia. He said that, instead of antagonising Russia by hard words we should consider helping our trade by a long-term industrial loan; and the Spectator, dealing with that, called it
"a wise and timely appeal for the abandonment of personal and political prejudice in the approach to the problems of relations with Russia."
I am afraid that the noble Lord has a good deal of personal and political prejudice, which is indicated in the unfortunate proposal which he has put before your Lordships' House, and for which I hope the Government will have no consideration whatever.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend who moved this Resolution has spoken with great force this afternoon, and has put his case with great clearness, as he always does. If he will allow me to say so, I think he travelled a little outside the terms of his Resolution, but of course he is perfectly entitled to do so. In this House a very great latitude is allowed to your Lordships and I make no complaint about that. But I am sure the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I do not enter into some of the matters which he raised. My business this afternoon, I take it, is to explain the attitude of His Majesty's Government and to inform him that if we cannot accept this Resolution, as we cannot, it is not, I can assure him and your Lordships, out of any undue tenderness for the Soviet Government—I will refer to that again later—but solely because we do not consider that the object which he and the Government have in view would be advanced in the slightest degree by the course which he proposes.
May I assure him at once that, as regards his reference to the debate raised by my noble friend on the Cross Benches six months ago, I am not going to give such an excuse for non-action, if he likes, or not sufficient action, as was given by the noble Lord, the late Lord Privy Seal, on that occasion. The question of the action which it is possible for the Government to take with a view to securing the payment of debts due to His Majesty's Government and to British subjects has been debated in this House on many occasions, as your Lordships
952
are aware. It will probably be within the recollection of your Lordships that the question of the extension to Russia of credits or loans has been put forward by the Soviet Government as a necessary preliminary to any settlement of Russian indebtedness to this country. But I would make this quite clear, that, as noble Lords may be aware, this view has never been concurred in by the British Government. They have refused to consider questions as being so intimately connected. On the 27th of January last my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs addressed a Note to the Soviet Government in which he stated:
"The principle that debt settlement must be associated with arrangements for a credit or a loan"—
is one—
"which His Majesty's Government have refused to accept in the past and they do not propose to alter their policy in the present circumstances."
Here may I assure my noble friend who raised this question, who seemed to think that His Majesty's Government, along with all other Governments—I suppose including the Government in which he was himself such a distinguished ornament—were lukewarm in this matter—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: No; we sent them all away; we sent them back.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The noble Lord did include all Governments. However, let me get on. I can assure the House that the problem of past debts is one which continues to engage the very anxious consideration of the Government, and they will take any opportunity which may come their way to secure a settlement of this very difficult and most unfortunate problem. His Majesty's Government have held that the question of debts and the question of current trade and of such credits as may be necessary to enable that trade to be carried on are questions which must be considered separately on their merits.
With regard to export credits I think there is still, if I may say so with all due respect, a slight misapprehension on the subject. The fact is that the export credits guarantee scheme exists solely for the encouragement of British export trade. It is not, as I rather think my noble friend suggested—I may be wrong—that money under this scheme is advanced to Russia. That is not so.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: No; I expressly said the opposite.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg his pardon. I thought he said that. It is my mistake. It is true that the Russians too may benefit incidentally from the operation of the scheme, but that is not, in the view of His Majesty's Government, an adequate reason for withholding facilities which have been of very real help to our manufacturers, more particularly in the heavy engineering and other industries which have suffered most acutely from the trade depression. The export credits guarantee scheme applies not only to exports to Russia but to exports to all countries. Indeed, up to August, 1929, Russia was the only market which was excluded from the scope of the scheme. All that was then done was to extend to firms exporting to Russia facilities which exporters to other countries had already enjoyed for some years and still enjoy.
I would remind your Lordships that the scheme is confined to goods made in this country and sold on credit, the exporter being able to obtain from the Department a guarantee that a proportion (not exceeding 75 per cent.) of the sum due to him from his foreign customer will be duly paid. With this guarantee he is able to obtain whatever accommodation he may require from his bankers to enable him to accept orders which he might otherwise be unable to execute. The Statutes governing the scheme require that, before any guarantee is given, an Advisory Committee, appointed by the Board of Trade for this purpose, shall be consulted. This Committee consists of eminent bankers and business men and in practice no guarantee is given except on their recommendation. Nor is this a question of subsidising trade with Russia, since a premium, to which my noble friend opposite, Lord Marley, referred, which varies according to the degree of risk involved, is charged for, every guarantee given.
Here may I interpose one observation upon the speech which was made by Lord Marley? He said that he thought that the premiums were too high and he asked me what the profits of the Export Credits Department amounted to in the year. I am very sorry, but I did not come armed with that particular information and I am afraid that I cannot give it; but as
954
regards the premium being too high, no doubt that question will be considered by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Now I should like to give you a few figures showing that the trade of this country with Russia has increased during the last five years owing to this export credits scheme. Of course, if the trade has increased naturally it means that more employment has been given. In 1928 the value of the United Kingdom goods exported to Russia had fallen to £2,700,000. In 1929 it was £3,700,000. In 1930, after the scheme had been extended to Russia, it increased to £6,800,000, and in 1931 to £7,300,000, and the first nine months of 1932 show an increase of more than £2,000,000 over the corresponding period in 1931. It may be suggested that the United States has done a very much larger export trade with Soviet Russia without any Form of Government guarantee. It is true that in 1930 and 1931 the United States did a large export trade, 114,000,000 dollars and 106,000,000 dollars respectively; but this was to a large extent due to the fact that Russia then required quantities of goods, such as tractors, which we were unable to supply. The latest figures which have been given to me show that the United States exports to Soviet Russia for the first seven months of this present year represent little more than ten per cent. of the corresponding figure for a year ago, 1931.
Referring to our own trade it is an important point to note that the increase has taken place in the industries which have suffered most from the trade depression—namely, steel tubes and sheets, machine tools, electrical machinery, cranes, presses, oil, gas and steam engines, excavating and mining machinery, dredgers and so forth. Exports of machinery to Russia in 1931 accounted for nearly 14 per cent. of the total value of exports of machinery to all destinations, and machine tools are almost entirely dependent on the Russian trade, which represents about 80 per cent. Of the whole export of these tools. I have stated these figures in order to try to prove that any interference with this exports credits scheme would have, as we think, an unfortunate effect on our figures of unemployment. I repeat, and I come again to the point, that I hope it, will not be considered that our attitude is due to any undue tenderness to

955
Russia, either on the part of the individual who addresses you or on the part of His Majesty's Government. Many a time in the last two years we have been chaffed by noble Lords opposite—the noble Lord who leads the Opposition (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) and the noble Lord, Lord Marley—about our attitude to Russia.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I have not.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I remember very well the noble Lord who leads the Opposition saying he hardly dare mention Russia in this House because of the effect on noble Lords on this side. I plead guilty to that. Speaking for myself, if I may for a moment, I regard with the utmost loathing the present régime in Russia. Speaking entirely for myself, it is to my mind the negation of three things by which I set most store —individuality, home life, and not only Christianity but all kinds of religion. I have no doubt that feeling is largely shared by noble Lords, at any rate on this side of the House. At the same time I cannot see that by taking the course suggested by my noble friend you would do any good in the direction in which he is anxious to move: the recovery of these debts or increasing the volume of employment in this country.
What is the great problem which faces not only His Majesty's Government but every member in this House and in another place, the problem that is with us day and night and week-in and week-out? It is the problem of unemployment. It is a most terrible problem, one which I think transcends in importance all the other problems which face this Government, and I sometimes think, to my noble friend the Secretary of State for War (Viscount Hailsham), who sits on this Bench, and to the Cabinet who are directly responsible, this problem must seem at times almost insoluble. What are we to do to combat this terrible problem? I suppose we can do small things personally by which we may increase in some little degree the numbers in employment but it is very little that we can do personally. Most of the work towards this end must be done no doubt by His Majesty's Government. They have already brought forward certain
956
measures to alleviate the problem. These measures will be added to next week when, as we hope, the Ottawa Agreements Bill comes before your Lordships' House, shortly to become law. There is one thing which the Government need not and will not do, and that is by any deliberate action—and this would be deliberate action—increase, if they can help it, by a single man the numbers put out of employment in this country. It is because we feel that the proposal of my noble friend will increase unemployment without in any way benefiting those whom he wishes to help that the Government cannot support this Motion; and, with all due respect, I would appeal to my noble friend to withdraw it.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I was very much more interested in the first portion of my noble friend's reply than in the second portion. As he knows, we are familiar with some of the conditions for the grant of export credits, but I was interested in what he said about the attitude of the Government towards the Russian debt. I had been under the impression that the Government with all the numerous and heavy problems lying upon them had been a little forgetful of this particular question, but I am glad to be reassured by being told that the Government are taking the question of Russian debts into their most earnest consideration. How satisfactory a statement is that? I confess I have heard it made on various occasions when it has not always necessarily been followed by very active or very decisive action, but I understand in this case the noble Lord means us to put a different construction on what he said.
I should have been more glad if he had been able to give us some indication of the particular line or course of action which the Government are going to take in order to get some of these debts recognised or paid, but, if I am thankful for small mercies, I am rather glad to see that my noble friend does not take the view of the noble Lord opposite. The view of the noble Lord opposite was clear. He said in effect: "Russia owes us nothing, because, although Russia owes us so many million pounds, it has a counterclaim which is far greater." I notice in this curious world in which we are now living that it is the regular method of debtors to say, "Oh yes, we

957
may owe you something, but our counterclaim is far larger than your claim, and therefore the whole thing is washed out." It is really a great thing to have historical imagination and historical knowledge, because it is quite easy to bring in some fact from the past which seems to upset the strongest and most settled arrangement, and to show that what you think is the firmest of debts is not a debt due to you at all.
The noble Lord opposite takes another point, and it is this, that it is a great misfortune to have your debts repaid to you, that it is positively dangerous to the country that receives payment of its debts. I think that throws a new light on the subject altogether. He tells us that if Russia were to repay these debts to us it would be a misfortune to this country, and that instead of their being apparently our enemy and our defaulting debtor, they are really our benevolent friends, because they refuse to inflict upon us the damage which they would inflict upon us if they paid us back any portion of the debt they owe us.
LORD MARLEY: Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to say that we on this side of the House believe it would be for the benefit or the whole world if we cancelled all War Debts and international debts of this kind.
EARL PEEL: That is rather a larger matter. I should be less opposed to the view of the noble Lord if I thought that all debts all over the world were to be cancelled, provided I discovered first of all that what I owed was so large that it would be advantageous to this country to have all debts cancelled. I should like to say one word, if I may, on this question of export credits. I do not doubt that the work is done extremely well. I may say that a relative of my own is one of the Committee, and that assures me that the work is extremely well done. I am not questioning it on that ground. I was already persuaded that, subject to the instructions given, the work was extremely well done. What I do want to criticise is the whole system of export credits as being a rather clumsy way of doing things which you could do by simpler methods. I am not going into the ethical question of whether or not I should trade with a country of whose Government and methods I disapproved. I am avoiding a difficult
958
disquisition of that kind. I am assuming with the noble Lord that, subject of course to ordinary security that you will be paid, you should do a certain amount of trade with Russia, and I note —I believe it is true—that there has been in our dealing with Russia on this export credits basis no default. I do not, give immense credit to Russia for that, because, having such a bad record as a debtor already, they know that if they did default in any of these transactions their credit would be entirely gone.
May I remind your Lordships of the position? It is admitted—and it was bought out well by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, who has given us the figurus—that they have sold to us very much more than we have sold to them; therefore they have large credits in this country. These credits are lodged in the banks in this country. The suggestion I am going to make is based upon the fact that the Russian Government are themselves responsible for all sales and all purchases. In the case of trade with other countries that is not so. You have different Sellers and different buyers. But in Russia you are dealing with one entity. It seems to me that having these large credits in this country it is rather absurd not to make a little more businesslike arrangement.
As we all know these exports are guaranteed by the British Government—guaranteed, that is to say, to the extent of the cost price. The profit has to be recovered or not, as the case may be, by the man who trades. If you were to make some such arrangement as this with Russia, if you were to say: "Well, if you want to trade with us give us rather greater security, give us something in the nature of a charge on the accumulating credits that you have got in this country"; if that were done—as I believe it could be done easily as a matter of arrangement—you would have far greater security. The trader in this country, when exporting to Russia, would know that the British Government would be able to hand over to him as soon as he put the goods on board ship, not a guarantee but the full amount of the money he had risked. From the point of view of Russia what would be the advantage? Surely it would be to the advantage of Russia to enter into some such transaction, because she would be able to do more trade. If this were done then

959
this cumbersome system of export credits could be entirely done away with. That is the suggestion I make.
I do not take quite such a gloomy view as that of my noble friend that any suggestion made to the Government by any unofficial member is always entirely disregarded. I trust that there may be some exceptions to that. I think it is quite possible to bring about an arrangement of the kind I suggest which I believe would largely increase trade, which would certainly give more security. I think it would be contemplated probably as a good arrangement by the Soviet Government themselves because if the Soviet Government want, as I suppose they do want, to buy or sell more goods from or to this country, that is one way of doing it. I am not myself against doing business with Russia, but I want to do it, if it can be done, in the simplest and best way, and I believe that the way I have suggested would be a far more direct way than the present method. If it could be arranged—as I believe it could be arranged—all the elaborate and cumbrous system of export credits which has been so freely criticised could be done away with.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, one remarkable fact which has emerged from this debate is that my noble friend Lord Templemore, speaking for the Government, did not venture to deny or to controvert in any degree whatsoever the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, as to the intolerable confiscations, robberies and hardships inflicted by the Soviet Government upon British subjects. He did not deny that and could not deny that. Indeed the noble Lord very properly stated that he had a loathing for the Soviet Government in many respects which he particularised. These facts are admitted and could not be and were not denied by the Government, but the lamentable fact is that they do not suggest one single method by which any of these injustices and confiscations and robberies could be got over or mended. They have no proposals whatsoever. That looks to me very like a practical condonation by His Majesty's Government of this system of—
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I be allowed to interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? I do not think I could have been expected to give any outline of the method by which the debts were to be
960
recovered. I do not think that really comes within the limits of this debate.
LORD DANESFORT: I venture to differ with all respect from my noble friend, because the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, called attention to these desperate evils and put forward a proposal of his own for dealing with them. If the Government did not dispute these appalling evils but objected to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Mount Temple, surely it would have been right in the interest of justice to British subjects to indicate at any rate what they hoped to do in order to remove those evils.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I again interrupt my noble friend? That might have been quite correct if this had been a question to the Government, but this is a proposed Resolution of the House. I naturally did not know what the noble Lord was going to say, and I really could not obtain such information at such short notice.
LORD DANESFORT: I do not desire to blame my noble friend Lord Templemore in the least. He was only following the answers given by Ministers to questions in the House of Commons in the course of the last six months or more. When attention was drawn in the House of Commons by very pointed questions to what is going on in Russia, the answer of Ministers was: "We cannot do anything. We are very sorry but we have no remedy to offer." I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Templemore was not in a position to give a better answer today in this House than that given by Ministers in the House of Commons, but the fact remains that up to now the Government admit these evils though they do not venture to suggest any remedy whatsoever. Suppose one private individual had been captured in Soviet Russia and robbed. Would there not promptly have been diplomatic representations from this country to Soviet Russia, and in all probability would there not have been some remedy found for that gross injustice to a British subject? But when you find thousands of British subjects robbed to the extent, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mount Temple, of something like £300,000,000, when that is stated and not disputed, the Government say, "Oh ! we can do nothing." Their only justification is that we are

961
carrying on trade with Russia which is profitable to us.
I think they ought to do a little more. I think they ought not merely to say: "We are carrying on this trade which we think is good." I think they ought to be able to say what they propose to do to put an end to this appalling state of things. Can it be doubted that we have ample means of bringing pressure to bear upon Russia to force her to do something in this case? Has any pressure of that sort been exerted, or has it even been threatened? I know of none. I dare say there may be objections to the proposal of my noble friend, but until I hear some better means of bringing pressure to bear upon Russia to put an end to a state of things which is an injustice to thousands of British subjects, a state of things intolerable in itself and a disgrace to civilised government, I for my part certainly support the proposal of my noble friend.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I think it hardly possible for me after the interesting debate we have had to say anything of very great value. We have listened to very important speeches and speaking for myself I am very glad that the noble Lord has brought forward this Motion. It deals with a subject which it, is right to consider and debate, but. I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press his Motion to a Division. We had a debate of a similar character as recently as April 20. But this question which the noble Lord has raised is viewed from what I might call a narrower standpoint. I understand that in the Motion he links the question of the continuance of trade with Russia with recognition and repayment of Russian debts. We are well aware that it is very difficult for any of us to approach this question with an unprejudiced mind. If I may venture to put it in this way, there are two schools of thought. There is one school of thought, which views with condemnation the appalling state of affairs which has existed in Russia for a great many years and feels that by reason of that we should adopt an attitude of resistance towards Russia, of not having any dealings with that country—in fact, of creating a breach between the two
962
countries. There is another school of thought that is forgetful of all the tragedies that have occurred in Russia and believes it sees something which shows that Russia will develop and eventually become a self-respecting nation capable of occupying an honourable place among the nations of the world.
This afternoon I shall endeavour to take a line somewhat between those differing opinions. I want to take what I might call the practical line. The noble Lord who moved the Motion was loud in his condemnation. He spoke of the big stick. He did not quite define what the big stick was to be, but he felt that the Government were taking altogether a very supine line and not realising that in their hands lay their power of punishing Russia for their misdeeds.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Not punishing Russia for their misdeeds, but recovering for the British nation the money owing it, which is rather a different thing.
THE MARQUESS of LONDONDERRY: If I have misinterpreted what the noble Lord said I am quite willing to withdraw. But he did use that threatening phrase "the big stick" and the final meaning of the big stick is a declaration of war. I am quite sure there is no one in this country who wishes, if our protestations fall on deaf ears, that we should go further and declare war. When we are discussing disarmament at Geneva anything which could lead us to contemplate so awful a catastrophe as a recrudescence of war would fill us with alarm and with a hope that we should be able to find some other means of getting over our difficulties. Lord Peel came forward with some valuable suggestions, and as he is one who is in a very good position to give advice, I can assure him I shall take notice of what he has said and shall represent his words in the proper quarter.
What is the object of the Motion before your Lordships' House? Is it to secure recovery of the debts owing by Russian creditors or is it to prevent trade with Russia altogether? If the line along which the noble Lord wishes to proceed is to secure the recovery of debts, I venture to say that the methods he suggests must be a failure. The noble Lord will agree, to begin with, that the world is suffering from high tariffs and that there

963
is great difficulty in nations paying by means of goods. Further, we know that Russia has no gold and it is impossible for her to pay in gold. I think we shall find that Russia would not be forced into acknowledgement of her debts, or even induced to make an effort, by the policy the noble Lord has recommended. Moreover, we should lose the advantage which trading with Russia gives with regard to unemployment. My noble friend who spoke for the Government mentioned unemployment and so did the noble Lord opposite. Whilst the noble Lord who moved this Resolution has not the responsibility which he had heretofore and can speak from a position of greater liberty, those of us who are concerned with these matters have to consider the policies of this country as a whole. I am sure the noble Lord fully realises the great problem we are endeavouring to solve and that the burden which perhaps rests more heavily on our shoulders than anything else is unemployment. We should be wrong if we turned from any suggestion or any method, consistent with the habits in which this country has been accustomed to live, by which we could employ any section of our people. If we took the line the noble Lord suggests, and cut off trade with Russia, as I think he said, if Russia does not pay something on account, we should find not only that we should add to unemployment in this country, but we should also receive universal condemnation from the trades affected by the loss of Russian trade.
Whilst the relations which we have now with Russia are condemned by many people, and whilst it cannot be said that we look on Russian policy with any favour in this country, one does feel that a breach of relations with that country at this time would lead to further difficulties in Europe than exist at present, and I feel that on the eve of the World Economic Conference we should do everything we can to help deliberations aimed at making the streams of commerce flow into great rivers throughout all the countries of the world. If we began by cutting ourselves adrift from the commercial relations we have with Russia at present I think we should do real disservice to that cause of economic reconstruction which we all have at heart. If we consider the other point—that of preventing trade with Russia
964
altogether—I venture to ask whether we should help ourselves or help those Russians with whom we may and do sympathise in the cruel and remorseless tyranny under which they are now living. I say in that way we do not help them at all and we certainly do not give any assistance to the traders of this country.
The reason why this Motion has been moved is that the Government have given notice of the termination of the present Trade Agreement with Russia. This Agreement has been found unsatisfactory because it does nothing to prevent dumping in this country and nothing which will secure anything like what we understand as a fair balance of trade. At the same time the Government have notified that they are willing to negotiate a new agreement which will provide against dumping, as the Ottawa Agreement demands. The noble Lord took the view that we had been—I think he used the word—"subservient" to the demands which were made by the Dominions in this respect, but I think the noble Lord will understand that it was done in the interests of trade, and that if we were negotiating arrangements with Canada it would be foolish to have arrangements with Russia which would neutralise all the advantages which one hoped would accrue from the arrangements which have come out of the Ottawa Conference.
I do not think there is much that I need add to what has already been said. The noble Lord produced some figures in moving his Resolution, and the noble Lord opposite countered those figures, and I am bound to say that the figures which the noble Lord opposite put before your Lordships were more correct. He spoke very fully about the trade of this country, about which I have also ventured to say a few words. I am one of those who, in reference to the criticisms which the noble Lord made upon the Russian Government's policy, feel in agreement with him. We have passed through a very difficult time, and we have found that the Russian Government have given us no assistance at all. In fact, in the past we have attributed much of the troubles of this country to the machinations of the Russian Government, but I am not sure that we are not inclined to attribute our own difficulties a great deal too much to Russian propaganda, and to the activities which Russian Governments

965
have continued in this country. I think it is wise that we should consider this problem as a whole, and realise that it is of the highest importance that as time goes on Russia should take its place among the nations of the world. I have already referred to the World Economic Conference, and one must feel that no successful result can come from that Conference if a whole population of 180,000,000 people is left out.
It is for these reasons that I would urge the noble Lord not to press his Resolution. He need have no fear, I think, that His Majesty's Government are weakening, if I may use that expression, in their attitude towards the wholly reprehensible attitude which we think the Russian Government have taken during the last few years. We have always condemned those outrages in Russia. On the other hand I am wondering how far it is right and proper for other countries to interfere in the internal affairs of a foreign country. I am not sure, when we look back over history, that any of those interventions have ever had the results which were hoped for them. I believe that one can say that all interventions into the affairs of foreign countries, in which they have been endeavouring to work out their own destinies after they have had to pass through the throes of a revolution—I am not sure that foreign interventions can ever be said to have done any good.
We can feel sympathy with those multitudes of people in Russia who are oppressed by the régime now in existence. We have ever believed that such a régime cannot continue with benefit to the civilised world; but that they will have to go through with it, and will have to pass through perhaps even more difficult times than they have passed through in the past, is one of those facts which we have got to accept. I do feel this, however, that of the two attitudes which are being advocated, one to cut off our relations with Russia and the other to continue relations, far the better effect will be had upon the outcome of Russian development if we maintain the relations which we maintain at the present moment, instead of cutting them adrift and giving an example to the world of making outcasts of a whole nation. I do not think I need add anything more to the debate. The case has been put by the noble Lord,
966
Lord Mount Temple, and I hope he will not press his Resolution, because I think my noble friend Lord Templemore has given the answer which the Resolution demanded.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, in rising to ask leave to withdraw my Motion may I in the first place thank both Lord Templemore and the noble Marquess for their very courteous and clear answers to my Motion. I am not in the least convinced—it does not follow that their answers are not very well grounded—and if I might detain your Lordships for only two minutes, might I deal with one statement made by the noble Marquess, which I do not think was quite justified by my remarks. He said, in effect, that my method of economic pressure would fail unless we went to war. That is the last thing which I am suggesting—that we should go to war with Russia. What I am suggesting is that what is sauce for the Irish goose would be sauce for the Russian gander; that if the Government think that by dealing on a fiscal basis with default in Ireland they are going to be successful, then why should they not apply the same method to Russia. Ireland has to come to this country to find a market; Russia, on the other hand, has to come to this country to find cash; and I am quite sure that if you applied the same methods to Russia as you are applying to Ireland you would meet with a large measure of success. No one suggests that because you have a tariff war with the Free State you are going to war with them. It is quite true that my suggestion would entail a certain amount of extra unemployment in this country. You have to face that, but you have equally to face an extra amount of unemployment in this country by reason of your tariff war with the Free State. I cannot see why, if it is good to treat Ireland as you have, it should not be equally good to try and treat Russia in the same way. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Message from the Commons, to acquaint the House that they have made the following Order relative to the London

967
Passenger Transport Bill: "That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be further suspended till the next Session of Parliament."
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Arising out of the Message that has just been read, may I ask whether some Motion will come before this House?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am
968
much obliged to the noble Lord, and I think probably it would be convenient to put down a Motion in similar terms in your Lordships' House, and to take it on Thursday after the agricultural debate, which I think is the only Order of the Day for that afternoon.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.