Sitting of 2 May 1933

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
London County Council (Money) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TRADE AGREEMENTS AND NEGOTIATIONS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if any decisions have been made by the Canadian Tariff Board with regard to the commodities which it has been asked by His Majesty's Government to review under Article 13 of the Trade Agreement?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir.
    Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Tariff Commission has yet met?
    Mr. THOMAS: I understand that they are sitting this month.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of the trade negotiations with the Argentine, Denmark, France, and Sweden?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Commercial Agreement with the Argentine Republic was signed yesterday and copies
    648
    will be available to-day. The agreement with Denmark was laid before the House last week, but has not yet been ratified. No trade negotiations are in progress between the United Kingdom and France. The text of a, Commercial Agreement with Sweden is now being prepared with a view to signature at an early date.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that adequate time will be given for discussion of these agreements before they are ratified?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The usual procedure will be followed. Perhaps it would be better to address a question on the matter either to the Lord President of the Council or to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that the House gets a full opportunity of discussing these agreements before they are ratified?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that the House will take full advantage of the opportunities which are offered.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is his intention to follow the example of the Indian Government to denounce the present trade agreements between this country and Japan which prevent this country from dealing with the dumping of Japanese goods in this country, the Crown Colonies, and the Dominions?
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the action taken with regard to Japanese competition by India, if he will take steps to put similar arrangements into force in this country with a view to overcoming the serious effect on trade and employment?
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade what precise recommendations have been made to him on behalf of the Japanese Government regarding Japanese trade competition in various parts of the British Empire; whether any negotiations have taken place; and what is the present position in regard to this matter?
    Mr. HAMILTON KERRasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can

    649
    now state if the Government have come to any decision with regard to Japanese competition in the cotton trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have recently discussed with the Japanese Ambassador in London the question of Japanese competition with United Kingdom goods in the various markets of the world, and have asked him to put certain suggestions before his Government. I am not in a position to give the House any details today, but I hope to be able to make a statement in the near future.
    Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration, in the course of these negotiations, the various trade interests which are deeply concerned in this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, I shall certainly keep them in mind.
    Mr. HANNON: Is my right hon. Friend aware, in relation to this question and the answer he has given, that the Japanese Government have appointed an industrial commission to proceed, with practically all countries in the world, with the development of their trade, it may be in competition with the products of this country?
    Mr. CHORLTON: Is this really the best way to protect the interests in this country which have been so seriously assailed by Japanese competition? We want the trade back.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I find it difficult to answer in detail the questions which have been put to me, but I am quite alive to the facts which have been stated by my hon. Friends, and we are doing the best we can to make arrangements which will safeguard us against future risks.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether during the trade negotiations with Norway and Sweden any proposals have been discussed for a reduction in the duty on paper imported from those countries; and whether the British paper industry or other bodies have been taken into consultation?
    Sir JOSEPH NALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that, during the course of the discussions with Swedish interests for the purpose of reducing the
    650
    duty on paper imported into this country, British manufacturers who have been afforded protection after inquiry by the Import Duties Advisory Committee shall be consulted before any decision is made?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As regards the proposed agreements with Norway and Sweden, I am unable at present to add to the statement I made on the 12th April. On the general question of consultation with particular interests in the United Kingdom in connection with these negotiations, I would refer the hon. Members to the statement which I made in Debate last night.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: In view of the fact that the trade organisations concerned asked permission to take a deputation to the Overseas Trade Department, and that the Department agreed to receive them, but that afterwards the arrangement was cancelled, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can say why that happened?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that that question would have to be put to my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department.
    Mr. HANNON: Arising out of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday and the answer he has given now, may I ask if he will take into consideration the propriety of consulting the trades concerned before he comes to a conclusion in relation to these agreements with foreign countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think I can add in detail to anything that I said yesterday.
    Sir J. NALL: In view of the fact that the Paper Duty was put on quite recently as the result of an inquiry, may I ask if the Import Duties Advisory Committee investigated what is the lowest limit to which it is advisable to reduce it?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Mr. LINDSAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the special claims of the importers of paper which is used as a raw material for the paper bag-making industry?
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the

    651
    greatest secrecy was observed in this country regarding these duties, they were well known in Scandinavia; and is it not very undignified for British traders that they should have to learn from Scandinavian sources what such duties are to be?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We tried to arrange, as far as we could, for simultaneous publication. If that has been infringed, it certainly has not been our fault.
    Colonel RUGGLES-BRISEasked the President of the Board of Trade the respective value of the trade between the United Kingdom and Denmark for the three years to the latest convenient date, and the estimate of the trade figures for a full year after the new Trade Agreement has come into force?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The desired information for each of the years 1930 to 1932 is given in the issue for January last of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." I cannot say what the corresponding figures will be next year, but in the view of the Government the agreement will lead to substantial advantages for our export trade.
    Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: In view of the fact that it is well known that Denmark has enjoyed a very favourable balance of trade with this country for many years, may I ask why it is that the right hon. Gentleman finds it necessary, in regard to bacon, to renounce the weapon of the tariff for a period of three years?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot debate the conditions of the AngloDanish Agreement at Question Time.
    Sir J. NALLasked the President of the Board of Trade why the Trade Agreement with Denmark, Cmd. 4298, does not provide for a British quota of Denmark's imports of cotton textile products; whether any request for such a quota was made by the British Government; and whether he is aware that opinion in Denmark anticipated the inclusion of cotton goods in any quota scheme?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No request has been made by His Majesty's Government for the imposition of quota restrictions by
    652
    the Danish Government on imports of cotton goods or any other class of goods into Denmark, as such restrictions would in the view of His Majesty's Government be disadvantageous to United Kingdom interests. The circumstances of the cotton textile trade are such that arrangements between trade organisations for increased purchases in this country, which it was possible to secure in certain other cases, could not in this case be made applicable.
    Sir J. NALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a statement showing the rates of Customs duties proposed to be varied in the new trade agreements with other countries, together with the present rates of Customs duties?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will arrange for the publication in the next issue of the Board of Trade Journal of statements showing the rates of Customs duties to be varied in accordance with the Commercial Agreement with Denmark and the Exchange of Notes with Germany. Changes in duties arising out of agreements with other countries will be published in the same way.
    Mr. ATTLEEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the progress being made in the negotiations now taking place between the British Government and the Government of Finland, with a view to making a trade agreement between the two countries?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Detailed negotiations will be opened between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Finland on 23rd May. Statements outlining the respective points of view of the two Governments have already been exchanged.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when negotiating with Finland, the extremely low wages paid in that country, particularly to textile workers?
    Mr. ATTLEEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the low wages paid to Finnish seamen which adversely affect the interest of the British mercantile marine; and will he take this fact into consideration when negotiating a trade agreement with the representatives of Finland?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the wages paid in the Finnish mercantile marine are, in general, lower than the wages paid in the British mercantile marine. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer I gave on 14th February to the hon. Member for Poplar South (Mr. D. Adams).
    Mr. ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of those negotions to support the seamen workers in getting universally good wages?
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the fact that Members of the Opposition, while continually opposing the principle of Protection, are willing to take advantage of the benefits obtained by the application of the system?
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if there will be any supplementary agreement with Germany with respect to cotton yarn?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question of the German duties on United Kingdom cotton yarns will be raised with the German Government when general negotiations are opened with them on trade matters.
    Mr. CHORLTON: May I conclude that something is to be done to improve conditions in the cotton trade, either by quota or otherwise?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It will be certainly one of the topics we shall have to deal with and devote particular attention to in the general negotiations.
    Mr. MARTIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when such general negotiations with Germany will begin?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is very difficult to say at present, but I think not until after the conclusion of the World Economic Conference.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if there will be any supplementary agreement with Denmark with respect to cotton textile goods?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No supplementary agreement with Denmark with respect to cotton textile goods has been negotiated or is at present in contemplation.
    Mr. CHORLTON: Is it possible that some agreement may be made within a reasonable time?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not able to answer that question.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the value of toys and articles of a type suitable for use on Christmas trees used solely for decorative purposes imported into this country from Germany in the years 1930, 1931 and 1932; and if he can state to what extent similar articles can now be produced in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total declared value of the imports of toys and games consigned from Germany and classed as not of rubber or leather and not electrical, and excluding billiard and bagatelle tables and accessories was £2,212,000, £1,869,000 and £775,000 during the years 1930, 1931 and 1932 respectively. The value of such goods produced in this country in 1930 was about £1,750,000. No later information is available. Similar information is not available in respect of articles of a type suitable for use on Christmas trees used solely for decorative purposes, as such particulars are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, but it appears from the German trade returns that the exports of such articles to this country were valued at about £39,000 in 1930, £45,000 in 1931 and £25,000 in 1932.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the steady decrease in the figures relating to imports which the right hon. Gentleman has just given, why does he intervene to disturb the tariff which is protecting these industries?

    RUSSIA (BRITISH MACHINE TOOLS).
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of British machine tools exported to Russia in 1931 and 1932?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total declared value of the domestic exports from the United Kingdom of machine tools for metal-working and parts thereof (except cutting parts when exported separately) consigned to the Soviet Union was £1,434,000 in 1931 and £2,553,000 in 1932. Particulars of the exports of machine tools other than those for metal-working

    655
    are not available, as they are not separately recorded in the trade returns.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what proportion of that trade was financed under the export credits scheme?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not do so without notice.
    Mr. WISE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures for the first three months of this year for the same exports?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that I should be able to obtain them if my hon. Friend would give me notice.

    FRANCE (NEEDLES).
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW - MILNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British manufacturers of needles are being called upon to furnish the French authorities with particulars of quantities and weights of the needles exported to France in 1932, as a preliminary to permits being granted for importations under the present regulations; that the difficulty of procuring these particulars for each consignee and the payment of a fee of 10 francs for each permit is making the business of needle manufacturers with France almost impossible; and whether he will take action, as other countries are doing, to bring this state of affairs to an end?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that French importers, who are required to furnish the authorities with particulars in order to obtain permits, have in some instances approached British manufacturers for information, and it has been represented that the requirements of the licensing system are such as to discourage the importers from placing small orders. The restrictions are connected with the withdrawal of certain tariff concessions accorded to Germany. I am informed that the Bill to increase the duties is likely to be introduced directly the French Parliament meets this month; and, having regard especially to the temporary nature of the restrictions, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by protesting to the French Government.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the object of the French Government
    656
    in putting restrictions on British trade for the purpose of hitting Germany, when the only result of those restrictions is to destroy British trade? Ostensibly they are actually against Germany, but could not the right hon. Gentleman make a protest, in view of the fact that what is happening is that British trade is being destroyed while Germany is being done no harm?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My information is that we are being treated exactly like other people in this matter, and that the object which the French Government have in mind is to safeguard themselves against forestalling.

    FRANCE (IMPORTS).
    Captain HERBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the complete embargo placed on the importation of clothing into France on the ground that not only the quota for the first three months of the year is exhausted, but also the quota intended for the ensuing three months; whether he is aware that this exhaustion has been caused by imports of ready-made clothing and underwear and that clothing made to order, which can only be sent as ordered, has been shut out, to the injury of the trade concerned; and whether he will endeavour to obtain from the French authorities the grant of a special quota for clothing made to order?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the position as stated in the first part of the question, and my attention has been drawn to the suggestion that this is due to imports of ready-made clothing, though statistical data to confirm this are lacking. Representations regarding the closing down of the quota are being made to the French authorities. The question of possible ways of meeting the requirements of the made-to-order trade is under consideration by the Board of Trade in consultation with those concerned.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In view of the numerous discriminations by the French against our trade, will the right hon. Gentleman use the powers conferred on him by the Import Duties Act, having regard to the fact that there is no mostfavoured-nation Treaty between this country and France?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We shall use those powers as far as they are likely to be of advantage to our own trade.
    Captain NORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the French tariff changes increasing duties on certain British goods affect such goods irrespective of the countries of origin, or whether they have any specialised significance as far as this country is concerned?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will let me know what tariff changes he has in mind, I will make the necessary inquiries.

    ENAMELLED HOLLOW-WARE.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade in quantity and value, the imports of wrought enamelled hollow-ware for domestic purposes into Great Britain and Northern Ireland from Germany in the years 1930, 1931, and 1932; and to what extent similar articles can now be produced in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total imports of iron and steel wrought enamelled hollow-ware consigned from Germany, practically the whole of which was for domestic purposes, amounted to 3,129 tons in 1930, 2,396 tons in 1931, and 471 tons in 1932, of a declared value of £162,000, £111,000 and £26,000, respectively. The production in 1930 of wrought enamelled hollow-ware for domestic purposes was about 16,400 tons. No later information is available.
    Mr. HANNON: In view of the figures the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, is he not impressed with the extent to which the protection has helped the industry? Why interfere with the tariff? May I respectfully ask him whether all these facts were taken into consideration before the Anglo-German agreement was completed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MARTIN: Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the heavy oils which are such a necessary part of this industry?

    HOME MARKET.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if any estimate has been prepared for any recent year
    658
    of the total turnover of the home trade of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and if figures are available showing the proportion of British production absorbed in the home market and the ratio between this volume of consumption and the total export of home-manufactured British goods?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the desired information is not available in respect of any recent year. From the information obtained in connection with the Third Census of Production, it has been estimated that the value at the places of production of the goods of all kinds produced in the United Kingdom in 1924 was about £2,655,000,000, and that approximately 73 per cent, of the total output was absorbed in the home market and 27 per cent. exported.
    Mr. HANNON: Does not this answer indicate that the Government ought to pay more attention to the home market than they are giving to our export trade, and is it not most important that the home market should be protected as far as possible?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not literally true that we live by our exports?

    IMPORT DUTIES.
    Mr. LYONSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of applications for duties and/or drawbacks before the Import Duties Advisory Board on which no decision has yet been given; and the period covered by such applications?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given on 15th December last to a similar question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn).
    Mr. CAPORN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the chairman of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and see if it is possible to find some means by which the hearing of these applications may be expedited?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been in communication on previous occasions with the chairman of the Committee on the matter, and he assures me that there is no unnecessary delay and that these applications do receive the constant attention of the Committee.
    Mr. LYONS: May I ask whether the chairman of the Committee really feels that the Committee is at the present time very much overworked?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the chairman of the Committee does feel that.
    Mr. EVERARD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the decisions that have been reached by the Advisory Committee are being held up by the Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

    CARTRIDGE CASES (IMPORT).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that foreign cartridge cases are being imported into this country bearing English trade marks and not accompanied by an indication of origin, in accordance with Rule 6 of Circular No. 33 as issued by the Board of Trade and the Commissioners of Customs; and whether he will take steps to enforce compliance with that rule?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I have no reason to think that the requirements of the law in respect of the marking of imported cartridge cases have not been complied with.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Has the attention of the Department been drawn to this matter, and has an inquiry been made?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No evidence has been placed before the Department which would in the least conflict with the answer that I have given. If my hon. and gallant Friend likes to lay any evidence before me, I should be most happy to look into it.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Member had any communication from Grimsby on this matter?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    HELM ORDERS.
    Mr. RANKINasked the President of the Board of Trade what action is
    660
    being taken to induce those Governments who have not already ratified the new system of helm orders to adopt this policy as soon as possible in the interests of maritime safety?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The ratification of the International Safety Convention of 1929 entails the use of the direct system of helm orders. The Convention has now been ratified by 11 of the 18 signatory countries, and His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that it will not be ratified by the remainder. Copies of the Safety Convention have been sent to the maritime countries not represented at the conference in order that they may consider the question of accession; six such countries have acceded up to the present. The direct system of helm orders is, of course, in operation in some of the countries which are not parties to the Safety Convention.
    Mr. RANKINasked the President of the Board of Trade if any specific representations are being made to the Panama Canal authorities to simplify the system of helm orders now adopted in respect of vessels passing through the canal; whether he is aware that, apparently, three systems of helm orders can be used in the canal; and whether this conflict of methods of navigation is approved by the chief maritime Powers using the canal?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A notice issued recently by the Panama Canal authorities recommends the use of the terms "right" and "left" for helm orders in the direct sense described in Article 41 of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, but if the master of a ship desires to use another system the pilot is to comply with his wishes. This arrangement is satisfactory to His Majesty's Government, but I have no information as to the views of other Governments.

    STEAMSHIP "BARRA HEAD."
    Vice-Admiral CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the master of the steamship "Barra Head,' which recently ran ashore on Carr Rocks, Fifeshire, held any certificate of competency?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.
    Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department take steps to stop ships going to sea without certificated officers on board?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Our experience in the past goes to show that in the coasting trade there has been no risk, either to property or to life, owing to commanders not being subject to general Board of Trade regulations.
    Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: Is it not a fact that a coastal ship with a non-certificated officer in command is not only a danger to herself but to other ships and passengers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have known some most admirable commanders who have not had a certificate at all.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CLOTHING ALLOWANCE (LIMBER GUNNERS).
    Mr. HICKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what grounds the clothing allowance of 2s. 3d. per month hitherto granted to limber gunners at Larkhill, Salisbury Plain, has been reduced from 1st April to lst. 7d. per month; and seeing that an unestablished messenger in London receives the uniform of jacket, vest and two pairs of trousers per annum, valued at over £2, why a provincial employé, who is expected to provide himself with a similar suit of clothes, only receives for the purpose 19s. per annum?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The reduction in the clothing allowance of limber gunners from 2s. 3d. a month to 1s. 7d. a month is accounted for entirely by price-reductions in the articles of clothing which the allowance is intended to cover. The conditions of service of the limber gunners are not the same as those of messengers in offices in London, who receive replacement of clothing in kind annually.
    Mr. HICKS: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the disparity between £2 in one instance and 19s. in the other is too severe?
    Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.
    Major HARVEY: Is there any difference between the clothing allowances of
    662
    limber gunners stationed at Larkhill and those stationed in other parts of the country?
    Mr. COOPER: Not as far as I am aware.

    CONDENSED MILK SUPPLY.
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what was the value of foreign condensed milk purchased for the Army units in Great Britain during 1932; and what steps are being taken to ensure that as far as possible future supplies of such condensed milk are manufactured in this country?
    Mr. COOPER: Milk for the home forces, is purchased regimentally from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes out of a daily cash allowance. During 1932 the value of the foreign condensed milk purchased by that corporation to meet the occasional demands of customers was less than 2 per cent. of the whole. It is the general policy of the corporation to confine its purchases to products of the United Kingdom or other parts of the Empire wherever possible.

  SCOTLAND.

    STATE-AIDED HOUSES (TENANTS).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the response made by the different local authorities in Scotland to the circular letter of the Department of Health on the desirability of ensuring that State-aided houses built for the working class should he occupied by tenants for whom these buildings were intended?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): In response to the circular referred to, 130 local authorities have intimated definite decisions to the Department of Health for Scotland. Of these, 24 local authorities have decided to issue to all or to selected tenants, including future tenants, a questionnaire preparatory to the institution of an income test; 50 have decided upon an income test for future tenants only; 35 have decided against an income test on the ground that with few exceptions tenants are of the working class; 16 have decided to take no action; and five have intimated that an income test is already in operation.
    Mr. BURNETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the larger councils have acted upon this circular?
    Mr. SKELTON: Not without notice.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Cannot the hon. Gentleman devise some way of seeing that State-aided houses are made use of by giving preference to families, as he must know that so many of the State-aided houses go to people with no families, while the real object should be to get people with large families into State-aided houses?
    Mr. SKELTON: As far as any income test is concerned, it will depend on the number in the family.

    STOCK BREEDING.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether bulls and rams for stock-breeding purposes are usually bought by the Scottish Department of Agriculture at public auctions; whether any are bought privately; if so, what proportion have been bought privately during the last five years; and what are the numbers so bought, the prices paid, and from whom they were bought?
    Mr. SKELTON: The Department have found it advantageous for various reasons to obtain a number of bulls and a considerable proportion of rams by private purchase, but they prefer on general grounds to buy in the open market where possible, and they anticipate that in future they will be able to have recourse to public sales to a greater extent than in the past. It has not been possible, in the time available, to extract the detailed information asked for in the third and fourth parts of the question, but I hope to be able to supply these particulars to the hon. Member within a few days.

    DEATHS (ANAESTHETICS).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of deaths which have taken place in Glasgow during the past 12 months of patients while under chloroform; and whether, when a death occurs in such circumstances, the death certificate contains any statement that the death occurred while the patient was under an anaesthetic?
    Mr. SKELTON: The number of deaths registered in Glasgow during 1932 which were certified to have occurred during or following the administration of chloroform is 15. There were also 24 deaths where the anaesthetic was chloroform and ether, and one death where the anaesthetic was ethyl chloride, chloroform and ether. In reply to the second part of the question, certifying medical practitioners are advised that when a death is attributed to the effects of an anaesthetic a statement as to the anaesthetic used should be made on the certificate.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does the Secretary of State for Scotland see that that particular advice is followed? Is it not the fact that in some cases where death is registered as taking place under an anaesthetic, the only statement in the death certificate is, that death took place from heart failure?
    Mr. SKELTON: I should like more specific notice of that question. As far as I know, the answer is in the negative, but I should like to inquire into the specific question, and discuss it with my hon. Friend.

    LINEN TRADE (WAGE RATES).
    Mr. ALBERT RUSSELLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the position of the Scottish linen manufacturers in whose industry the wage rates are regulated by a trade board and who, in tendering for Government contracts, are handicapped in competing with Northern Irish manufacturers whose wage rates, not being so regulated, are considerably lower; and whether, in order to remedy this, he will take steps to insure that in respect of Government contracts for flax, hemp, and linen, it will in future be a condition that the wage rates payable shall be not less than those fixed by the Flax and Hemp Trade Board of Great Britain?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I have been asked to reply. I am aware that wages in the Irish linen trade are not regulated by a trade board, but I have no evidence that the wages generally are lower than the trade board rates in Scotland or that the effect on contracts has been as suggested.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: If it can be proved that the rates are a great deal

    665
    lower, will some consideration be given to the trade in Scotland?
    Mr. HUDSON: That is a matter primarily for the trade board concerned in Scotland.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Will it not be taken into account in connection with Government contracts? If through the trade board in Scotland the wages are considerably higher than the wages in Ireland, will some arrangement be made by the Government for dealing with these contracts?
    Mr. HUDSON: A Government contract contains the fair wages clause. The fair wage in Scotland is the trade board wage, and presumably the fair wage clause in Northern Ireland is equally applicable, and the fair wage is the wage arrived at through the negotiating machinery.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: What happens if there is no wage regulation machinery?
    Mr. HUDSON: I understand there was a trade board originally in Northern Ireland, and that it was withdrawn on the setting-up of wage negotiating machinery in Northern Ireland.

    HOUSING CONDITIONS, STANDRURN.
    Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. KIRKWOOD)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in the village of Standburn, Stirlingshire, there are almost 900 people living in houses without sanitary and drainage facilities, and that these houses were condemned in a Report to the public health committee of the county council by the sanitary inspector; and whether he will order an inquiry into the housing conditions of Standburn with a view to having the existing houses replaced by dwellings erected under the 1930 Act at rents within the reach of working-class families?
    Mr. SKELTON: I am aware of the drainage difficulties existing at Stand-burn. The local authority have had under consideration the establishment of a public sanitary drainage scheme, but the difficulty of disposing of the effluent was found to make this impracticable. The sanitary requirements of the village are served by dry closets and the Department of Health is raising with the local authority the question of whether the supply of these is adequate. With
    666
    regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that none of the houses at present occupied has been condemned by the sanitary inspector as unfit for human habitation. In these circumstances I do not think that there is any present necessity for a public inquiry.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour (1) the amount that would be required to increase the children's allowance under unemployment benefit from 2s. to 4s.;
    (2) the amount that would be required to restore the 10 per cent, cut in unemployment benefit made in 1931?
    Mr. R. S. HUDSON: It is estimated that with the present number of claimants for insurance benefit, the cost of increasing the benefit allowance for child dependants from 2s. to 4s. would be about £3,300,000 per annum and the cost of restoring the rates of benefit generally to those in force before October, 1931, would be about £5,500,000 per annum. These figures do not include transitional payments.
    Mr. MANDER: Does not my hon. Friend think that some of the Budget surplus might appropriately have been used for such a purpose as this?

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS, WEST RIDING.
    Mr. LUNN (for Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMS)asked the Minister of Health the grounds of his objection to the regulations which were adopted by the West Riding (Yorks) County Council on 15th March, for the administration of transition payments; why no members of the public assistance committee were invited to be present at the interview in London on 22nd March; and what instructions or recommendations were made to the clerk to the county council on 22nd March?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): The regulations referred to by the hon. Member are regulations relating to the administration of out-door relief which appeared likely to lead to the payment of out-relief and of transi-

    667
    tional payment in circumstances in which the payment would not be lawful. My right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member a copy of a letter addressed to the council on 8th March last in this connection. The interview of officials was arranged in the ordinary course. No instructions or recommendations were given to the clerk of the council at that interview. An officer representing my Department and the Ministry of Labour is to interview the public assistance committee of the council in the near future.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it a fact that the hon. Member's Department urged the desirability of a standard of destitution being instituted in the regulations, and that they objected to the public assistance committee taking into account a rent allowance of eight shillings a week for transitional cases?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir. That is not a fair interpretation of what passed. If the hon. Member will read the letter, he will see what the exact facts were.

    COAL INDUSTRY (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
    Mr. MAINWARINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to bring about among the South Wales coalowners a voluntary system of insurance whereby their liabilities in respect to injured workmen shall in all eventualities be secured; and if he is in a, position to state the extent to which the principle has been adopted?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 6th April. As regards South Wales, it was reported last October that the articles of association of the Mutual Indemnity Association had been altered so as to enable the association to give cover for all classes of accidents, and that 90 per cent. of the collieries had made satisfactory arrangements. I have asked the Mining Association to obtain an up-to-date report showing progress made in South Wales and elsewhere.
    Mr. MAINWARING: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take some steps to compel the 10 per cent. to fall into line with the remainder?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that it is too early to come to a decision of that kind.

    GERMANY (TREATY OF VERSAILLES).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the result of the consideration that has been given to the question of breaches of the Treaty of Versailles by Germany; and whether it is proposed to take any diplomatic, economic, or military action in the matter in association with other Powers?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The question of whether the enrolment of Nazi Storm Troops in the German police is in conformity with the provisions of Article 162 of the Treaty of Versailles is still under consideration.
    Mr. MANDER: Can any right hon. Friend say whether it is to be made clear to the German Government, that no unilateral breaches of the Treaty of Versailles will in any circumstances be permitted?
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will my right hon. Friend undertake not to take any military action on the part of this country without consulting the peace organisation with which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is so closely associated?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will consider both questions.

    POOR LAW RELIEF (NECESSITOUS SCHOOL CHILDREN).
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that during the past two years the cost to local authorities of providing meals and clothing for necessitous school children has greatly increased; and whether he will take this factor into account in the proposed readjustment of financial relations between the Exchequer and local authorities?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The expenditure of local education authorities for elementary education on the provision of meals for school children ranks for a grant of 50 per cent. from the Board of Education. The formula on which Exchequer grants under the Local Government Act, 1929, have been and will be calculated, takes account of factors of a general character which, in combination, denote the needs of each area and its ability to pay. It cannot be varied according' to the expenditure of individual authorities on particular services.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the amount of the increase during the past two years?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some areas the expenditure under this head has more than doubled in the last two years?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: At least half of this expenditure is rate-borne expenditure, and as the amount of new money for a grant period relates to rate-borne expenditure, the new money relates to such provision of meals.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the Department of the hon. Gentleman been responsible for sending out a circular to the effect that when administering transitional benefit, they shall take all the expenses into consideration?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I do not think that that matter arises out of the question.

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES COMMITTEES.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now able to make any statement as to the action which he proposes to take on the recommendations in paragraph 10 of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government have given very careful consideration to these recommendations, which would, as the Select Committee themselves recognise, involve a major departure from present constitutional
    670
    practice. It is understood that a close working arrangement already exists between the Public Accounts Committee and the Estimates Committee, through the presence on the former Committee of the Chairman and at least two members of the latter body. It is desirable that these arrangements should be made permanent, but no further provision for co-operation between the two Committees seems to be called for. Nor does there appear to be any advantage in enlarging the Estimates Committee. This,Committee could not deal with major matters of policy without encroaching on the powers of the Executive Government. Where, however, questions arise in which administration and policy overlap, with administration as the predominant factor, the Estimates Committee has considered it to be within its terms of reference to make recommendations and the Government see no objection to such an interpretation, so long as the Committee continues as hitherto to interpret its terms of reference with discretion.
    Careful consideration has been given to the recommendation that there should be attached to the Estimates Committee officers from the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General or alternatively a newly formed body of technical officers. The Government appreciate the object of the recommendation, but have come to the conclusion that the better way would be to develop the existing arrangements by placing at the disposal of the Chairman several additional officers of the Treasury who will be selected to act as assistants to the Treasury official already attached to the Committee. The proposal that opportunities should be provided for discussion by this House of the Reports of this Committee and of the Public Accounts Committee is one with which the Government is in sympathy, but the manner in which time could be provided for the purpose will need to be further and more fully considered in conjunction with the other recommendations of the Committee on Procedure.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (GRANT).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason for the reduction of £404,000, from

    671
    £6,443,000 to £6,039,000, in the estimated grant to the National Health Insurance Scheme, 1933–34, as set forth in Table C, page 9, of the Financial Statement, 1933–34?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 58 of the Memorandum on the Civil Estimates for 1933 by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, where he will find a full explanation of the reduction to which he refers.
    Mr. DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Actuary was consulted before that decision was reached?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must have notice of that question.

    HEALTH SERVICES (GRANT).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain the reduction of £13,000, from £162,000 to £149,000, in the estimated grant on account of Health Services, as set forth in Table B, page 9, of the Financial Statement, 1933–34?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The item in the tables to which the hon. Member refers is made up of 10 small grants for certain health services not absorbed in the general block grants under the Local Government Act, 1929. Some of these grants show increases and some decreases. The main reason for the net decrease of £13,000 is a decrease of £12,490 in the capital grants for sanatoria on the practical completion in 1932 of the liquidation of commitments which remained to be met when the main scheme of capital grants ceased in 1921.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY.
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Customs and Excise Horticultural Society are using officially-franked Government envelopes and notepaper provided for departmental use for the transaction of their private business with tradesmen; and whether this is done with official sanction?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation in my hon. and gallant Friend's question.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Does the hon. Member know that I have the foundation in my own hands now in the correspondence which has been going on between the Federated Ironmongers' Association and a Government body? May I bring it to his notice?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly. If the Federated Ironmongers' Association write to the Chairman of Customs and Excise they receive an official reply and I cannot understand why it should be made a matter of complaint.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: When the official reply is on a matter of private business is it right to use the premises and the paper of the Department to the detriment of the interests of traders?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It was not on private business. The Ironmongers' Federation wrote to the chairman in his official capacity and complained of a certain matter, and the chairman in the exercise of his official duty replied officially in a franked envelope. That was quite normal.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the Customs and Excise Horticultural Society a public or a private enterprise?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That has nothing to do with the matter. A complaint was made that this society was existing and carrying on its activities in a certain way, and complaint was made to the Chairman of the Customs authorities. He was approached officially, and therefore be replied in the same capacity. He could not reply in his private capacity.
    Brigadier-General BROWN: Is the hon. Member aware that the first part of this correspondence arose from the society writing to the ironmongers?

    EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA).
    Lord APSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he intends to take any action, and, if so, of what nature, with regard to the report of the Royal Commission which has investigated the grievances of British settlers in Victoria?
    Mr. THOMAS: As I stated on 11th April, the report has not yet reached me. Until I have received it and have had an opportunity of considering it, I am not in a position to make any further statement on the subject.

    CRIME, LONDON.
    Captain McEWEN (for Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD)asked the Home Secretary how many crimes were committed within the Metropolitan Police area during 1932; and how this figure compares with that for the preceding year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Owing to a change in the compilation of the figures in question, it is difficult to give comparable figures in answer to a question, but an important and comprehensive review of the state of crime in the Metropolitan Police district will be published in the annual report of the Commissioner of Police for 1932, which will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon about 6 o'clock.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed him to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill [Lords]); Mr. Cape to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Hotels and Restaurants Bill); and Mr. Entwistle to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Trout (Scotland) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled. "An Act to confer further powers on the Wimbledon Corporation in relation to their electricity and cemetery undertakings, lands, street trading, and other matters; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the borough; and for other purposes." [Wimbledon Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Rugby Cor-
674
poration in relation to their water and electricity undertakings, lands, and other matters; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the borough; to make provision with regard to the audit of the accounts of the Corporation and their officers; and for other purposes." [Rugby Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of certain new works for improving the harbour of Dover; to alter the constitution of the Dover Harbour Board; to empower the Dover Harbour Board to conduct a, cross-channel service of vessels; and for other purposes." [Dover Harbour Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Worksop with regard to their electricity and water undertakings; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, local government, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes." [Worksop Corporation Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the provisions of the Colne and Marsden Local Board Act, 1881, with respect to compensation water; to confer further powers upon the Corporation of Collie with respect to their water, gas, and electricity undertakings; to enact further provisions with respect to the transport services in the borough and elsewhere; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes." [Collie Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Wimbledon Corporation Bill [Lords],
Rugby Corporation Bill [Lords],
Dover Harbour Bill [Lords],
Worksop Corporation Bill [Lords],
Collie Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ST. HELENS CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill [Lords]: Mr. Grimston, Captain Gunston, Mr. Hacking, Mr. Hicks, Mr. McKeag, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Stevenson, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, and Captain Watt.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Trout (Scotland) Bill): Captain Balfour, Sir Charles Barrie. Mr. Daggar, Mr. Dickie, Mr. James Duncan, Mr. Kimball, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, Mr. Alexander Ramsay, Colonel Thomas Sinclair, and Mr. Charles Williams.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  REPORT [25TH APRIL].
  Resolutions reported.

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    BEER (EXCISE DUTY AND DRAWBACK).
    1. "That on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three—
    (a) except in the case of beer of any of the descriptions specified in sub-section (1) of section two of the Finance Act of 1930, there shall be charged in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, in lieu of the duty of excise now chargeable thereon, the following duty of excise:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    For every 36 gallons of worts of a specific gravity of 1,027 degrees or less

    1

    4

    0

    For every 36 gallons of worts of a specific gravity exceeding 1,027 degrees—

    For the first 1,027 degrees

    1

    4

    0

    For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

    2

    0

    and so in proportion for any less number of gallons;
    (b) no rebate shall be allowed from the duty of excise chargeable under this Resolution;
    (c) there shall, on the exportation from the United Kingdom as merchandise, or for use as ships' stores, of beer other than beer of the descriptions specified in the said sub-section, be allowed (in addition to any excise drawback allowable so long as a Customs duty is chargeable on hops but in lieu of any other excise drawback) an excise drawback at the following rates:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    For every 36 gallons of beer of an original gravity of 1,027 degrees or less

    1

    4

    2

    For every 36 gallons of beer of an original gravity exceeding 1,027 degrees—

    For the first 1,027 degrees

    1

    4

    2

    For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

    2

    0

    and so in proportion for any less number of gallons:
    Provided that—

    (i) as respects beer of an original gravity of less than 1,027 degrees the amount of drawback allowable shall not exceed by more than two pence for every thirty-six gallons the amount of duty which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have been paid; and

    (ii) the amendments as to drawback effected by this Resolution shall not have effect in relation to any beer as respects which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty was paid at the rates in force
    682
    before the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    BEER (CUSTOMS DUTY AND DRAWBACK).
    2. "That, on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three—
    (a) except in the case of beer of any of the descriptions specified in sub-section (1) of section two of the Finance Act, 1930, there shall be charged in respect of beer imported into the United Kingdom (in addition to any duty of Customs chargeable thereon so long as a duty of Customs is chargeable on hops but in lieu of any other duty of Customs) the following duty of Customs:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    For every 36 gallons where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a specific gravity of 1,027 degrees or less

    1

    4

    5

    For every 36 gallons where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a specific gravity exceeding 1,027 degrees—

    For the first 1,027 degrees

    1

    4

    5

    For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

    2

    0

    and so in proportion for any less number of gallons;
    (b) no rebate shall be allowed from the duty of customs chargeable under this Resolution;
    (c) there shall, on the exportation from the United Kingdom as merchandise, or for use as ships' stores, of beer other than beer of the descriptions specified in the said sub-section, be allowed (in addition to any customs drawback allowable so long as a customs duty is chargeable on hops but in lieu of any other customs drawback) a customs drawback at the following rates—

    £

    s.

    d.

    For every 36 gallons of an original gravity of 1,027 degrees or less

    1

    4

    2

    For every 36 gallons of an original gravity exceeding 1,027 degrees—

    For the first 1,027 degrees

    1

    4

    2

    For every additional degree in excess of 1,027 degrees

    0

    2

    0

    and so in proportion for any less number of gallons:
    Provided that—

    (i) as respects beer of an original gravity of less than 1,027 degrees, the amount of drawback allowable shall not exceed the amount of duty which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have been paid less three pence for every thirty-six gallons; and

    (ii) the amendments as to drawback effected by this Resolution shall not have

    683
    effect in relation to any beer as respects which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that duty was paid at the rates in force before the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    CONTINUATION OF DUTY ON HOPS, &C., AND AMENDMENT OF ADDITIONAL DUTY AND DRAWBACKS ON BEER.
    3. "That—

    (a) the duties of customs charged by section seven of the Finance Act, 1925, as amended by section four of the Finance Act, 1929, on hops, hop oil, and extracts, essences or other similar preparations made from hops shall continue to be charged until the end of the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven;

    (b) in lieu of the additional duty of customs chargeable on beer under subsection (2) of the said section seven as so amended, but in addition to any other duty of customs for the time being chargeable on beer, there shall, on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be charged (without any rebate) on beer imported into the United Kingdom a duty of customs of ten pence for every bulk barrel;

    (c) in lieu of the additional customs drawback payable under the said subsection, but in addition to any other customs drawback for the time being payable on beer, there shall, on the exportation from the United Kingdom as merchandise, or for use as ships' stores, of beer on which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that the additional customs duty chargeable under this Resolution has been paid, be allowed (without any deduction) a customs drawback of ten pence for every bulk barrel;

    (d) in lieu of the additional excise drawback payable under sub-section (3) of the said section seven as so amended, but in addition to any other excise drawback for the time being payable on beer, there shall, on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be allowed (without any deduction) on the exportation of beer from the United Kingdom as merchandise, or for use as ships' stores, an excise drawback of ten pence for every bulk barrel;

    (e) the additional duty and drawbacks charged and allowed by this Resolution in respect of beer shall continue to be charged and allowed so long as the duty of customs continued by this Resolution is charged on hops.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    BREWERS' LICENCE DUTY.
    4. "That, as respects the Excise duty chargeable under the First Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, on any licence to a brewer for sale granted on or after the first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty-three—

    (a) the rate chargeable for every fifty barrels, or fraction of fifty barrels, in excess of one hundred barrels brewed during the preceding year shall be reduced from twelve shillings to eight shillings; and

    (b) the brewer shall cease to be entitled to the option conferred by the said Schedule of having the duty charged by reference to standard barrels, and the duty shall be chargeable by reference to bulk barrels only."

    MATCHES (CUSTOMS).
    5. "That, in lieu of the Customs duties now chargeable on matches, there shall, on and after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, be charged the following duties, that is to say:

    Containers in which there are not more than 10 matches—

    s.

    d.

    For every 1,000 such containers

    6

    8

    Containers in which there are more than 10 matches, but not more than 20 matches—

    For every 1,000 such containers

    13

    4

    Containers in which there are more than 20 matches, but not more than 50 matches—

    For every 144 such containers

    4

    9

    In respect of every additional 25 matches, or part of 25 matches, over 50 in a container—

    For every 144 such containers an additional duty of

    2

    5

    and so in proportion for any less number of containers.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    MECHANICAL LIGHTERS (CUSTOMS).
    6. "That, as from the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three—

    (a) the rate of the duty of Customs chargeable under Section six of the Finance Act; 1928, on any mechanical lighter, and on any component part of a mechanical lighter, other than a flint, shall be increased to one shilling and sixpence;

    (b) paragraph (d) of Sub-section (3) of the said Section six, and any Regulations made thereunder providing for the receipt by licensed manufacturers of mechanical lighters in an incomplete state or of parts of mechanical lighters without payment of duty, shall cease to have effect as respects Customs duty.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    MECHANICAL LIGHTERS (EXCISE).
    7. "That, as from the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the rate of duty of Excise chargeable under Section six of the Finance Act, 1928, on every mechanical lighter manufactured in the United Kingdom which is complete, or which could be made complete by the addition of a flint, and on every mechanical lighter sent out in an incomplete state from the premises of a manufacturer of mechanical lighters, shall be increased to one shilling.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    REDUCTION OF REBATE ON HEAVY HYDROCARBON OILS.
    8. "That, as from six o'clock in the evening of the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the rate of the rebate to be allowed under Sub-section (3) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1928, as amended by any subsequent enactment, on the delivery for home consumption of hydrocarbon oils other than light oils, shall be reduced from eight pence per gallon to seven pence per gallon.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    EXCISE DUTY ON PETROLEUM OILS OTHER THAN LIGHT OILS.
    9. "That, in the case of all petroleum oils, other than light oils, which at six o'clock in the evening of the twenty-fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three—

    (a) are in any place in the United Kingdom other than a bonded warehouse or refinery or in any vessel carrying any such oil from one port or place in the United Kingdom to another; and

    (b) are in the ownership or possession of any person who holds a quantity thereof exceeding ten thousand gallons; an excise duty at the rate of one penny per gallon shall be payable on the quantity so held in excess of ten thousand gallons."

    BRITISH SPARKLING WINES (EXCISE).
    10. "That, as from the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the rate of the duty of excise now chargeable on sweets shall, in the case of sparkling sweets, be increased from one shilling and sixpence to seven shillings and sixpence for every gallon, and the said duty shall be chargeable on sweets sent out from the premises of any person who has rendered the sweets sparkling as well as on sweets sent out from the premises of a maker of sweets for sale:
    Provided that if, in the case of sweets which are sent out from the premises of a person who has rendered the sweets sparkling, it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that a duty of one shilling and sixpence per gallon has been paid, the duty chargeable
    686
    under this Resolution shall be reduced by the amount of the duty so paid.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    POWER OF TREASURY TO VARY DUTIES OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE ON SILK AND ARTIFICIAL SILK.
    11. "That the Treasury shall have power, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and after consultation with the Board of Trade, by order—

    (a) to repeal, or reduce the rate or amount of, all or any of the duties, or drawbacks of duties, of Customs or Excise now charged or allowed on silk or artificial silk or articles made wholly or in part of silk or artificial silk, and to amend or repeal all or any of the provisions of the enactments relating to any such duty or drawback;

    (b) to direct that a new duty of Customs shall be charged (whether in addition to or in substitution for any duty theretofore chargeable or otherwise) on silk or artificial silk of any class or description or on articles of any class or description made wholly or in part of silk or artificial silk."

    REPAYMENT OF DUTY UNDER SECTION THREE OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1925.
    12. "That, where the amount of the duty paid under Section three of the Finance Act, 1925, on any article imported on or after the twenty-sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, is repayable as provided by Sub-section (3) of Section thirteen of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, as applied for the purposes of the said Section three, the amount repayable shall be reduced by a sum equal to the amount of any duty which would have been chargeable on the article under the Imports Duties Act, 1932, if the first-mentioned duty had not been paid.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    VALUATION OF GOODS FOR PURPOSE OF ALL AD VALOREM DUTIES.
    13. "That, for the purpose of any enactment whereunder a duty of Customs is chargeable on goods by reference to the value thereof, the value of the goods shall be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Sections fifteen and sixteen of the Import Duties Act, 1932."

    SUBSTITUTION OF SPECIFIC DITTIES FOR GENERAL AD VALOREM DUTY.
    14. "That the Treasury shall have power, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, by order to direct from time to time, as respects goods of any class or description which are chargeable, or which it is apprehended will shortly become chargeable, with the general ad valorem duty, that a duty chargeable by reference

    687
    to weight or other measure of quantity at such rate as may be specified in the order shall be substituted for the general ad valorem duty, notwithstanding that the duty so substituted may be equivalent to a duty of more or less than 10 per cent. of the value of some of the goods falling within that class or description."

    METHOD OF ASCERTAINING WHETHER GOODS ARE EMPIRE PRODUCTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932, AND THE OTTAWA AGREEMENTS ACT, 1932.
    15. "That, for the purposes of the Import Duties Act, 1932, and the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, it is expedient to amend the provisions contained in Section six of, and the Third Schedule to, the first mentioned Act."

    APPLICATION OF SECTION FOURTEEN OF THE IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932, TO EMBROIDERED GOODS.
    16. "That—

    (a) where goods to which this Resolution applies are reimported into the United Kingdom after exportation therefrom, and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that they have been subjected abroad to a process of embroidery, but to no other process whereby their form or character is changed, the provisions of Section fourteen of the Import Duties Act, 1932, relating to goods which have been subjected to a process abroad, but of which the form and character has not been changed, shall apply to the goods, notwithstanding that the goods as reimported do not fall within the same class or description as that in which they fell in the state in which they were exported;

    (b) the goods to which this Resolution applies are goods made wholly or partly of cotton, wool (including alpaca, mohair, cashmere, llama, vicuna and camels' hair), hemp of any kind, flax or jute.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    MECHANICALLY-PROPELLED VEHICLES.
    17. "That—

    (a) as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, which imposes duties of excise in respect of mechanically-propelled vehicles, shall, as amended by any subsequent enactment, have effect as if the rates of duties set out in the First, Second and Third Tables annexed to this Resolution were respectively substituted for the rates set out in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Second Schedule to the said Act;

    (b) for the purpose of the said Tables—

    (i) the expression "hackney carriage" has the meaning assigned to it by Section four of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888;

    688

    (ii) the expression "goods vehicles" means vehicles (including tricycles weighing more than 8 cwt. unladen) constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, whether in the course of trade or otherwise;

    (iii) the expression "pneumatic tyres" means such tyres as are declared by regulations made under Section twelve of the Roads Act, 1920 (as amended by any subsequent enactment), to be pneumatic tyres;

    (iv) the expression "light oils" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section(3) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1928;

    (v) the expression "coal gas" means the inflammable gaseous product obtained by heating coal or coke with or without the addition of steam but with limitation of air, or such a product mixed with gaseous products derived from hydrocarbon oils as defined in Sub-section (9) of Section two of the Finance Act, 1928.

    TABLE I.

    HACENEY CARRIAGES.

    Description of vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    s.

    d.

    (a) Hackney carriages being tramcars

    15

    0

    (b) Hackney carriages (other than tramcars) which are propelled by steam or which are not constructed or adapted to use as fuel any fuel other than light oils:

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    Having a seating capacity for:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not more than 4 persons

    10

    0

    0

    10

    0

    0

    More than 4 but not more than 8 persons.

    12

    0

    0

    12

    0

    0

    More than 8 but not more than 14 persons.

    24

    0

    0

    30

    0

    0

    More than 14 but not more than 20 persons.

    36

    0

    0

    45

    0

    0

    More than 20 but not more than 26 persons.

    48

    0

    0

    60

    0

    0

    More than 26 but not more than 32 persons.

    57

    12

    0

    72

    0

    0

    More than 32 but not more than 40 persons.

    67

    4

    0

    84

    0

    0

    More than 40 but not more than 48 persons.

    76

    16

    0

    96

    0

    0

    More than 48 but not more than 56 persons.

    86

    8

    0

    108

    0

    0

    More than 56 but not more than 64 persons.

    96

    0

    0

    120

    0

    0

    More than 64 persons—

    For the first 64 persons.

    96

    0

    0

    120

    0

    0

    For each additional person in excess of 64.

    1

    4

    0

    1

    10

    0

    (c) Hackney carriages (other than tramcars) which are constructed or adapted to use coal gas as fuel:

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    Having a seating capacity for:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not more than 4 persons

    10

    0

    0

    10

    0

    0

    More than 4 but not more than 8 persons.

    12

    0

    0

    12

    0

    0

    More than 8 but not more than 14 persons.

    28

    0

    0

    35

    0

    0

    More than 14 but not more than 20 persons.

    40

    0

    0

    50

    0

    0

    More than 20 but not more than 26 persons.

    56

    0

    0

    70

    0

    0

    More than 26 but not more than 32 persons.

    72

    0

    0

    90

    0

    0

    More than 32 but not more than 40 persons.

    88

    0

    0

    110

    0

    0

    More than 40 but not more than 48 persons.

    104

    0

    0

    130

    0

    0

    More than 48 but not more than 56 persons.

    116

    0

    0

    145

    0

    0

    More than 56 but not more than 64 persons.

    128

    0

    0

    160

    0

    0

    More than 64 persons—

    For the first 64 persons.

    128

    0

    0

    160

    0

    0

    For each additional person in excess of 64.

    1

    12

    0

    2

    0

    0

    (d) Hackney carriages not chargeable with duty under the foregoing provisions of this Table:—

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    Having a seating capacity for:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not more than 4 persons

    10

    0

    0

    10

    0

    0

    More than 4 but not more than 8 persons.

    12

    0

    0

    12

    0

    0

    More than 8 but not more than 14 persons.

    32

    0

    0

    40

    0

    0

    More than 14 but not more than 20 persons.

    48

    0

    0

    60

    0

    0

    More than 20 but not more than 26 persons.

    68

    0

    0

    85

    0

    0

    More than 26 but not more than 32 persons.

    88

    0

    0

    110

    0

    0

    More than 32 but not more than 40 persons.

    108

    0

    0

    135

    0

    0

    More than 40 but not more than 48 persons.

    128

    0

    0

    160

    0

    0

    More than 48 but not more than 56 persons.

    148

    0

    0

    185

    0

    0

    More than 56 but not more than 64 persons.

    164

    0

    0

    205

    0

    0

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    More than 64 person—

    For the first 64 persons.

    164

    0

    0

    205

    0

    0

    For each additional person in excess of 64.

    2

    0

    0

    2

    10

    0

    For the purposes of this Table the number of persons mentioned does not include the driver of the vehicle, and the seating capacity of a vehicle shall be determined in accordance with provisions made by regulations under Section twelve of the Roads Act, 1920.

    TABLE II.

    AGRICULTURAL ENGINES, TRACTORS, &C.

    Description of vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    £

    s.

    d.

    (a) Locomotive ploughing engines, tractors, agricultural tractors, and other agricultural engines which are not used on roads for hauling any objects except their own necessary gear, threshing appliances, farming implements, or supplies of water or fuel required for the purposes of the vehicle or for agricultural purposes

    0

    5

    0

    (b) Vehicles designed, constructed, and used for the purpose of trench digging and other excavation work which are used on roads only for that purpose or for the purpose of proceeding to and from the place where they are to be used for that purpose, and when so proceeding carry or haul no load other than such as is necessary for their propulsion or equipment

    0

    5

    0

    (c) Mowing machines

    0

    5

    0

    (d) Tractors, agricultural tractors and agricultural engines (other than vehicles in respect of which a duty of five shillings is chargeable under the foregoing provisions of this Table) which are registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person engaged in agriculture, and are not used on roads for hauling any objects except the produce of, or articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land occupied by that person—

    Not exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen

    12

    0

    0

    Exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen but not exceeding 10 tons in weight unladen

    20

    0

    0

    Exceeding 10 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 10 tons

    20

    0

    0

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 10 tons

    2

    0

    0

    (e) Vehicles (other than vehicles in respect of which duty is chargeable under the foregoing provisions of this Table) which are constructed and used upon roads for haulage solely and not for the purpose of carrying or having superimposed upon them any load except such as is necessary for their propulsion or equipment—

    (i) Being vehicles registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person following the business of a travelling showman and used solely by him for the purposes of his business and for no other purpose—

    Not exceeding7¼ tons in weight unladen

    25

    0

    0

    Exceeding 7¼ tons in weight unladen but not exceeding 8 tons in weight unladen

    30

    0

    0

    Exceeding 8 tons in weight unladen but not exceeding 10 tons in weight unladen

    35

    0

    0

    Exceeding 10 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 10 tons

    35

    0

    0

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 10 tons

    5

    0

    0

    (ii) Other such vehicles—

    Not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen

    25

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen but not exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen

    40

    0

    0

    Exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen but not exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen.

    55

    0

    0

    Exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen but not exceeding 7¼ tons in weight unladen.

    70

    0

    0

    Exceeding 7¼ tons in weight unladen but not exceeding 8 tons in weight unladen.

    85

    0

    0

    Exceeding 8 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 8 tons

    85

    0

    0

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 8 tons

    15

    0

    0

    TABLE III.

    GOODS VEHICLES.

    (a) Goods vehicles registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and used on roads solely by that person for the purpose of the conveyance of the produce of, or of articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupies and for no other purpose:—

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 12s cwt. in weight unladen.

    10

    0

    0

    10

    0

    0

    Exceeding 12 cwts., but not exceeding 1 ton in weight unladen.

    11

    0

    0

    11

    0

    0

    Exceeding 1 ton, but not exceeding 1½ tons in weight unladen.

    12

    0

    0

    12

    0

    0

    Exceeding 1½ tons, but not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen.

    13

    0

    0

    13

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2 tons, but not exceeding 2½ tons in weight unladen.

    14

    0

    0

    18

    13

    4

    Exceeding 2½ tons, but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen.

    16

    0

    0

    21

    6

    8

    Exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 3 tons

    16

    0

    0

    21

    6

    8

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 3 tons.

    2

    0

    0

    2

    13

    4

    (b) Goods vehicles registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person following the business of a travelling showman, which are permanently fitted with a living van or some other special type of body or superstructure, forming part of the equipment of his show, and used solely by him for the purposes of his business, and for no other purpose:—

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 12 cwt. in weight unladen.

    10

    0

    0

    10

    0

    0

    Exceeding 12 cwt., but not exceeding 1 ton in weight unladen.

    12

    0

    0

    12

    0

    0

    Exceeding 1 ton, but not exceeding 1½ tons in weight unladen.

    14

    0

    0

    14

    0

    0

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Exceeding 1½ tons, but not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen.

    16

    0

    0

    16

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2tons,but not exceeding 2½ tons in weight unladen.

    18

    0

    0

    24

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2½ tons, but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen.

    20

    0

    0

    26

    13

    4

    Exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 3 tons

    20

    0

    0

    26

    13

    4

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 3 tons.

    4

    0

    0

    5

    6

    8

    (c) Goods vehicles other than vehicles chargeable with duty under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Table—
    (i) which are electrically propelled—

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 12 cwt. in weight unladen.

    10

    0

    0

    10

    0

    0

    Exceeding 12 cwt., but not exceeding 1 ton in weight unladen.

    15

    0

    0

    15

    0

    0

    Exceeding 1 ton, but not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen.

    20

    0

    0

    20

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2 tons, but not exceeding 2½ tons in weight unladen.

    25

    0

    0

    33

    6

    8

    Exceeding 2½ tons, but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen.

    30

    0

    0

    40

    0

    0

    Exceeding 3 tons, but not exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen.

    35

    0

    0

    46

    13

    4

    Exceeding 4 tons, but not exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen.

    40

    0

    0

    53

    6

    8

    Exceeding 5 tons, but not exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen.

    45

    0

    0

    60

    0

    0

    Exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 6 tons

    45

    0

    0

    60

    0

    0

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 6 tons.

    10

    0

    0

    13

    6

    8

    (ii) which are propelled by steam—

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen.

    25

    0

    0

    25

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2 tons, but not exceeding 2½ tons in weight unladen.

    30

    0

    0

    40

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2½ tons, but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen.

    35

    0

    0

    46

    13

    4

    Exceeding 3 tons, but not exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen.

    50

    0

    0

    66

    13

    4

    Exceeding 4 tons, but not exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen.

    70

    0

    0

    93

    6

    8

    Exceeding 5 tons, but not exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen.

    90

    0

    0

    120

    0

    0

    Exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 6 tons

    90

    0

    0

    120

    0

    0

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 6 tons.

    15

    0

    0

    20

    0

    0

    (iii) which are not constructed or adapted to use as fuel any fuel other than light-oils—

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 12 cwt. in weight unladen.

    10

    0

    0

    10

    0

    0

    Exceeding 12 cwt., but not exceeding 1 ton in weight unladen.

    15

    0

    0

    15

    0

    0

    Exceeding 1 ton, but not exceeding 1½ tons in weight unladen.

    20

    0

    0

    20

    0

    0

    Exceeding 1½ tons, but not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen.

    25

    0

    0

    25

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2 tons, but not exceeding 2½ tons in weight unladen.

    30

    0

    0

    40

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2½ tons, but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen.

    35

    0

    0

    46

    13

    4

    Exceeding 3 tons, but not exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen.

    50

    0

    0

    66

    13

    4

    Exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 4 tons

    50

    0

    0

    66

    13

    4

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 4 tons.

    20

    0

    0

    26

    13

    4

    (iv) which are constructed or adapted to use coal gas as fuel—

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen.

    30

    0

    0

    30

    0

    0

    Exceeding 2 tons, but not exceeding 2½ tons in weight unladen.

    35

    0

    0

    46

    13

    4

    Exceeding 2½ tons, but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen.

    40

    0

    0

    53

    6

    8

    Exceeding 3 tons, but not exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen.

    60

    0

    0

    80

    0

    0

    Exceeding 4 tons, but not exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen.

    80

    0

    0

    106

    13

    4

    Exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 5 tons

    80

    0

    0

    106

    13

    4

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 5 tons.

    25

    0

    0

    33

    6

    8

    (v) which are not chargeable with duty under the foregoing provisions of this paragraph—

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    Vehicles fitted entirely with pneumatic tyres.

    Other vehicles.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Not exceeding 2½ tons in weight unladen.

    35

    0

    0

    46

    13

    4

    Exceeding 2½ tons, but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen.

    40

    0

    0

    60

    0

    0

    Exceeding 3 tons, but not exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen.

    65

    0

    0

    86

    13

    4

    Exceeding 4 tons, but not exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen.

    90

    0

    0

    120

    0

    0

    Exceeding 5 tons, but not exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen.

    120

    0

    0

    160

    0

    0

    Exceeding 6 tons, but not exceeding 7 tons in weight unladen.

    150

    0

    0

    200

    0

    0

    Exceeding 7 tons in weight unladen—

    For the first 7 tons

    150

    0

    0

    200

    0

    0

    For each additional ton or part of a ton in excess of 7 tons.

    25

    0

    0

    33

    6

    8

    Description of Vehicles.

    Rate of Duty.

    £

    s.

    d.

    (d) Goods vehicles if used for drawing a trailer—

    where the weight of the vehicle unladen does not exceed 2½ tons

    10

    0

    0

    where the weight of the vehicle unladen exceeds 2½ tons but does not exceed 4 tons

    15

    0

    0

    where the weight of the vehicle unladen exceeds 4 tons

    20

    0

    0

    The duties chargeable under paragraph (d) of this Table in respect of any vehicle shall be chargeable in addition to the duty chargeable op the vehicle under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this Table.
    For the purposes of this Table a vehicle registered under the Roads Act, 1920, in the name of a person engaged in agriculture shall not be deemed to be used otherwise than solely by that person for the purpose of the conveyance of the produce of, or of articles required for the purposes of, the agricultural land which he occupies, by reason only that on an occasion when the vehicle is being used by that person for that purpose it is also used for the conveyance for some other person engaged in agriculture of the produce of, or articles required for the purposes of, agricultural land occupied by that other person, if it is shown—

    (a) that the vehicle is so used only occasionally;

    (b) that the goods conveyed for that other person represent only a small proportion of the total amount of goods which the vehicle is conveying on that occasion;

    (c) that no payment or reward of any kind is, or is agreed to be, made or given for the conveyance of the goods of that other person."

    CHARGE OF TAX.
    18. "That—

    (a) Income Tax for the year 1933–34 shall be charged at the standard rate of five shillings in the pound, and, in the case of an individual whose total income from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, at such higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as Parliament may hereafter determine;

    (b) all such enactments as had effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1932–33 shall have effect with respect to the Income Tax charged for the year 1933–34.

    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    HIGHER RATES OF INCOME TAX FOR 1932–33.
    19. "That Income Tax for the year 1932–33 shall be charged, in the case of an

    697
    individual whose total income from all sources exceeded two thousand pounds, at the same higher rates in respect of the excess over two thousand pounds as were charged for the year 1931–32.
    And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."

    TRANSFER TO EXCHEQUER OF BALANCE OF WAR LOAN DEPRECIATION FUND.
    20. "That the unexpended balance of the Depreciation Fund established in connection with the Four per cent. War Loan (1929–1942) and the Five per cent. War Loan (1929–1947) shall, at such time as the Treasury may determine, be paid into the Exchequer."
    First to Fifth Resolutions agreed to.
    Sixth Resolution read a Second time.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you will permit a discussion on this and the next Resolution simultaneously, as they both deal with mechanical lighters, and it would probably save time if both were discussed together. There is a point bearing on the relationship between Excise Duty and Customs Duty which it may be desirable to raise.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the House is in agreement with that suggestion, I have no objection.
    3.41 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in line 6, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
    "where the value of the mechanical lighter or the component part, as the case may he, exceeds one shilling and three-pence."
    The House will find on page 23 of the Financial Statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget of 1932–33 expected from the Customs Duty on matches and mechanical lighters some £2,000,000 and that the actual receipts were down to £1,706,000. The estimate for the year covered by the present Budget puts the receipts from the Customs Duty at £1,465,000. The figures on page 23 also cover the Excise Duty on matches and mechanical lighters. I first ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can divide these figures, showing how much is expected from matches and in the case of mechanical lighters separately. It is quite appropriate that the present
    698
    Government should attack mechanical lighters. Wherever they see a little light they try to put it out; but it is our intention in this case, as is our custom, to try to help the Government out of the difficulty.
    There is at the moment a duty of 6d. on each mechanical lighter whatever the price may be and the Budget proposal is to increase that duty to 1s. 6d. Our Amendment proposes that that duty shall only apply where the mechnical lighter is priced at more than 1s. 3d. We cannot understand why a mechanical lighter which only costs 6d. on importation should be charged with a duty of 1s. 6d. At the moment, the duty of 6d. on the 6d. article represents a duty of 100 per cent. If the duty is increased as proposed in the Budget, then you will have a duty of 300 per cent. on the same article. Although we are dealing here with a comparatively small matter it is not without its serious aspects. There are three types of mechanical lighters sold in this country. I speak of the retail prices in this connection. There is the cheap type costing from 1s. to 3s. 6d. each; there is the medium type costing from 7s. 6d. to 10s. each, and there is the expensive type costing from one guinea upwards. I suppose all the Members on the other side of the House buy the latter type.
    Major COLFOX: Why?
    Mr. DAVIES: I do not want to be led from the main theme of my argument, otherwise I could reply to that question. There is a very strong argument against this universal duty on all types of mechanical lighters. If the Chancellor charges a duty of 1s. 6d. on the 6d. article and the same amount on the guinea article, there is an obvious unfairness in the incidence of the duty. It has to be borne in mind that there are no very cheap mechanical lighters manufactured in this country at all. I am informed authoritatively that the very cheapest type of this article is not produced here and that only those falling into the medium and costly categories are manufactured within our shores. According to the Budget proposals, there will be a duty of 1s. 6d. on the imported and 1s. on the home produced article. In order to make the argument clear it may be well to recapitulate those facts. There is to be a duty of 1s. on the home produced article and practically all the home

    699
    produced lighters are of the medium or higher prices. There is a 1s. 6d. duty on the cheap article and practically all the cheap ones come from abroad. The mechanical lighter produced abroad and sold at a very cheap price will therefore bear a 300 per cent. duty. Of course, the ordinary working man is the person who buys the cheaper form of lighter, and it is grossly unfair to the man who can only afford the cheapest article to impose upon him a duty of 300 per cent., while only about 5 per cent. is imposed on the person who is able to buy the guinea article. That argument ought to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    As I have said, we on this side are very anxious in these financial matters to help the Government out of any difficulties and they are in a serious difficulty over this Budget. I hardly think that even the suggestion which I am now making will help them to actually balance the Budget, but I will do my best to assist them.
    It is argued that the imposition of this duty on the cheap article may ultimately prevent the importation of that article altogether. In that case, what would happen would be exactly what has happened in the case of beer. It would be found again, that when you increase the duty on any commodity there comes a stage at which revenue goes down. Those who have been on municipal authorities will remember the argument always used by the manager of a tramways department—that up to a point you can increase fares and increase your revenue, but you finally reach a point beyond the limit of the passenger to pay, and your revenue then goes down although your fares go up. [HON. MEMBERS "Income Tax."] I am not going to be drawn aside. It is a, habit of the Tory party to try to draw one from the main argument.
    There is therefore a danger that the imposition of such a heavy duty on a very cheap article may prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from achieving his object. I was interested the other day to learn that there are millions of people in this country who buy the cheap mechanical lighters because they find that it is economical to do so. It is very much cheaper than to use matches, I am informed, and I am told also that seven out of every 10 of our people in this
    700
    country use mechanical lighters. Consequently, it is to some of the very poorest very important indeed that this duty should not be increased.
    Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. Member suggest that all the cheap lighters, in other words those below 6d. or 1s., are of foreign manufacture or foreign origin?
    Mr. DAVIES: Those who know better than I do, and probably better than does the hon. Member, declare that in the main the cheap mechanical lighters used in this country are imported from abroad; and as a general statement I am informed that only the best and the dearest mechanical lighters are manufactured in this country. I would not be a bit surprised at that, because my experience has been that we have reached the stage in this land where we manufacture nothing but the best. Let me pass on to another point, and let me take an actual case to see what might happen. If the duty on a foreign lighter is 1s. 6d., it will mean that that lighter, costing, say, 3d. to purchase abroad, may easily sell in a shop in this country at as much as from 5s. to 7s. 6d. each.
    Mr. HANNON: Why?
    Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member's mind is travelling too fast. He was travelling too rapidly for his own Government yesterday; but I shall not allow him to draw me off my main line of argument today. This, of course, is a picture of the way in which the capitalist system works. A paper has been put in my hands, by one who knows, from which it appears that if the cost of production abroad is, say, 3d., the tax will be 1s. 6d., and the Customs clearance charges and packing take another 2d. That brings the article at once from 3d. to 1s. 11d. There is no argument about that, because, as the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) knows, it is his tariff policy that has brought up the price of the 3d. article to 1s. 11d. Let me now bring the same article to our own country and see what happens to the 1s. 11d. lighter when it gets into the hands of the capitalist class here. The importer will sell these—
    Mr. HANNON: Does the hon. Member include the Co-operative Wholesale Society?
    Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member, I am sure, understands the difference between

    701
    co-operative and capitalist efforts. If he does not, I will lend him a book on the subject.
    Mr. HANNON: I have written a book on the subject.
    Mr. DAVIES: Then perhaps the hon. Member will lend me that book. But, to return to my argument, we have now reached the price of 1s. 11d. from 3d., being the original cost of production abroad. The home importer, I am told, will ordinarily sell this article to the wholesaler, not for 1s. 11d., because he must have a profit, but, say, for 2s. 6d. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Surely no hon. Member will dispute that the wholesaler, having an article at 1s. 11d. in his ware-house, will charge 2s. 6d. for it to the retailer. If he does not, let me ask them where the wholesaler will get his profit from? He must have it from somewhere, and consequently the 3d. article has already grown to 2s. 6d.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: In a well-known establishment you can buy one of these lighters for 6d. and pay 6d. Customs duty at the same time, and that brings the total price up to 1s. Why do they have such smaller overhead profits than he now suggests?
    Mr. DAVIES: I am speaking of the wholesaler, not the retailer. The hon. Member does not apparently understand how goods are produced wholesale and turned over to the retailer. He must take some lessons in connection with the wholesale and the retail trade, and then he will know. I am informed that when the retailer secures this article for 2s. 6d., it is not uncommon for him to charge as much even as 3s. 6d., 4s., or 4s. 6d. for that article. Suppose we put it at 35. 6d., which is not uncommon anyhow There is a feeling, of course, that all this taxation is being put on in order to help the great match producers in this country; that it is done not only to carry out the policy of the Government of shutting out all foreign-manufactured lighters, but to help great firms, like Bryant and May, who will sell more matches if we prevent the use of mechanical lighters altogether. I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very grave danger that he is running in proposing this tax, because I have looked up a bit of history about
    702
    the taxation of lighters and matches of all kinds, and I find—
    Sir JOHN HASLAM: May I ask the hon. Member to carry on his list of profits a bit further? He said that these lighters would be sold in the shops at from 5s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. He has gone forward with his mathematical sum and got up to 3s. 6d., but then he has stopped. Will he show us how he gets 5s. 6d. and 7s. 6d.? Will it only reach that price where they return something in the form of dividends?
    Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member represents a division next to mine, and he is now trying to draw me off the track, but I will respond by saying that I was dealing with the cheapest mechanical lighters of all, produced abroad at about 3d. or 6d. Where the mechanical lighter costs about 1s. or 2s. to produce, the retail price may be 7s. 6d. or more.
    Sir J. HASLAM: I will ask the hon. Member one more question then. He gets the wholesaler's price of 2s. 6d. If the wholesaler is charging 2s. 6d. for this article, will any retailer go to the wholesaler and pay him 2s. 6d. when he can go to nothing to over 6d. in the stores? I have had some experience of the retail trade, as has my hon. Friend, and I think the retailer is wide enough awake to purchase in the cheapest quarter. Why should he go to the wholesaler when he can buy in the retail shops much more cheaply?
    Mr. DAVIES: Yes, but the hon. Member is thinking of the past. We are now looking to the future. I can assure him that Woolworth's who have sold these mechanical lighters up to now for 6d., plus 6d. duty, will be compelled to charge the 1s. 6d. duty on somebody in future, and I do not know how the 6d. store is going to get over the difficulty unless it can in future charge 6d. for the lighter and 1s. 6d. duty.
    Mr. PIKE: They are British made at 6d.
    Mr. DAVIES: They are not producing the very cheap article in this country so I am informed.
    Mr. PIKE: Does the hon. Gentleman state definitely that the stores to which he has referred are only selling foreign-made lighters at sixpence, plus a sixpeny duty? Woolworth's sell British-made lighters at 6d., plus the sixpenny duty.
    Mr. DAVIES: I do not think I have mentioned Woolworth's.
    HON. MEMBERS: You have.
    Mr. DAVIES: Then I correct myself. The firms that have been selling imported mechanical lighters in the past will have to add the new duty to the price. But let me come back to the point at which I started. There has been introduced into this Debate a good deal of humour which is not at all warranted. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to follow me in my final words. Once upon a time there was a Chancellor of the Exchequer who produced a tax on matches, and he got printed on each box, "From light a little lucre." I wonder what words the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to put on mechanical lighters? I am sure he will find something appropriate. It is a fact, and that is the burden of our complaint, that the new duty will put 300 per cent. on the price of the cheapest form of lighter which is bought in the main by the working classes, whereas only 5 per cent. will be borne by way of duty in the case of lighters which the well-to-do are able to buy.
    4.2 p.m.
    Major HILLS: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment told the House that the Government were extinguishing light and that he was going to bring light into this Debate. He brought a good deal of humour into it, but I do not think he brought very much light. Let me remind him that we are here discussing a tax, and that we have to consider the comparative value in light of the lighters and the matches, and the comparative amount of tax that each ought to bear from that standpoint. Of course the public are entitled to buy matches or mechanical lighters just as they please, but both from the revenue point of view and from the standpoint of fairness to the trade, a lighter ought to bear its fair share of the burden which the State has laid upon lights generally. At present, with the sixpenny duty, the lighter pays about one-eighth of the duty paid by the corresponding amount of matches. Very big claims are made for the lighting power of some of these mechanical lighters. A very ordinary claim is 10,000 lights in one lighter. Under the old duties 7,200 matches would have paid 4s. 2d. or 4s. 4d., according as
    704
    the matches were home-made or imported.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ever calculated the tax on the petrol in the lighters?
    Major HILLS: It is very small indeed, and hardly comes into the calculation. Besides, it is paid for by the difference between the 10,000 lights that you get from the lighter and the 7,200 matches which pay a duty of 4s. 2d. In fact the lighter which gives 10,000 lights, in the past has paid a duty equivalent to the duty on only 831 matches. So I hope I have convinced the hon. Gentleman that as far as light-giving power is concerned the lighters are very much under-taxed. Now take the revenue position. The average imports are about 2,236,000 lighters. The home production in the five years 1928–1932 was about 350,000, and it has now risen to 888,000. To take round figures, about 2,500,000 lighters are put on the market every year. They pay only a very small sum in duty to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We may reckon that if 2,500,000 lighters are imported or made every year, there are about 2,500,000 lighters in use at this time. Each one of the inhabitants of these islands consumes eight matches a day, but of course the smoker consumes more than eight, and if you put the consumption of matches as 20 for each smoker, you get a tax on the matches about eight times that on the lighters.
    The difference is further accentuated when you come to the other sort of lighter, what is called the pistol or electric lighter, used for the lighting of gas stoves. There you have almost unlimited replenishment possible, and you have your lights at a much cheaper rate than with matches. Even with the increased duty proposed it will be seen that the matches will pay a far heavier share to the revenue than the lighters. It is not entirely the case that all cheap lighters are imported. The manufacture of cheap lighters has been going on in this country. It increased very largely in the last year or two, and it will increase further under the preference now given. Even with this 1s. 6d. duty on the imported article, and 1s. on the homemade article, the mechanical lighter will be grossly under-taxed. If the hon.

    705
    Gentleman wants cheap lighting—it is no doubt a desirable thing—he has to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the tax all round, both on matches and on mechanical lighters. In the present condition of the revenue that is a task which I should not envy him, and I do not think that even he, with all his persuasiveness will get very far.
    4.8 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is not a revenue tax, even if it is a protective tax. It is a method of compelling people to use matches for the benefit of Kreuger's innocent victims. In these days, if there were vestal virgins and vestal fires they would be made illegal.
    4.9 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Let me say how glad I am that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to make the changes contained in the present Resolution, and in the one which preceded and the one which followed, because for some years I have been urging that this large revenue-producing industry ought to be granted some measure of protection. I am rather wondering how the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment is going to make his peace with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I well remember that six years ago I sought an invitation to visit the great factories in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, to the splendid condition of employment in which I had heard him pay a tribute. How the right hon. Gentleman is going to reconcile support of this Amendment with the desirability of maintaining the industry at its maximum at Bow and Bromley, I do not know.
    I want, however, to raise the question, not of the relationship between the Match Duty and the Mechanical Lighter Duty—I had intended to do so, but it has already been dealt with very adequately by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who speaks with special experience—but to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a curious difficulty which has arisen, largely, I understand, on administrative grounds. Those who were present in this House in 1928 will remember that in that year a duty of 6d. on imported and home-produced lighters was first introduced by
    706
    the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), because it was thought undesirable that there should be a duty on matches and no corresponding duty on lighters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon last year expressed the view that lighters should be charged 6s. each in order to pay a comparable duty.
    Major HILLS: That is the comparative duty.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not think we can penalise things to that extent. I am, however, in favour of the increase now proposed, and of its being made protective, just as in the case of matches. Whether the protection is adequate only experience can show. There are two items of protection in this—the protection of one industry against another, and the protection of the British matchmaking industry and lighter industry against the corresponding foreign industries. In 1928 all the foreign lighters in the country were naturally free of duty, because they had already passed the Customs, and as there was no duty there were no lighters in bond. Those in the hands of the British manufacturers that were complete were also, I understand, free of duty, and the duty applied only to those that were completed after the date on which the Budget Resolution took effect.
    On this occasion the situation is different. We are increasing the existing duty. In respect of the foreign lighters that are in the country but have not paid the duty, the situation is quite saisfactory; as they come out of bond they will pay the extra shilling. On the other hand there are very large stocks, I am informed, of foreign lighters in the possession of the wholesalers and retailers, which will be sold on the basis that they have paid only the sixpenny duty. There are substantial stocks, I am told, of British-made lighters in the hands of manufacturers that have in some cases paid the original sixpence duty. They are still in the manufacturers' warehouses. They are accordingly liable to the new sixpence, and for a period of some months, until the foreign duty-paid stocks have been exhausted, the British lighters will be subject to a duty of 1s. and the foreign lighters to a duty of only 6d.

    707
    I raise this point because I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can deal with it by some administrative method. I have already taken the liberty of sending him particulars of a factory in my own constituency which makes all classes of lighters and employs about fifty people. The proprietor of that factory telis me that as far as he can see, judging by the experience he has already had, and by conversations and communications he has had with the large distributors in this country who sell his lighters, for a period, until the foreign stocks which have paid the duty of 6d. only have been exhausted, these distributors will not be able to place any orders with him, because there will be 1s. duty placed on the lighters included in any such new orders. I hope that the Chancellor will be able to protect the employment in my constituency for the temporary period until the situation is cleared up, and also the corresponding people employed in other constituencies. I do not know whether my suggestion calls for an Amendment to the Budget Resolution, or whether, as I think, it can be done merely by a rewording of the customary circular which is sent out by the Customs and Excise authorities when a change in duty is made. I have studied the circular sent out in 1928 and the one sent out this year, and there seems to be a difference in wording. If the Chancellor could only adopt what was done in 1928 this disability on my constituency and on others would be avoided.
    4.16 p.m.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: The difficulty which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has pointed out is a very real one, and I do not know that there is any way of getting over it. I had not myself thought of the suggestion that he made with regard to the change in the wording of the circular, but if that could get over the difficulty it would be a very good thing. Apart from that, if there is a temporary disadvantage to the British manufacturer, that may well be the case for a few months until the foreign stocks have been cleared. But even if that be the case, I congratulate the Chancellor and thank him for putting on this duty. I had a case some time ago of another factory in which some £3,000 had been spent in laying down machinery
    708
    for the manufacture of lighters, and no trade of any extent was possible because of the large stocks of Swiss and German made lighters that were being imported into this country. I am not clear whether the difference between the Excise and the Customs duties is sufficient to protect the trade, but whether that be the case or not I want to thank the Chancellor for helping the industry. It will undoubtedly give some employment in this country, though not on a great scale, but it will do something to help us to supply ourselves with our own manufactures.
    4.18 p.m.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) for having started an interesting discussion, to which he has been the chief contributor. The Resolution increases the Customs duty on imported mechanical lighters from 6d. to 1s. 6d. The Amendment would limit that increase of duty to lighters which exceed 1s. 3d. in value. The consequence of accepting such an Amendment would be that the cheaper lighters would remain dutiable at 6d., but if the cheaper lighters were made at home they would be dutiable at 1s. Therefore, unless some change were made in the law, which I understand my hon. Friend does not desire, you will be placing a direct penalty upon the domestic industry. Whatever my bon. Friends may think, I am sure that the House of Commons would not agree to a proposal such as that. I cannot help feeling that my hon. Friend misconceived the whole purpose of the duties. The purpose has been explained by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills).
    What is it we seek to do? We do not seek to penalise the industry of mechanical lighters. We seek to relate the duty on lighters to the duty upon matches. We depend for about £24,000,000 a year of revenue on matches. If, therefore, you were to allow the mechanical lighter to get off at a cheaper rate of duty you would not only jeopardise your revenue but injure the match industry in this country. That plainly would not be fair. How, then, are we to arrive at some method of relating these two imposts? Our problem is to ascertain the extent to which the lighter displaces matches. It was not

    709
    necessary for my hon. Friend to go back to Sir Robert Lowe and his duty on matches. That duty was continued by the Chancellor under whom the hon. Gentleman served. We have had four years experience of the duty. The duty of 6d. was equivalent to a duty on less than 900 matches, that is, two and a-half matches a day per year. I do not think any hon. Member would contest that that duty was insufficient. We now make the new duty equivalent to 2,270 matches; that is equivalent to six matches a day for a year. With these figures I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that far from the industry of making mechanical lighters having been penalised, it has escaped in the most remarkable fashion. It remains only for me to say upon the Amendment that the loss of revenue involved in the Amendment would, as far as we can calculate it, be about £50,000 a year. I do not say that it would be exactly that because it is difficult to compute. The Mechanical Lighter Duties, both Customs and Excise, are estimated to bring in £130,000 a year. At any rate, my hon. Friend's Amendment would involve us in considerable loss besides doing a great injustice both to the revenue and to the match-making industry.
    I now pass to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). He and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) feared lest the stocks in the hands of British manufacturers of mechanical lighters already made would have to pay the higher rate of duty, that is to say, the duty of 1s. and would therefore be deprived of their advantage as compared with the imported article which had paid a duty of 6d. and which is now out of bond. In the first place, no duty has been paid by these manufacturers, as my hon. Friend seemed to think. They only pay the duty when they deliver the goods. Apart from that small error in my hon. Friend's supposition, he rightly wants to know whether these stocks in the hands of manufacturers will have to pay at the increased rate of 1s. It is customary in all Budget duties that the duty should become payable from the moment it comes into force, and there are few if any exceptions to that rule. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was impressed by f he point raised by my hon. Friend, and I
    710
    think that he and the hon. Member for Kidderminster may rest assured that this Resolution will permit us to charge the lower rate of duty on lighters that have already been manufactured, and that are in the hands of manufacturers but have not yet been delivered. I hope that that will give satisfaction to my hon. Friends.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I wish to express my grateful thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    4.25 p.m.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: With reference to component parts, do I understand from the Resolution that on a spring which might cost 1d. there might be a 1s. 6d. duty? I can see a difficulty in the replacing of small parts which might cost only a copper or two, and from my reading of the Resolution they may have to bear a 1s. 6d. duty.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend realises, I am sure, that we are not in Committee, and it is for that reason that I waited until everyone had risen before I rose to reply. I can only answer any further questions by the courtesy of the House, but I can assure my hon. Friend that he is right, and that the duty is not only on the mechanical lighter but on any of the component parts except the flint, the object of the duty being in this case to encourage the manufacture of these lighters at home.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Seventh Resolution agreed to.
    Eighth Resolution read a Second time.
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. MAINWARING: I beg to move, in line 6, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
    "except the rebate with respect to kerosene."
    This Amendment is intended to remove a certain oil from the Resolution. I have in mind the position of that section of the rural population which of necessity is bound to depend upon oil as the source of light for its homes. I am sure it will be clear to the House that that

    711
    section is the one that is least able to bear the additional taxation. In the Budget of 1928 a similar proposal, but of a heavier character, was suggested, but, to the credit of the Chancellor of that day, he withdrew the proposal before it came before the House. The only justification suggested for its reintroduction now is that on this occasion it is a smaller amount, but the principle is the same, because it is an imposition upon a section of the population least able to bear it.
    Apart from those who use the oil for domestic purposes, a number of industries will also be affected by being subjected to what may well be an unbearable tax. Involved in this question is the necessity for dividing the heavy oils into the two categories into which they fall, lubricating oils and other heavy oils. For some information regarding the effect of the proposed duty on these two classes of oil, I would refer hon. Members to a series of enlightening letters in to-day's "Daily Telegraph." I cannot answer for the correctness of the information given there, but I presume the writers have some degree of knowledge of the subject. The first letter mentions that oils in the lubricating oil class are priced in the neighbourhood of £40 per ton, while oils used as heavy oil fuel are round about 50s. per ton. It is obvious therefore that unless these two classes are separated, the incidence of the duty upon them would differ very much indeed. In one case it would amount to an increase of 2 per cent. in the price, while in the other it would amount to 40 per cent.
    The writer of a letter interested in the manufacture of steel castings refers to the fact that the price of the oil used in that industry will be increased by 33 per cent., he is informed. In the same way, hotels and restaurants, which are now displaying a tendency to transform their ovens into oil-burning ovens, will be materially affected by the increased duty on oil fuel. One man interested in the hotel and restaurant business, referring to the two classes of oil, points out that in one case an extra expenditure of £3 10s. will be placed upon him for lubricating oil, whereas the same tax applied on oils—
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): On a
    712
    point of Order. Does not this Amendment refer to kerosene only?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I was listening to the hon. Member, and thinking his speech would be more appropriate on the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution." On the present Amendment he ought to confine his remarks to kerosene.
    Mr. MAINWARING: The two oils require to be separated for the purposes of this taxation, but I shall be quite content to rest my case on the first charge I made, that an important section of the population is being asked to bear an additional burden in respect of the oil it uses for lighting purposes. Those people live in those parts of the country where social amenities are at their lowest. The proposal I am making to exempt kerosene commended itself not merely to the House of Commons but to the whole country in 1928, when it was felt to be unfair and unjust to ask these people to bear this burden, and I do not think the country is to-day any less favourable to the removal of this burden. I make a special appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to the Amendment.
    Mr. BATEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member has moved an Amendment to exempt kerosene. The position is this. All hydrocarbon oils imported into this country since 1928 have been subject to a duty under the Finance Acts, the present rate being 8d. a gallon, but a rebate equivalent to the full amount of the duties has been allowed upon the heavy oils. Under the Import Duties Act every import coming into this country is subject to the general ad valorem duty, unless it be on the Free List, or unless it be subjected to taxation under some other enactment. Therefore, we have this anomaly arising, that heavy oils, which are not taxed at all, except in theory, escape because they are in form though not in fact subjected to duty under the Finance Acts. In these circumstances, the Import Duties Advisory Committee cannot touch these heavy oils. It is to remove the anomaly under which heavy oils enjoy a quite peculiar exemption from tax that my right hon. Friend the

    713
    Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought forward his proposal. The Mover of the Amendment wishes to prolong the anomaly as far as kerosene is concerned, upon the ground, presumably, that a duty upon it would inflict some hardship upon the cottage homes. He has recalled that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) withdrew his tax upon kerosene in 1928, when the grievance of the cottage homes was represented to him. But the right hon. Member for Epping was at that time placing upon kerosene a tax four times as great as that which we are now suggesting, and I do not think anybody could represent our proposal as being a hardship upon the cottage homes, for the very adequate reason which I shall give.
    The price of kerosene has fallen between 3rd March and 6th April by 1½d. per gallon and consequently, in spite of this penny tax to be placed upon kerosene, the price of it will still be cheaper than it was before 3rd March. In those circumstances I am not surprised that the claims put forward in 1928 have failed to find any echo to-day. But there are technical reasons, beside that very human reason, why we cannot accept the Amendment. I am informed that kerosene is easily capable of use in certain Diesel engines, and therefore, if we sought to give some exemption to kerosene intended for the cottage homes it would be impossible to distinguish between that which was intended for the cottage homes and that which would be used for other purposes. In the circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Mr. MOLSON: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the price of kerosene was in 1928 and what it is to-day? I think is has fallen.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On 25th January, 1928, several months before the Budget, it was 7½d. a gallon. On 1st March, 1929, it was 9d.; on 3rd March, 1931, 7½d.; on 6th April this year 6d., and on 26th April—after this duty came into force—7d. The wholesale price is therefore now lower than it has been at any time during the last five years, except for the three weeks immediately prior to the Budget.
    Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has taken into account the extended use of these
    714
    heavy hydrocarbon oils in industry and the extent to which he is adding to the fuel expenses of certain industries?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does not that question arise on the next Amendment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment deals with kerosene.
    Mr. THOMPSON: If I may raise the question later it will be all right.
    Mr. PIKE: The hon. Gentleman told us that there would be great difficulty in differentiating between kerosene for the homestead and kerosene used in Diesel engines, Does not the same difficulty arise in the case of kerosene used by the vessels engaged in the fishing industry and kerosene used in the homestead? If so, how is the difficulty overcome in that case?
    Amendment negatived.
    4.41 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in line 6, after the word "shall" to insert the words:
    "except as regards oil mixed with coal for the purpose of making fuel."
    I must apologise to the House for submitting a manuscript Amendment. The purpose of it is to prevent hydrocarbon oils which are being mixed with coal for fuel purposes from being taxed. As most hon. Members know, several processes for making what is called colloidal fuel are at present the subject of investigation. It is said that some of processes have overcome the technical difficulties, and that there is every prospect, in the near future, of this mixture being substituted for the plain oil now being used for fuel purposes. Not only could such a mixture be used in marine boilers, but it is said that something like 200,000 tons of oil are being used in London alone for such purposes as bread and biscuit making, metal work, heating in restaurants and hotels, and so on.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Mixed with coal?
    Mr. HALL: No, this is plain oil. I am showing the possibilities that exist for the use of this mixture in places where they at present burn plain oil. I am told that the change could be made without any alteration to the apparatus. If this mixture of coal and oil could be adopted it would give a fillip to the coal industry.

    715
    Colloidal fuel is a mixture, in some cases, of 60 per cent. coal and 40 per cent. oil, and in some cases of 50 per cent. coal and 50 per cent. oil. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not like to impede any progress which is being made in bringing this mixture into use. We are not quite sure what the position would be regarding some of these hydrocarbon oils which are being used in the manufacture of some patent fuels. In South Wales there is a, very extensive patent fuel industry. In some cases tar is used, but in other cases heavy oils enter into the composition of these patent fuels, and I feel sure it would not be the intention of the Chancellor to interfere in any way with a very hard pressed industry. I hope that the Chancellor will give some attention to the aspect of the question which I have placed before the House.
    Mr. HANNON: Would this be the time to deal with the question of the taxation of oil produced from coal or is the Motion confined entirely to the mixture of oil with coal?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That would be in order on the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    4.46 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: This Amendment is rather important. As was stated by the Mover, there is a very great possibility of the successful use of colloidal fuel which would have the advantage of using coal while maintaining the convenience of oil. The particular instances which he gave may affect the following Amendment also, in the sense that the industries which use fuel oil through burners for the purpose of heating might very possibly use colloidal fuel. The Chancellor should very seriously consider whether this is the time to raise the incidence of the duty or the method by which it has been expressed. I rather hoped to raise these points on the following Amendment, but it has been brought out quite clearly that when you are considering fuel of the relatively low value of £3 per ton, the rebate proposed now, leaving a penny per gallon as the actual duty, is excessive.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment deals with oil mixed with coal only and it does not deal with oil fuel as such.
    Mr. CHORLTON: No, Sir, it does not, but it is the same oil, and it is very difficult technically entirely to distinguish them. Unfortunately I am one of those who have spent a long time in oil and coal, so to speak, and I was trying to make the matter a little clearer and to draw the attention of the House to the need for considering the two together. However, if I am out of order in speaking any more I will reserve my further remarks until the consideration of the Amendment which follows.
    4.49 p.m.
    Mr. PIKE: The Chancellor should be absolutely certain that the coal which will be used in equal parts, or to whatever extent it may be used, is produced from the pits of this country, before he accepts this Amendment. British coal in the production of the oil will give employment not only to labour but to capital, and so will increase the possibility of prosperity in the industry, but if coal is to be used of German or any other foreign origin, that will be of little benefit to the oil industry in this country and to those who depend upon that industry for their livelihood. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will recognise that unless some precaution is taken against the possibility of the use of the foreign product, greater obstacles will be created in the way of the British mining industry and of the oil industry generally, than already exist.
    4.50 p.m.
    Mr. CLARRY: I think the hon. Gentleman who spoke last must be under some misapprehension. There is no question of the use of foreign coal in colloidal fuel. I was not aware that this point was going to be raised. Although the object that I have in view is identical with that of the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), I reason from quite the reverse point of view, which is that there should be a heavier tax on the oil used for colloidal fuel. Experiments that have taken place in connection with colloidal fuel do not represent a large quantity of oil, but there is an endeavour to produce a British oil specially for the purpose from British coal. It seems that there is a new line of effort in the endeavour to produce new British oils to mix with coal for the purpose of making colloidal fuel. For that reason I cannot support the Amendment

    717
    of the hon. Member for Aberdare, although our objects are identical.
    4.51 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) on bringing forward the only helpful and constructive suggestion I have heard come from the Labour benches. He will recognise that we are at a disadvantage in dealing with an Amendment which is only in manuscript form. We are almost in general agreement in encouraging anything that can be done to stimulate the use of home-produced fuel rather than imported oil, and that should receive the support of the Government and of the House, but it would be a mistake if the Government came to a conclusion on this matter when we have had no time to consider it. I wonder whether the Government would be prepared to consider if by adopting the hon. Member's proposal they would be assisting the development of colloidal fuel, or whether, as has been suggested from other parts of the House, it would have the opposite effect. I wonder whether the Government would be prepared, not to give a definite answer to this Amendment, but to consider it.
    4.52 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I was a little surprised when the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) moved this Amendment and pleaded with the Chancellor to give encouragement to a hard-pressed industry. It is the purpose, or a distinct part of the purpose, of my right hon. Friend to give encouragement to the very much depressed industry of coal by placing a duty upon oils that are used in competition with it. The hon. Member seeks to give further encouragement by excepting from the duty oil mixed with coal. In so far as the mixture consists of British coal, of course it will not be subject to tax, and in so far as it consists of oil produced from British coal or from shale it will not be taxed. The hon. Member says that it would be useful to adapt present oil installations in hotels and elsewhere to the use of colloidal fuel, but may I point out to him that colloidal fuel will gain by the imposition of this duty? If oil fuel is a penny a gallon, that is, £1 per ton, colloidal fuel, which is part oil and part coal, will go up only by one halfpenny a gallon, and therefore will have a 10s.
    718
    per ton advantage over the pure oil. The hon. Member will see also, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry), that coal already has one advantage by the tax, and in so far as the mixture in which he is interested is concerned it has another advantage. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    4.55 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
    "provided however that the tax on such oils shall in no ease exceed 15 per cent. ad valorem."
    I have put two Amendments on the Paper suggesting a modification which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make without waiting for the introduction of the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I am sure that it is not his intention specially to penalise selected industries in this country. The tax, from the point of view of kerosene and of petrol, is the very small one of a penny in the gallon, but when that tax of a penny in the gallon is applied to heavy oils the value of which is only 2½d. in the gallon, it becomes of crushing proportions. When we remember that the use of these heavy oils has only come in recently and has been adopted particularly by progressive firms anxious to improve British products and to use mechanical exactitude in firing, firms that are anxious above everything else to cut expenses so as to compete in the neutral markets of the world, we see that it would be a disaster suddenly to apply to these firms—not even to entire industries but to isolated firms in each industry—a penal tax on account of their progressive and up-to-date character. No sooner did this tax appear, than there was opposition to it in every quarter and in every newspaper. I would call the attention of the House particularly to the words of Sir Charles Hipwood, director of the National Union of Manufacturers, who said, in a speech on Saturday:
    "Industrialists are very much concerned about the effect of the proposed duty on fuel oil in a number of industries, especially in the Midlands."
    I call the attention of the Chancellor to the Midlands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] He represents the Midlands in a dual capacity, not merely as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as a Mem-

    719
    ber of this House. The quotation proceeds:
    "Coal and coke are much cheaper fuels than oil, on a heat-producing basis, but oil is the cheapest source of accurately-controlled heat and it is for technical reasons being adopted in many modern factories."
    That is Sir Charles Hipwood, and everybody knows that what he was saying is correct. Oil has been adopted in tube manufacture, for ships' boilers, for trawlers and for central-heating purposes, but above all, from my point of view, it has been adopted in certain pot and glass factories. I would ask the House to observe what it is that we have adopted in the pot factories. We have adopted for firing, one of those tunnel arrangements where the ware goes in at one end of a long tunnel and as it passes slowly through is heated by fuel oil for a period up to 12 hours by continuous heat. Patent methods of increasing or decreasing the heat are employed, so that you get a most perfectly cooked plate. In the old system the loss by coal firing was very considerable, because heat varied in different parts of the oven and at different times—because of smoke and sulphur. It is by this new system, which is more costly than the old, that you can save money and get fewer bad pieces and fewer seconds. The pottery industry is unlike every other industry, in that you cannot be sure, when you start making a thing, that you will be able to finish it. The percentage of bad may amount to 25 per cent. in the firing, and the percentage increases as the different stages go on. It is therefore of infinite importance to us to get a certainty that we can produce the right ware from the oil fired glost ovens.
    Mr. PIKE: Could not that difficulty be overcome by automatic coal-stoking machines?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We have tried various methods. We have tried firing with producer gas and Mond gas, and for enamelling purposes we have electric ovens, where the heat is not so great. But of all these methods we have come to the conclusion that the heavy oils are much the best. Then, of course, there is the cost of installing this plant. The cost of failure in trials has been considerable. The cost of each of these ovens is about £24,000. So a very heavy expense is in-
    720
    curred in order to produce the best ovens to enable British trade to keep its head up all over the world. I do not know if the same arguments apply to glass or tubes, but those are the considerations which have driven us to employ oil.
    In passing, I may say that oil does away with some of that horrible smokiness that destroys the beauty of our cities. Here you have a quite up-to-date system; but along come the Government and say, "We want to help the coal industry; therefore we must put a tax upon fuel oils which will destroy the property of those people who have invested their money in the alternative form of heating and will drive them back to the old-fashioned method." That is not a way of encouraging British industry. We still use coal for half the purposes in the factory; we still use it for the biscuit ovens and for firing our engines, and we burn anything up to 5,000 tons of coal a year for these purposes. If by special taxation you hit at our special means of producing good ware, you will injure the coal industry, because our trade will go down. We shall buy less coal, and consequently the coal trade will suffer.
    Every hon. Member of the House, however, knows perfectly well that it is the most futile thing on earth to try to put back the clock. You do not make it a penal offence to run a motor car in order to save the railways, nor did you to use railways in order to save the canals. Government action cannot wisely be used for the purpose of stereotyping bad old methods and preventing industrialists from going ahead on new lines. It is silly to put a tax on the raw material of industry of this country at any time. The whole difficulty from which we are suffering is our inability to get costs down. We want, at the present time, to cut everything to the bone in industry in this country. Here come the Government, however, and add to the cost of our principal raw material in the pottery industry. That is a barren thing from the point of view of the recovery of trade. It is a bad thing even to put an ad valorem duty on to this raw material of heat; but it is not merely foolish, it is iniquitous, to make that tax a penal one by levying it at so much a gallon instead of so much per cent. If the Government is convinced that it must do something to

    721
    raise money—though I should prefer to unbalance the Budget—for goodness sake let it raise it equitably from all users; let it not leave particular industries and particular firms with a sense of injustice in being singled out specially for heavy taxation.
    I believe that the Government probably tumbled into this tax without quite knowing what was affected or how the industry, and the foreign trade particularly, of this country would suffer. I do beg the Government, however, if they cannot remove this tax altogether from the raw materials of a great many of the industries of this country, at least to accept my Amendment, which limits that tax to 15 per cent., instead of leaving it, as at present, such a tax that it would be nearly 40 per cent. and might soon be 50 per cent. of the cost of the fuel we use.
    5.6 p.m.
    Sir ISIDORE SALMON: I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give very serious consideration to the effect of this tax on heavy oils. The previous speaker has said that it would mean an addition of 40 per cent. to the fuel bill of anyone who is using fuel oil to-day. If it is imposed with the intention of trying to help the coal industry, I would remind the Chancellor that in many cases it would be impossible to change the method. Manufacturers would be compelled to continue with oil, and the Government would therefore be penalising industry, because they would be taxing it so heavily that one of two things is bound to happen: either the manufacturer will have to charge more to the consumer, or himself pay the tax. In the case of the manufacturer of bread, for instance, if the ovens are automatic oil-fired ovens the manufacturer cannot change them. The tax would therefore add to the cost of manufacture and consequently to the cost to the consumer. Obviously, when the cost is increased, the usual result is that business goes down and unemployment is increased.
    I suggest that it could never have been in the mind of the Chancellor that he was going at once to say to industries which are using oil that they were to pay a penal tax of 40 per cent. additional on their bill for fuel. If I may remind him, I will call his attention to the effect the tax will have on those hospitals of London which have installed oil-fired plant
    722
    for central heating. To take the case of the glass industry: it may interest hon. Members to know that abroad, there is a tax of 5s. only per ton, as against the 20s. 5d. proposed by the Chancellor. The manufacturers of glass in this country at the present moment have an advantage, but as soon as this tax becomes operative at the proposed figure the effect will be to give a bounty to the foreign competitors of no less than 6s. or 7s. a ton for their glass. I am quite sure that that was never the intention of the Chancellor. I should also like to submit to him another point. We are talking about the congestion of our streets in London. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the number of vans that have to be used for delivering the fuel and collecting the rubbish that arises from the fuel consumed in different places throughout the Metropolis? On the one hand we are saying that we have congestion of transport, and on the other hand we propose to increase it further by saying that manufacturers must do away with oil fuel, which can be easily transported and does not create the congestion that the extra number of coal vans would create.
    But the most important question of all is that here the House is being asked to try to help—we all want to help it as far as is practicable—the coal industry. But we should not really be helping that industry, and the tax would do a great deal of damage to all industries that have to use oil. Oil was never introduced, I would remind the House, because it was a cheap fuel to use. It was introduced for the purpose of cleanliness, for the purpose of gaining a real control over the heat. For many industries it is the only fuel that they can use in order to produce in competition with the world. They cannot produce certain products except by using oil heating. I suggest to the Chancellor that he should give serious consideration to the position that has now arisen. The tax would enormously increase the fuel bill of every hotel in the country which has oil-fired central heating. When the public first saw the tax a penny a gallon down, no one realised, except those who had to foot the bill, that that reduction meant a 40 per cent. increase on their fuel bill.
    I would ask the Chancellor to consider seriously whether he cannot see his way to giving up some part of this penal tax.

    723
    Let him not forget the fact that we are only dealing with 1,500,000 tons of heavy oil. It is true that 3,000,000 tons of heavy oil are used, but half of this is for bunkers, so the only figure we need to consider is 1,500,000 tons. We are trying to see where we can put more people into employment, and certain Resolutions were passed last night to meet that difficulty. To-day the Chancellor, with all respect, is introducing a piece of legislation that I honestly believe will prove that we shall be increasing unemployment, and not decreasing it, through the extra cost of manufacture which will undoubtedly be reflected in the trade of this country.
    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I wish to support this Amendment for the reason given by the Mover and by the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir Isidore Salmon), and also because I believe that the effects of this tax are very much wider, as has already been realised, and also so contrary to the expressed intention—and indeed the anxiety—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help industry. For these reasons the House is certainly entitled to a very much more detailed explanation of the reasons of the Government for bringing in this new impost than we have yet had at any stage of the discussion. The hon. Member for Harrow referred to the fact that this new impost lays a very severe burden upon the glass industry. That is certainly the case. I have had brought to my attention, in the case of one particular firm, certain facts which would lead one to believe that this business would almost, in that particular branch, be crippled in relation to its foreign competitors if this new impost is not altered.
    Again, one of the professed objects of this tax is to help the coal industry, a thing which we are most anxious to do, but many of the uses to which fuel oil is now put are entirely specialised, and cost is not the prime consideration. In a large number of cases, in connection with the food industries, the dairy industry, and many others, it is impossible to set the clock back and return to the old methods, so that in no circumstances would this impost help the coal industry. There are also some matters in regard to which the tax in its present form would give rise to grave administrative difficulties, and I
    724
    should like to mention some of these now, as I think it may possibly save time at later stages of our financial legislation. We are at a loss to understand why coastal shipping should be subjected to this impost—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: And not over-sea shipping.
    Mr. WHITE: And not oversea shipping. This is a very serious matter for coastal shipping. I know of one company of whom I am credibly informed that the impost would absorb the whole of their surplus over working charges. It seems to me that that is an absolutely indefensible thing, for the only argument which could be adduced in favour of such a tax would be one which I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not use, namely, that he proposed to take the lot rather than take a small proportion by those methods of taxation to which we have been accustomed, such as Income Tax and the like. I would ask, in particular, for information regarding this impost on coastal shipping, in order that we may know, as I have said, what steps it may be necessary for us to take, and so that time may be saved at later stages.
    For example, the House is well aware that it is the custom for ships sailing from some port to call at several ports before finally leaving the country for their foreign destination. In cases of that kind, will the ships be entitled to have their fuel oil free from this impost or not? That is a matter regarding which we should like to have an answer before we part with this Resolution. Again, as things stand at the moment, ships sailing, say, from Liverpool to Belfast would presumably be engaged in the coastal trade, and, therefore, their fuel oil would be taxed. If, on the other hand, a ship proceeded from Liverpool to Dublin, it would presumably be going to a Dominion, and, therefore, being engaged in oversea trade, its fuel oil would not be subject to the duty. In such a case the traffic between this country and the North of Ireland would be subsidising the traffic to the Free State. It seems to me that that is a matter which, possibly, was not foreseen, and which requires further consideration and explanation.
    The argument, and, so far as I can see, the only argument, in favour of this

    725
    new tax, is that it will help the coal industry, but let me consider for a moment the gas industry. The House is familiar with the fact that certain kinds of coal which are used for distillation for the purpose of making gas are not primarily suitable for that particular purpose. They yield, it is true, under certain conditions of temperature and pressure, a very considerable volume of gas which has very valuable properties, but of which the illuminating power is very small, and some 275,000 tons a year of this oil are used to reinforce and strengthen the illuminating power of such gas. Here is a direct tax placed upon the gas industry, and placed upon it in such a way that it would be likely to handicap the use of coal—if not of all coal, certainly of certain types of coal. I would like to know whether that particular aspect of this impost was considered before these proposals were laid before the House.
    There is quite a number of other industries which are likely to suffer very severely and to be handicapped in general competition as a result of this tax. I may, perhaps, refer to one more, an industry which is growing up at the present time in this country and which has been strengthened in recent years, namely, that of the various horticultural operations which are carried on in glasshouses. This particular method of heating has been adopted because it gives much greater control and much greater cleanliness, and generally is far more satisfactory than any other form of heating which has yet been devised. Reference has already been made to the fact that oil fuel permits of greater control and greater cleanliness, and is, in fact, essential in the carrying out of many of the operations in which science has been applied to modern industry. Anything that would interfere with that development is contrary to the interests of industry and of the country, and, therefore, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give favourable and sympathetic consideration to this Amendment.
    5.22 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I desire to support the appeal which is now being made for some reconsideration of this duty, and I want to point out to the House what will be the effect of this tax of 1d. per gallon. In a circular issued by the Shell-
    726
    Mex Company on the 27th April, they notified their customers that the new duty of 1d. per gallon will work out, on the basis of the arbitrary figure of 245 gallons per ton fixed by the Customs authorities, at £1 0s. 5d. per ton. I represent a constituency which for the most part is engaged in producing steel and iron, and which is, and has been for many years, the centre of the tube industry, and I have been receiving within the last two days correspondence from all kinds of manufacturers in the Black Country, in the Wednesbury Division, Tipton and Darlaston, pointing out to me the effect that this duty will have upon their trade. I have in my hand a typical letter, which says:
    "To a certain branch of our trade the net result of the proposed new duty on fuel oil will be an increase in our fuel bill by some 30–40 per cent., and an increase in our costs of production of 5s. per ton. It wipes out practically any possibility whatever of getting foreign trade, and it seriously jeopardises the employment of 120 people at these works. The Association of Steel Conduit Manufacturers, assembled in Birmingham yesterday, passed a resolution protesting against the duty, the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce has passed a similar Resolution, and the National Union of Manufacturers, I understand, are protesting in a similar manner."
    Another manufacturer writes:
    "On the furnace alone at our works we use 40 to 50 tons of fuel oil per month for making tubes. We are having to pay to-day £6 17s. 6d. per ton for strip, against £5 1s. 6d. before the tariff on iron and steel. We are already practically put out of our foreign markets, and this additional £1 0s. 5d. per ton on oil will stand a good chance indeed of closing down our tube mill completely. One can only assume that the Chancellor and the people behind him have no conception of the results of their efforts to bolster up trusts and the like, to the detriment of ordinary traders."
    I have another letter here pointing out again that the firm in question will be compelled to close their tube works, because they have been carrying on with such a small margin for the last 18 months. I have quoted these letters to show that this tax is going to have very serious results indeed. If it be the intention of the Government to do what they can to improve trade, and to get as many people as possible in employment as soon as possible, it is obvious that, so far as the iron and steel industry is concerned, their action in regard to this tax will have precisely the opposite effect. I want to suggest to the Chancellor of the

    727
    Exchequer and the House that anything happening at this time that will throw more people out of employment will be a very serious matter indeed. It seems to me that perhaps this particular tax has not received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers all the thought that it might have received. I am confident that, if a moment's thought had been given to the matter, particularly so far as it affects the hard-hit tube industry, in which a further tax of £1 0s. 5d. per ton will compel employers to close down, thus causing more misery and more unemployment in an area where already from 33½ to 40 per cent. of the people are unemployed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers would have reconsidered the question of this tax, and I trust, therefore, that the matter will be given further consideration.
    The tax will also hit very badly the catering trade, and to some extent the baking trade in this country. Oil fuel is used in up-to-date modern bakeries with the very laudable idea of removing from the process of bread-baking and confectionery making as much dust and smoke as possible. Firms have put down new plant, new machinery has been invented, and the use of fuel oil in this way has resulted in a degree of cleanliness, so far as the manufacture of foodstuffs is concerned, which 20 years ago would not have been thought possible. I have had a letter from a baker, a rather small employer, who has put down plant of this description, and he informs me that the extra cost to him in a twelvemonth will be between £150 and £200. He feels that he is unable to pass that on to the consumer, and the result will be that he will be definitely penalised for his efforts to give to the public clean bread and confectionery produced under the best possible conditions.
    So far as the hotel side of the catering trade is concerned, I am sure that the effect of this tax will be to run big hotels into an expenditure of some thousands of pounds a year—anything from £5,000 to £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 a year; and I am very doubtful if even this will have the result which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may possibly have had in his mind in putting on the tax. I am sure that, if there is one tax more than another in this
    728
    Budget which many Members of the House will agree requires a great deal of further consideration, it will be this tax. There is a real case for consideration and further inquiry and I hope the Chancellor may be able to reassure us that the matter will be taken back and further inquired into.
    5.30 p.m.
    Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us in his Budget statement that he had decided to impose a duty of 1d. a gallon on the importation of heavy oils, I, for one, welcomed that decision, not only because of its revenue-bearing potentialities, but also because I am informed that, when in 1928 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) introduced a similar proposal, it was recognised to be of such value to the Scottish shale oil mining industry that, the morning following the statement, Scottish Oils, Limited, were able to announce a 10 per cent. increase in the wages of their employés. I was, therefore, distressed to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that he and those who sit beside him had decided to oppose this duty. Although I was not in the House at the time, I recollect that, as the result of an agitation which was rather unexpectedly led by the member for the constituency that I now represent and supported, to my mind misguidedly, by a majority of Conservative and Unionist Members, the duty was withdrawn, and likewise the 10 per cent. increase in the wages of those engaged in the industry in Scotland.
    Over and above that fact, there ensued unemployment for thousands of shale miners in that area, which situation would not have arisen had the duty been maintained. The opposition at that time was chiefly supported by Members representing rural and agricultural constituencies, on the assumption that the weekly budget of the agricultural worker and his wife and family would be inordinately increased. I believe it was even suggested that it might be increased by a matter of 4s. a week. Of course, if you work that out, even with the then suggested impost of 4d. a gallon, that was a ridiculous assumption. I wish with all my heart that the duty introduced by the right

    729
    hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping had been maintained, because not only would it have been of inestimable advantage to a very important industry, the only real oil producing industry in the country to-day, but it would have given a stimulus to the coal industry, which I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to encourage.
    I realise that since 1928 the situation has somewhat changed, and I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and others who have pointed to one industry after another which, probably since 1928, have introduced fuel oil consuming plants. Of course, the duty proposed to-day must to some extent be disadvantageous to industries which have introduced that plant, but I am not yet convinced that it will have a penal effect on them except in so far as they are engaged in the export trade. There is a matter which does not seem to have been given credence to, that the duty is expected to stimulate the production of oil in this country, the very raw material which we realise is required. I give a considerable amount of credence to that expectation. I have special reason to do so in so far as the shale oil industry is concerned, which is able to-day, and will certainly be in a better position to-morrow, to provide a much greater quantity of the raw material of oil than it does at present. I feel that in a matter like this, as when we are discussing trade agreements with various countries, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must take into account the possibility of providing increased employment, and I believe this duty will achieve a great deal in that direction. I believe that the major industries which the duty is designed to encourage will in fact be able to provide more employment out of all proportion to the threatened reduction of employment in existing industries as a result of the duty. In his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he had decided to introduce an import duty of 1d. a gallon and that it was also his intention to impose an Excise Duty of 1d. a gallon on all stocks of heavy oils in the country over 10,000 gallons, but he did not make it clear whether this Excise Duty was also to apply to stocks of heavy oils which have been produced in this country. I am
    730
    inclined to believe that that could not be the case, but I should like an assurance on the point.
    5.39 p.m.
    Mr. HOROBIN: In adding a few words to the appeal that has been made from various quarters to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this impost, I should like to give a rather obvious answer to the speech to which we have just listened. Those of us who have practical experience of the matter are not weaving fairly tales from our imagination. The price of this oil has already gone up. We have been informed under our contracts that the full extent of the duty will be charged, and no one can deny that, the price being in the neighbourhood of 3d. a gallon, it is in fact an actual increase in fuel cost, and it is quite useless, therefore, to tell us that this is not a very serious impost. That, incidentally, answers another point made in the same speech, because, if the shale industry can immediately act as a substitute, it would not be possible for the big oil suppliers to put up their price, because people would be able to buy their oil from the industry which my hon. Friend represents and it is obvious that, while the shale industry is a most important and valuable industry, it cannot anything near fill the market which has hitherto been supplied by the great oil companies. I think those two points to a considerable extent answer the single speech that we have heard in favour of the tax. I can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer retorting to the rather damaging remarks made by a Member who spoke from those benches with regard to the gas industry that the impost is not likely to be opposed by the gas industry. It is true that this tax on balance is too light to be opposed by the gas industry.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is it not a fact that they asked for it?
    Mr. HOROBIN: If my hon. Friend will make his speech when he is called and allow me to make mine when I am called, we may be able to get on. The reason why the gas industry will not strongly object to the impost is that they say that they are consumers of heavy oil and it will, therefore, pro tanto, tend to put up the price of gas. There are in fact only two competitors, gas and oil. It is im-

    731
    possible to consider coal or, even with the present state of technical development, coke as a serious competitor. Therefore, the competition is between gas and oil. Gas will pro tanto be handicapped by this tax because one part of its raw material will be taxed, but obviously its main competitor will be taxed on 100 per cent. of its fuel, and, in measuring the competition between these two fuels, gas will stand to gain. But considering the point of view of British industry, the price of both fuels will be put up. Gas will not particularly mind whether the price of oil is put up much more, but from the point of view of industry as a consumer of fuel it will not gain on the roundabouts what it loses on the swings. It will only lose rather less on the one than on the other.
    I make those few remarks to spike that possible objection before it is made. This tax will be the heaviest import tax in the whole range of our duties. It is contrary to all the canons of Protection. It is a tax upon raw material and upon fuel. It is going to hit, not those industries or firms or commercial buildings which want reorganisation or replanning, or any of the latest catchwords that we are always hearing. It will not only hit those firms which have made the greatest efforts to increase their efficiency and those employers who have endeavoured to reorganise for the purpose of benefiting their competitive position, but it will hit those employers who have made the biggest effort to improve working conditions for their staffs. They have found that gas has been a very great improvement in cleanliness, in the temperature in boiler houses, and so on. It is extraordinary that we should single out industries and firms which have made the biggest effort to improve their efficiency and to improve working conditions.
    There is only one other point that I want to make, which is to a certain extent new. I associate myself entirely with all that has been said by other speakers in the same sense. I can speak from actual experience. I believe that much too great expectations have been held out by some Members as to the possibilities of transferring back again to coal or coke. In many cases it is physically impossible. I am not now speaking of considerations
    732
    in regard to technical details of the processes, but I have in mind another type of consideration. I have in mind a particular building which, after most careful consideration of the facts in the light of cost, economy in building, conditions of staff work, was put up to use oil. It is physically impossible to use solid fuel because there is no access. Oil is pumped by an elaborate arrangement out of the street underground for a distance of nearly 100 feet into a boiler chamber to which, short of carting it through the whole set of offices, it is impossible to get sold fuel. Buildings costing from £30,000 to £40,000 cannot switch back again from the use of oil to solid fuel. I mention that as a particularly extreme case, but it has a bearing upon this matter.
    I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to all Members of the House, many of whom who have had far greater experience than I have, that you cannot chop and change in these matters. You cannot by fiscal experiments of this sort compel businesses, when they have been gradually making certain changes and most laudable efforts, suddenly to go back on all they have done. They have engaged a staff of a certain type used to dealing with a certain kind of accurate machinery. They have planned in this particular case a whole advertising angle, as it is called, because they have made a point of their hygienic conditions, and if they scrapped it all the good will upon which they have spent some years in advertising would be gone. All sort of practical considerations of that sort will make it impossible in many cases, and absolutely unjustified in the interests of the worker and the employer and efficiency and hygiene to go back. I suggest that this tax, small as it may be in other matters, is a really penal tax upon every consideration we are endeavouring to support and encourage in business. I add my few words of appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interest of the progress of British industry and commerce to reconsider this very sudden and retrograde impost.
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I wish to say a few kind words in support of the the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though I shall have a few minor criticisms to make. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Southwark

    733
    (Mr. Horobin) has painted rather a terrifying picture of what may happen because a building has been constructed to use liquid fuel, and obviously cannot use coal. But it can use gas. He does not quite appreciate that the reason they do not use gas is not because of any inefficiency connected with gas. The inefficiency is in respect of this Chamber and successive Governments. The gas industry is hampered in a most curious way. It was my privilege in 1928 to help to conduct through this House the first Measure to liberate it from some of its shackles. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) was successfull in getting through another small Bill, supported, I am glad to say, by the hon. Member for Central Southwark, but we are still awaiting a really big change in regard to the powers of charge.
    It is absurd that the gas industry is compelled to charge identically the same rate to the person who consumes only one cubic foot a year as to the person who consumes 100,000,000 cubic feet, though the cost to the gas company in selling in very large quantities is much lower. The reason gas is not used in a great many cases where oil is used is because Parliament will not allow the gas industry to supply gas at a proper price. Parliament has insisted upon the gas industry profiteering at the expense of everybody when it is desired to sell gas under really commercial conditions for heating, power and all purposes. The grievance which I have is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet been in consultation with his colleague the President of the Board of Trade to tell him to hurry up and present to the House the necessary legislation to put the gas industry on to a really scientific basis as far as its power of charge is concerned. If that happens we shall have gas, which, for industrial purposes, in most cases is equally as good as oil and in some cases better, on a thoroughly satisfactory basis.
    All gas is made from British coal, except a small amount of gas oil used for the purpose of enriching gas in particular cases, and there is not the slightest reason why, in the bulk of the cases where oil is used, gas should not be used. That the Government have this clearly in mind is seen by reference to a further Resolution which runs to many pages in which there
    734
    is a discrimination between duties on road vehicles. I am sorry that the Government, in making this important change for the legitimate development and protection of British industry which has been subjected to a form of competition not altogether fair, should not be passing at the same time that other legislation which would eliminate all the trouble. Like most hon. Members, I have received a number of letters from constituents. I have four or five letters with me now protesting against the fuel tax. On the other hand, I am satisfied that in nearly every case, if they were only free to use gas under commercial conditions the object of their protest would disappear.
    I pass now to a complaint of a constituent who uses a great deal of lubricating oil for the purpose of making printing ink, without which all of us would suffer in the long, run. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I have never yet met an hon. or a right hon. Member of this House who, after delivering a speech, has not looked in the Press the next day in the hope that it would be reported. My informant tells me that he uses some 5,000 tons of lubricating oil a year for the manufacture of printing ink, and that, roughly speaking, the duty will cost him £5,000. I agree that the problem can be solved if there is an increase in the Import Duties on competing inks coupled with some drawback, as far as printing inks are exported—and they are exported to a substantial extent. If there is no drawback in respect of the export of printing ink, he assures me that the export trade will be seriously hampered. I am not asking that the main duty should be modified, but I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give consideration to the consequential facts and to make it easy, either through the Finance Bill, or, alternatively, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, that in cases where an industry is likely to be prejudiced by the Oil Duties, the necessary drawbacks or increase of duty will be granted so that they will not be prejudiced in competition with foreign producers of similar manufactured articles.
    5.55 p.m.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to another difficulty which another industry will suffer under this

    735
    additional tax. The particular industry to which I refer is in no way in competition either with the coal industry or the gas industry, because the oil in this case is not used as fuel. I draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the spindle oil used by the jute industry in the process of batching. The increase in the price of this oil works out at £1 per ton, and in future the extra charge upon the jute industry will run to about £8,000. I have already referred many times in this House to the difficulties of that industry. The fact that there cannot be an increase in taxation on imports because there is no tax on imports from India, the real competitor, will leave the industry in a very great difficulty in being up against great competition from India and abroad. The industry has endeavoured to bring down the costs in every way possible. There is nothing which can be substituted for the oil which is required. The processes of jute-weaving and spinning cannot be altered in any way to do away with the batching process, and therefore the extra taxation will amount to £8,000 on an industry which is at present struggling for its life.
    Other hon. Members have referred to the difficulties of certain industries, and I notice that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) referred to the horticultural industry, which he said had so improved of late, and which, I would add, is due to the duties which have been put on by the present Government to help that industry. If that help has been given to that industry is it right or fair, especially in this case where it is in competition with Indian products that this extra taxation should be suffered? No doubt many of these points have not been brought to the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I remember some time ago bringing the case of manilla hemp for his consideration and I was unsuccessful at first but now that the whole product is again on the Free List, dare I hope that I can plead with him on a second occasion, and not plead in vain. Although I have been in this House for more than a year, I have not yet lost all sense of hope. I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this particular case where this industry is bound to use this spindle oil which cannot as yet be obtained from home supplies.
    736
    There will be an extra taxation of £8,000, and although I am thankful to know that we are getting assistance in the trade agreements, and that the Government are helping there, the extra tax will take away some of the great advantages which I hope that this industry may obtain during the time the present Government are in office.
    5.58 p.m.
    Mr. HANNON: It is not very often in this House that I find myself in agreement with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but I rise on this occasion to support the Amendment which he has presented to the House. I feel very strongly that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not have before him all the facts relating to the incidence of this tax before he imposed the penny upon heavy oil employed in industry. Indeed I think that most Members of the House regarded the tax as comparatively insignificant and harmless. In the Midland area, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has properly pointed out, a whole series of small industries are intimately and seriously affected by the proposed tax. In recent years a number of progressive manufacturers have been installing in their factories devices for the use of fuel oil instead of coal. It will cause a complete reorganisation of their factory equipment if because of the tax they have to go back to coal or gas. The glass industry, with which we in the Midlands are concerned will, in many instances, be put out of business if the tax upon heavy oils comes into actual operation against them.
    The glass industry of the country uses, I understand, about 100,000 tons of fuel oil in the year. That will mean a tax of £100,000 on the glass industry. In the case of one comparatively small glass industry in the Midlands, of which I have personal knowledge, the actual impost under this tax will be about £4,200 a year. It will be a very serious matter in the case of small manufacturers who have improved their factories and introduced new appliances that govern heat application in the production of glass, if they have either to close their factories or change the mechanical apparatus which they use in production. The regulation

    737
    of temperatures in regard to the production of glass means everything, and the regulation of temperatures can only be efficiently carried out and controlled by the use of fuel oil.
    I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the tax and to ask himself whether he is not adding a further serious burden on a whole series of small industries, already struggling for existence but which are coming more and more into vitality from day to day because of the protective policy adopted by the Government? He knows the facts perfectly well. The imposition of a tax of £100,000 a year on an industry in which the whole turnover is only about £7,000,000 will be out of all proportion to sound statesmanship and out of all relation to a fair and reasonable tax. I hope, therefore, in view of the circumstances, the strength of the arguments submitted to him, and his own knowledge of the difficulties of various industries in the Midlands area, he will consider whether this rebate cannot be fixed at a figure not exceeding 15 per cent., or, better still, that he should remove the tax altogether.
    6.4 p.m.
    Mr. LECKIE: I should like to join in the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he cannot accept the Amendment he should try to meet the case that has been so ably put before him and to exempt fuel oil used for manufacturing purposes from the proposed tax. I have been surprised to find how many firms in my constituency are seriously affected by the proposed tax. I have received many letters and representations as to the effect that the tax will have. These manufacturers have had a very lean time during the past year or two and in order to bring their costs down they have made economies in every way they possibly could. The installation of new oil fuel furnaces and heating apparatus in connection with the iron and steel trade has been wonderful. Many new installations have been put in costing many thousands of pounds. These latterly have been of British make, thereby giving work to British manufacturers and work-people. Now, they are faced with a very serious charge. I know one firm in my constituency to which this tax, if adopted, will mean a cost of £3,000 per annum. I know of other smaller concerns who will
    738
    also be seriously affected. This morning I received a letter from the director of an old established tube works saying:
    "Although we have had a difficult time during the past few years we have kept our men fully employed, but if this one penny per gallon tax goes oil our fuel oil costs a most difficult position will arise, as it is impossible, to pass such an extra charge on to one's customers. Many small works in this district are using fuel oil. In our case the extra cost will be £11,000 a year, which is definitely a charge on actual manufacture."
    I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to injure struggling industries in the iron and steel trade either in my constituency or in other parts of the Midlands, and I hope sincerely that he will take the matter into his very serious consideration and exempt fuel oil used for manufacturing purposes.
    6.7 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to interfere with the many speeches still undelivered on this subject, but we have had a good deal of light upon it, and perhaps it would be convenient if I were at this stage to give some indication of the Government's view on the situation after hearing the appeals that have been made. The Amendment which we are discussing is one to substitute an ad valorem duty not exceeding 15 per cent. for the specific duty proposed by the Government. The particular proposal which the Mover of the Amendment makes, to substitute an ad valorem duty for a specific duty, offers difficulties of an administrative kind. The difficulty lies in saying what is the value of oils which are produced here from imported crude oils, on which the duties are levied on the products of bonded refineries, in relation to the value of imported oils. The right hon. and gallant Member will appreciate the difficulty of saying what the ad valorem duty is for the purpose of the tax. But I do not want to stress that special difficulty attaching to the Amendment, because I recognise that it ranges over a very much wider field than that. Hon. Members have hardly mentioned the particular point about the ad valorem duty, but have rather directed themselves to representing that the imposition of any duty, or any substantial duty, on fuel oils would inflict very serious hardship and injury upon a number of important industries.

    739
    Let me remind the House what was the origin of the proposal and the reason why we have been led to make it. In the first place, the House must admit that under the fiscal system we have introduced it is an anomaly that this particular importation should escape duty altogether. It is not only an anomaly but an accident. It was not done deliberately. It was an accident arising out of the particular form in which light oil was taxed. All oils were taxed, but there was a rebate of the full duty upon those oils which it was not desired to tax by the light oils tax. The result was that the heavy oils which escaped taxation in this way by means of the rebate also escaped the purview of the Import Duties Acts. Because they were nominally subject to the duty, although it had been cancelled by the rebate, they could not be dealt with by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. That being so, I had to consider whether there was any reason why these oils should remain outside the purview of our taxation system, and I further had to consider what would be the result to the revenue if a duty were imposed upon them. One might say that there were three reasons for this particular tax. The first was that these oils were only left out of the general system of duties by an accident; secondly, they were calculated to produce an appreciable amount of revenue, which was naturally a matter of importance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, thirdly, I had strong representations from home industries that these imported oils competed with them, and that it was not fair that they should be left out of duties altogether.
    I noticed that once or twice in the course of the Debate these oils have been referred to as raw materials. Surely that is an inaccurate description. They are not raw materials; they are a form of fuel and they are a form of imported fuel. The House is well aware that these heavy oils if produced in this country are not subject to duties, but are free. Therefore, it is only the imported fuel oil which is subject to this duty, and that is, of course, a form of protection against something which competes with articles which are produced in this country—it competes against coal and also against those industries which use shale or peat for the production of oil, and against the gas and electricity supply
    740
    industries. Industries use oil as fuel and they also use gas, or electricity or coal, each one of which has its merits. It is not true to say, as one hon. Member said, that this duty is a complete contradiction of our general fiscal system. We are not here taxing a raw material, but we are taxing something which competes with our home-produced fuels.
    The second point that I want to establish is that the competition of heavy oils for various purposes is becoming increasingly severe. If they are left out of taxation altogether, of course, they are favoured and the tendency is to use them more and more. Further, the tendency is to originate vested interests in them, as I think we may have seen by the Debate that has taken place this afternoon. It is very natural, and I am not blaming anybody, that when a firm or an industry has, on a review of the circumstances, installed a plant costing perhaps £4,000, which is suitable for the use of these heavy oils, it is going to resist anything in the nature of taxation upon the plant which it has installed, and therefore upon the return from the capital which it has invested.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is interference with vested interests.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will no doubt take strong exception to that, but it is not without a blessing. The right hon. and gallant Member in moving the Amendment used language which, to put it mildly, is an exaggeration as applied to what is happening in this particular case. He continually spoke of our singling out particular industries and singling out particular firms for penal measures. We are not singling them out in making these proposals. They have singled themselves out, because they have chosen to adopt one particular method of carrying on their business in preference to another. We have not singled out any industry.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. We are proposing to put a tax upon a particular form of fuel which has hitherto escaped taxation. To talk about it as a gigantic imposition, a disaster, an iniquitous tax, a penal tax, is an exaggeration of the effect which it is likely to produce. The

    741
    right hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was a 40 per cent. tax. A 40 per cent. tax upon what? Not upon manufacturing costs. The right hon. and gallant Member reckoned it as a 2 per cent. tax upon manufacturing costs.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is a 40 per cent. cost on the raw material.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. and gallant Friend calls it a raw material; I call it a fuel. I say that it is not a 40 per cent. tax upon manufacturing costs. Fuel is only one part of the cost of manufacturing and while the proportion which the cost of fuel bears to the total cost differs very much in different industries, it may be more in one industry than it is in another, he would not suggest that he is going to scrap his furnaces because of this tax. Of course not. Do not let us therefore be led into thinking that the effect of this tax will be as he has described—to heap progressive burdens upon the industry which will lead them to destroy their furnaces and go back to old-fashioned methods. I hope the House will not be misled by the enthusiasm of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have too much respect for his business ability. He will have to pay a little more for his fuel, and possibly it may add to his manufacturing costs.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If you are making no profits, it will send you into the Bankruptcy Court.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been through the Bankruptcy Court. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) said that circumstances had changed. There is one circumstance which has changed, and it has not been mentioned; and that is that we have introduced a protective system into this country. We have added a 20 per cent. duty on the imported article. Is that nothing?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is nothing to us. We have no foreign competition in Wedgwood ware.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has now given away his whole case. He has a monopoly; he is free from competition. How
    742
    then can he pretend that he is losing money by this? But I must not be led away by the exaggerations of the right hon. and gallant Member into underrating the quite serious considerations which other hon. Members have brought to my notice. I do not for one moment imagine that where oil fuel has been found to be specially suitable to the circumstances of any industry or institution that the effect of ptuting a tax upon it is going to make that industry or institution turn round and scrap its plant anti go back to coal, or to gas or electricity, but I do say that in a world which is constantly changing, and where developments are going on in all directions, it is a consideration we should keep in mind that we should not encourage developments which proceed in the direction of using foreign imported fuels in preference to fuels which are produced by our own people, and which give employment to our own people. In so far as the imposition of the tax increases costs to industries in this country which are competing with foreign competitors, surely hon. Members will not forget that we have now a system under which there is an impartial Advisory Committee, before which industries can make application for an increase of the duty in the light of existing conditions. If we change the conditions in such a way that the duty which has hitherto been adequate now becomes inadequate to give the amount of protection which the Advisory Committee thought previously was sufficient, surely that is a new circumstance which the industry is entitled to take before the committee, and to which the committee is bound to give attention in considering whether a case has been made out or not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: How does that help you in your foreign trade?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is of no interest to the right hon. and gallant Member because he is free from foreign competition.
    Mr. HOROBIN: How does the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the accusation of increasing costs help in our export trade when only, as far as the home market is concerned, you get extra protection? Is it the suggestion that we should have a rebate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is now raising an old subject of controversy between Protectionists and Free Traders, and as he is one of the latter he probably knows the answer already. In case he has forgotten it, may I say that it has now been shown by actual experience that if you can secure to firms a larger proportion of the home market the result is that their on-costs are so reduced that they are more easily able to compete in foreign markets. Let me deal with the particular questions which have been addressed to me. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. White) asked why oil used by foreign-going ships should be free of the duty whereas coastwise shipping did not enjoy such exemption. This is no new distinction as between these two forms of shipping. The basis for the exemption of the stores of foreign-going ships is that they are to be exported, but, on the other hand, coastwise shipping is a very important form of competition with inland transport, with road and rail transport, and it would be obviously unfair if coastwise shipping were given an advantage not given to road and rail competitors.
    Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: May I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that foreign shipowners engage in coastwise trade, which is therefore menaced by foreign competition?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In this matter we have not departed from the existing practice, and if we were to bring coastwise shipping into the same position as foreign-going shipping, we should have to subject coastwise shipping to the Customs restrictions, which would be found to be a considerable handicap. They can now pass freely in and out of our ports, whereas they would have to embark their goods under the supervision of the Customs authorities. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) thought to spike my guns by giving in advance the answer I should give to the hon. Member for Birkenhead who said that this tax would be a great burden on the gas industry. The hon. Member for Central Southwark pointed out that the gas industry does not think so. It does not like everything in the proposal but, on the whole, it thinks it is going to benefit and not injure the gas industry. That is a complete answer to the hon. Member
    744
    for Birkenhead, who said that the gas industry was being crippled or injured by these proposals. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) asked me about the Excise Duty which would apply to oil produced in this country. It would not apply to oil produced in this country, and if he will look at the next Resolution he will find that this is so.
    Let me sum up my observations. I say that we want this duty for the purpose of completing our fiscal system. We want it for the purpose of giving us a substantial amount of revenue, and we want it also for the purpose of assisting our home industries of gas, electricity and the shale oil industry in Scotland. This is a Budget Resolution, not a Clause in the Finance Bill, but the passing of the Resolution will give us the duty as it stands to-day. I ask hon. Members to believe that when we come to the Clause in the Finance Bill I do not want to take up an absolutely rigid attitude and treat it as a duty which we must impose without having complete knowledge of all its possible bearings. It is evident that if we made full inquiries before the duty is proposed we should give away secrets of which advantage might be taken. I do not profess to have complete knowledge of all the aspects of the duty and, therefore, I shall be quite ready, when we come to consider the Clause in the Finance Bill, to consider any special case which may be made out on behalf of any particular industry, or any particular way in which this fuel oil is being used, and any cases where special hardship may be inflicted. Without making any promise or committing myself to any particular concession, I give that general assurance to the House, that I will listen very sympathetically to any representations which are made to me.
    6.21 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: This duty shows the difficulties which arise in attempting to apply a tariff policy in two different ways, first, through an independent tariff Advisory Committee and, secondly, through the Budget. Here you have a case in which the right hon. Gentleman says that one of the reasons why he has brought forward this particular Resolution is because owing to the accidental omission of this particular commodity from taxation it has been removed entirely out of the purview of

    745
    the Advisory Committee. Therefore, they are not able to decide upon the advisability of the taxation, or the degree of taxation, or the protective measures which ought to be put in for particular industries. The right hon. Gentleman's reasons, besides the reason of the accidental omission, were twofold. First, he said he wanted to get an appreciable amount of revenue from this tax—that is to say he is imposing it as a revenue tax—and secondly, he said that he thought it would give certain protection to certain industries—that is to say it is to be used as a protective tax. He told the House that he had had representations from people who thought they would benefit from the tax, presumably the coal industry, the shale oil industry and the gas industry. But he did not tell the House and the House would be interested to know whether he considered objections from the various industries likely to be affected by the imposition of the tax.
    I understand that a number of people are naturally anxious to have it. Like all taxation a number of people want it, and a number do not want it. The advantage of referring a matter of this sort to the Advisory Committee was always said to be that you would get an impartial decision as between those who wanted the taxation and those who did not. In the circumstances, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the better way of dealing with this question is to refer it to the Advisory Committee in order that full consideration may be given to the objections of various industries which have not yet been considered. He will have secured the imposition of his tax for revenue purposes for the moment, and it can go on until such time as the Advisory Committee come to a decision as to whether limitations should be imposed, whether it should be an ad valorem or a specific tax and the other various questions which arise. I think the right hon. Gentleman's argument points to the logical conclusion that if this item has been left out accidentally and therefore has not come within the purview of the Advisory Committee, the proper thing to do is to bring it within the purview of that Committee and not to keep it outside their purview, by dealing with it as a Budget tax, and not an Import Duties tax. There would then be ample oppor-
    746
    tunity for all those who object to it to have their objections duly and fully heard. That cannot be done in the House, or in Committee of the House on the Finance Bill where it is impossible to put forward arguments and figures such as would be carefully considered by the Advisory Committee.
    Turning to the merits of the tax, it is hardly fair, I think, of the right hon. Gentleman to say that industries or businesses have singled themselves out for taxation. One cannot say that the right hon. Gentleman has singled industries out, but neither can one say that they have singled themselves out. I am not a capitalist, and do not know much about capitalist industry but I happen to know something about the pottery industry because I am in the fortunate or unfortunate position of trying to run a pottery for disabled ex-service men. That pottery has gone to enormous expense, at the particular request of the inhabitants of the district in which it is situated, to lay down a series of oil kilns because the inhabitants objected to the smoke. The pottery is in a rural district, at Ashtead, and the only way to gel over that objection was to go to the expense of converting the kilns or building new kilns for the consumption of fuel oil. That has been done and has entirely eliminated the smoke nuisance which is one of the greatest nuisances in connection with the pottery industry. Now, having done our best to be good neighbours and to make the industry efficient, we shall find ourselves saddled with this quite unexpected extra taxation as a result of our action. Had anybody warned us a year or two ago that this was likely to come, we should then have been in a position perhaps to move the factory somewhere else where the smoke nuisance would not be an objection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Stoke."] In Stoke of course smoke is permitted to issue from the chimneys, I think, every hour. I do not know what the exact time is but you are allowed to have a certain amount—
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Not under Free Trade.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Yes, even under Free Trade there was a special regulation. I regret to say that as far as my experience goes, the pottery industry has not im-

    747
    proved so far as a result of tariffs. I suggest that it is a matter to be considered gravely, that industries of this sort which have, for particular reasons, made large capital expenditure in order to consume fuel oil, should now be faced with this very serious tax. The quantity of fuel oil consumed in the pottery industry is very large indeed, and this tax will further hamper these industries just at a time when they are finding it sufficiently difficult to keep their heads above water.
    There is another aspect of this question. There is a very large quantity of this oil which is not used for fuel purposes. As far as that is concerned, even the right hon. Gentleman would admit that it is a raw material. He is no doubt aware of the quantities used in the asphalt industry for the production of road surfacing. Nowadays, large quantities are used in that way, and at the present price of about £2 a ton which those industries pay for their oil, this proposal will mean a 50 per cent. tax on that raw material, which, when it comes through to the manufactured product, means an increase of practically 10 per cent. on the price of the manufactured product. That is a product almost entirely utilised by local authorities. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that where this material is used as a raw material it is not fair that it should be subject to this taxation.
    I trust that in the full consideration which the Import Duties Advisory Committee are to give this matter at some time, they will consider exemptions where the material is used as I have described and not for fuel purposes. All the matters which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, so far as protection was concerned, were in relation to its use for fuel purposes and nothing else. There is also the large range of industries in which it is used as a raw material and also for lubrication purposes. I do not think that, substantially, any lubricating oils are made at the present time from raw materials in this country. There, too, we have an essential material in nearly every industry and one which must increase the cost of production. I ask the right hon. Gentleman therefore to consider whether it would not be wiser, although this may have been an acci-
    748
    dental omission, to leave it as an accidental omission. At least lie should give some warning or notice so that people may have an opportunity of adapting their mechanism to meet their needs. That is something which cannot be done in a day, or indeed in many months—to convert oil-burning apparatus to coal-burning purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do as I suggest, I ask him whether he will not exempt manufacturers raw materials and refer the whole matter to the Import Duties Advisory Committee so that everybody may have full opportunity of putting forward their arguments, of having them weighed in detail, and of having a just decision as between the various competing interests in this matter.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: I wish to add my appeal to the appeals which have come from practically all parts of the House to the right hon. Gentleman to modify his attitude even further than he gave us an indication of doing at the end of his speech. We are grateful to him for his promise to keep an open mind, and to see whether an adjustment cannot be made in the Finance Act to cover some of the points raised this afternoon. I beg of him for the sake of many of the industries of this country to be prepared to take a very liberal view when he is further considering this question. There was a discussion between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment, as to whether the oil which is the subject of this Debate was a fuel or a raw material. I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman particularly to cases in which this oil is very definitely a raw material.
    We have heard mostly, so far, about oil which is consumed in furnaces, but we have a branch of industry in this country known as oil distilling. The oil distiller buys the crudest oil obtainable, which is totally unsuitable in its crude state for most industrial purposes. He distils it and, after distillation, he gets his benzol or his kerosene and is left with a substance—bitumen—which he sells for the covering of roads. That is a not unimportant section of industry. That very crude oil costs him about £2 a ton, and the right hon. Gentleman proposes to tax it to the extent of £1 Os. 6d. per ton, or

    749
    over 50 per cent. of the cost of that raw material to the industry. What he proposes to do is to put that industry right out of business—an attitude which, I am perfectly certain, he will not maintain when he has had an opportunity of reconsidering the position.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to think that general industry, in the terms of this discussion, is to be measured by the case of Wedgwood pottery, because general industry, which is paying this tax, is subject to the fiercest competition and has to sell most of its products in foreign markets. We have heard of the case of glass, but glass is only one industry affected by the tax. I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman or the Financial Secretary, to the case of the bolt and nut trade, in which nearly all the heating is done by crude oil, and which is up against fierce competition, from Belgium, and Germany and even Japan, in markets where some years ago we had more or less a monopoly. Many of these industries are "hanging on by the skin of their teeth" at the present moment, and the right hon. Gentleman, whether he calls this a raw material or a fuel, is proposing to tax a not unimportant part of the prime cost of their product to the extent of between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent.
    Then there is the tube trade. This is a branch of industry which has had no benefits under tariffs and which indeed, if it wants to buy a billet from abroad has to pay 33⅓ per cent. upon it. Having paid that duty on the billet, they have to turn it into tubes and now they are faced with a new imposition of £1 per ton on their oil. So, one could go through various industries which are affected. The procedure under which this matter has been discussed to-day is open to certain objections. It is only a week ago that the right hon. Gentleman first made the country acquainted with his intention. That does not give the industries concerned time to pull themselves together, to work up their case and to present him with the facts which are within their knowledge if not within his. I would ask the Financial Secretary in the absence of the Chancellor, if he is requested to receive representatives of various branches of industry on this important point, to be good enough to endeavour to do so, and to hear the very
    750
    important issues that I know they will put before him.
    I would make one suggestion which, I trust, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will take into consideration. One gathered from the speech of the Chancellor in opening his Budget that he had been influenced by considerations put before him by the coal trade and the railway and gas undertakings. I want to help him if I can, and it seems to me that a way could be devised whereby the Chancellor could get his duty on certain classes of oil, on kerosene, on lubricating oil, and on light fuel oils suitable for high speed Diesel engines on roads, and yet exempt all the heavier stuff, which is either the fuel of the heavy industries of the country or is very definitely a raw material. I would beg the Financial Secretary to consider whether, if he were to limit or bring up his classification into two sections, and say that oils of 0.9 or thereabouts specific gravity and below should be subject to the tax, and the other oils should not be subject to it, he would not get a working formula which would not create many difficulties in administration and would solve this issue to the general satisfaction of all sections of the House. I beg that he will take that point seriously into consideration.
    6.47 p.m.
    Mr. CLARRY: The last two speakers made some reference to the distillation of oils and the resultant product, bitumen. There is no commodity in this country to which there is not a satisfactory alternative, and I should like to draw attention to the particular uses of bitumen and its use as a surfacing material on roads. There is a British alternative, namely, road tar, which is a product of coal and in use to double the extent on British roads to which bitumen is used. I would like to support this tax, because, however small it may be, it has a tendency to help the coal industry, which is striving very hard at the present time. The growth of consumption of oil in this country has in its general effect, in my opinion, been a serious national menace. There have been many reasons, into which it is not desirable to enter at the present moment, for this very rapid increase in the consumption of oil, but it is sufficient to say that it has grown in a comparatively few years until we now consume 2,000,000 tons of fuel oil, and I refer only to those grades described as

    751
    kerosene, gas oil, Diesel oil, end fuel oil, which enter this country every year, and £4,000,000 which goes out to foreign countries to pay for it. At the same time we have coal mines lying idle. Surely it is not beyond the wit of scientific men to be able to compose these differences in our national interest? There is no control over the supply of oil. We do not know how long the present quantity will be maintained, and we cannot tell when the highly organised oil interests will not decree that we should pay a penny or more per gallon, and there is no redress and no argument about it.
    A great deal has been said in this Debate on the value of oil in industry. Coal is the basis of all our industries in this country, and if we allow the inroads of imported foreign oil to continue, we may get to a state when British industrial production is dependent on a pipe line, an oil pipe line, over which we have no control at all. The Minister earlier in the Debate made a statement with reference to the gas industry, with which I am closely associated and of which I have had some experience over many years. The gas industry is the second largest consumer of fuel oil in the country, and this penny tax will involve the industry in an additional cost of approximately £220,000 per annum. Obviously, you cannot expect the industry to rush forward and say, "We agree to this, and we welcome it," but I think it may be said that they are not raising serious objection to it, because they see the ultimate benefit not only to themselves but to the country as a whole.
    Hon. Members might like to know why the gas industry use these large quantities of oil. There are two reasons. The first is to enrich the gas made from coal and to maintain it at the very rigid qualities which are enforced by statutory regulation. They also keep supplies of oil in hand to produce carburetted water-gas, the raw materials of which are coke, oil, and steam. This gas is used for emergency purposes and for auxiliary supplies, and I may here say that if it had not been for that auxiliary supply and the stocks of oil in 1926 during the General Strike, the industry would not have been able to maintain the efficient supply of gas which it did throughout that period, when the coal supplies were
    752
    held up. I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the point connected with the gas industry, which by virtue of its statutory obligations, has of necessity to carry very large stocks of oil, far beyond those which are necessary in ordinary business concerns, and not in any way purchased for speculative reasons. As a matter of fact, I understand that the stocks of oil carried by the industry to-day amount to £100,000 on the basis of the penny duty,,which is retrospective, and I sincerely hope the Minister will consider that, having regard to the very special obligations on the gas industry to maintain gas supplies, it should not be penalised by a retrospective charge for those stocks.
    A great deal has been said about coal not being able to replace oil. I am aware that there is a large number of special uses of oil which it is not possible at the moment, owing to geographical or other peculiar reasons, to replace by coal or gas, but there has been a vast improvement in the last few years in the technique of coal consumption and appliances, and I think the incidence of this taxation will be a further encouragement to make that more possible. In general terms and without regard to any specific case I consider that, when available, town gas can replace oil in nearly every case where oil is used, but hitherto the gas industry, has been precluded from coming into the ordinary competitive market on a question of cost, owing to statutory restrictions, but gas can meet the case which has been put forward several times to-day, for an exact control over heating, no dirt, and at the same time storage is not necessary. Gas is a British ally of coal and is the coal trade's largest individual industrial consumer.
    For these reasons I think this tax is a further inducement to manufacturers and consumers to consider the possibility of using the British product as against the imported product. To summarise, I consider the risk run by industry as comparatively small and can be easily borne in special cases owing to the tariff and other arrangements that have been made for them while at the same time the opportunity for the future is considerably greater for coal. Last year I publicly advocated and carried a resolution at the Conservative Conference for a duty of 3d. on fuel oil, and I do not think industry would have suffered to any material

    753
    extent whilst the depressed coal trade, employment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have benefited. I see no reason why the 1d. tax on lubricating oil could not be put up to 8d., which is the present tax comparable with petrol, because all these factors have a reaction in the right direction. Every 100 tons of fuel oil imported into this country replace 150 tons of British coal, and for that reason I think the House may regard this incidence of taxation of 1d. per gallon as only a commencement towards the desired end which we hope to attain towards increased employment at home and reduced payments for oil imports from foreign countries.
    6.55 p.m.
    Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Everybody must have been delighted to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that he had not made up his mind on all the points which have been put forward to-day. I want to draw his attention to the burden which this tax will place on the textile industry, which uses tremendous quantities of oil for manufacturing purposes, not in the form of fuel at all. In the heavy woollen industry, whenever they are going to grind rags, they must use oil for the purpose—a layer of rag, a layer of oil, a layer of rag, and so on. This is not competitive with coal in any way, nor can you use gas for this purpose. There is one point that I want to bring home to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Where great quantities of oil are used, it is on the lower classes of goods, which are meeting the fiercest competition in foreign markets, and the proportion of tax in those classes is far greater than in the higher priced classes, which are not finding the difficulties of competition with foreign exporters of goods. I wanted to bring that point home, because it is similar to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh).
    This particular trade, the heavy woollen industry, is having probably the most difficult struggle of all sections of the textile trade to recover its export trade. The last speaker said that he did not think this penny tax on what is, after all, the raw material of the industry would affect seriously the cost of production, but the truth of the matter is that this industry has lost a tremendous proportion of its export trade, and I appeal on
    754
    behalf of that industry that its raw material should not be increased in cost. Very little oil indeed is used as fuel in this industry, but oil is a very serious raw material of the industry, and I hope that between now and when the Finance Bill is introduced, serious consideration will be given to all those hon. Members who have brought forward the serious results of the increased cost of a raw material to many of our manufacturing industries.
    6.57 p.m.
    Mr. PIKE: I have noticed in this Debate that speakers from the benches opposite have avoided any reference to the advantageous effect of this duty upon the mining industry, and especially upon the mining communities who are dependent for their livelihood upon that industry. Figures have been quoted which show conclusively that some 2,180,000 tons of oil fuel alone were imported into this country last year, and according to the "Board of Trade Journal" of the 4th August last year, an additional 95,200,000 gallons, or 359,000 tons of gas oil, was imported. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), when at the Ministry of Mines, in presenting the Mines Vote last year, said:
    "The displacement of coal owing to the increased use of oil represents between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 tons of coal in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1932; Col. 968, Vol. 265.]
    If that is the position, in so far as the mining industry is affected by the importation of foreign oil, it is a position that should engage the more serious attention of the House than the issue with which it was confronted yesterday with regard to the new German Trade Agreement. If the British coal mining industry is suffering to the extent of a fall in demand of between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 tons a year, at least 25,000 British miners are deprived of six months of permanent employment in every year as a result of these importations. Some 12,500 miners could be permanently employed for five working-shifts every week in our fields if this oil had not taken the place of coal, and the demand for coal had continued as hitherto. That is a problem which should have the serious consideration of this House, rather than the very secondary interests put forward in opposition to the tax. The average daily output of coal of a particular miner is some 22 cwts.

    755
    If we take as a basis that one ton of imported oil equals a day's working shift in the mine, the result is that the importation of oil has caused a fall in the demand for British coal and that some 12,500 miners are unemployed, at a cost of £350,000 a year to the State. That is the contribution of the State towards the maintenance of the unemployed, but their unemployment also places very heavy charges upon the localities. We have thus a problem which, in my opinion, will not only continue to present itself to the nation, as it does at this moment, but which, if unchecked, will become greater as the years roll by. As the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) has submitted to the. House, we might ultimately find that we had destroyed the value of the coal trade to the industries of this country. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to treat with a certain amount of grave suspicion many of the suggestions made to him this afternoon with regard to the remission of this tax. The importation of oil does destroy the employment of British miners in this country, and it also destroys the great difference which exists between the purchasing power of the State contribution to unemployment, commonly called the "dole," and actual wages. The difference between the two being so vast, it reacts very detrimentally not only upon the retail but upon the wholesale trade of the country, and also upon the producers of those goods which would otherwise be in more general demand. It is an important matter on which the Government should not give way easily.
    I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two definite conclusions recently drawn by the Coal Utilisation Council in their book, "Coal versus Oil," because I consider they give the answer effectively to some of the suggestions which have been made in favour of oil as against coal. This book states that coal heat is the cheapest form of heat. I have not heard from the benches here to-day any doubt as to the accuracy of that statement. If coal heat is the cheapest form of heat, and is the most effective form of heat for general purposes, it seems that the case for oil is considerably weakened. The next point the Council submit for consideration is that coal does require little skilled labour
    756
    in its application in the production of heat. I have heard this afternoon that oil in its usage for the production of heat requires less skilled labour than does coal, and that has been put forward as a reason why oil should be considered in preference to coal. I am satisfied that in the vast majority of cases the need of skilled labour, required for the operation of the machines used for the purposes of oil heating apparatus, is much higher than that needed, usually, in the employment of coal. So far as one can calculate, it is more economic, generally, to use coal than oil.
    As to the question of smoke and soot, I do not think it can he justly stated that oil apparatus is smokeless. One has only got to look in the City at two very big buildings, which we know have been put under oil, to see issue periodically from these buildings volumes of black smoke. These come out periodically either for the general and free consumption of the inhabitants of the City, or for those who do not attend there regularly. Anthracite, steam coals, gas, and furnace-coke burn with almost complete freedom from smoke and soot. Until it is proved otherwise by those who are attempting to urge us that coal must give way to oil, and that coal is in a weak position, we should stick to what we have had proved, and be on a solid foundation. It has also been found that coal and coke are more or less free from explosions, and that the same thing cannot be said regarding oil. I would urge the Chancellor to go forward with his scheme. I feel that if he goes forward boldly, a greater impetus will be given to the coal mining industry than has been given to it for a long time past. A larger number of men will ultimately go into employment through the demand for the getting and distribution of coal than the industry has been able to employ for a very lengthy period.
    7.9 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOO RE-BRABAZON: It is very seldom that one welcomes a new tax with any enthusiasm, but I never listened with more pleasure than I did to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he, in somewhat apologetic words, introduced one of the most important and far-reaching taxes that have ever been found in a Budget. Perhaps I may be

    757
    prejudiced because I have already made a speech in favour of a tax of this type. I made a very strong speech against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he ran away from this tax some years ago, just before Lord Snowden got in with an Amendment. On a long train journey once with Mr. William Graham I think, if I had had another 100 miles, I would even have converted him. Behind this tax there is a tremendous significance in the help it can give to the coal industry. I am surprised that the Opposition, representing so many coal districts, have lost sight of the wood because of the trees, and have not seen the vast importance of this particular tax. I do not think anybody can deny that up and down the country there has been going on for the last 10 years an absolute conspiracy to oust our own home fuel in favour of the foreign fuel. It may be true that there are some industries in which oil is absolutely essential, and in which cases the Chancellor will run away. But I hope he will not run too far.
    With regard to bitumen there is always tar, and in other industries gas instead of oil has equal efficiency. There are many hotels and buildings in London to-day which are being heated by oil when coal would be just as good. They are heated by oil because they are swung over by just a quarter of a farthing. This tax will just put them down on the right side, and make for the permanent use of coal. A big factory in the West of England, to which I could draw attention, is using coal under the boilers when, within four miles, there is a coal mine with thousands of unemployed men. That is an intolerable position. A number of speakers have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exempt heavy oil—that is the very oil which is being burned under boilers instead of coal. If he does give way on that he is sacrificing many tons of coal which would be mined in this country.
    There is, in many walks of life, a convenience in oil which is impossible in relation to coal, but for many years there have been many endeavours, from the scientific point of view, to turn coal into oil by a number of processes—sometimes by distillation, and sometimes by hydrogenation. Some of these processes are very nearly successful. They may swing just the right way by this tax.
    758
    Along these lines there is a great future for the coal industry. Lately the industry has been so poor that it has not been able to experiment. I hope this tax will be pursued right to its very end. I have visions of seeing, in the future, coal mines with busy miners and not one lump of the coal of these mines being sold. Coal as raised to the surface in a mine of that kind will be immediately distilled, and the gas pipe "lined" to where it is required. The residual fuel will be synthetically turned into petrol or alcohol. It is only by encouragement of this kind that we are ever going to get the millennium in dealing with a material which is so important to the country. There is nothing more important in the whole of our economic structure than to do something for our coal industry. Although this tax may penalise some in dustries I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will stick to his guns. I feel that this tax will have a reaction greater than anyone imagines.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I am afraid that the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon will bring very little satisfaction to the manufacturers of this country, who will not be influenced by the no doubt very admirable arguments that he put forward, but rather by the fact that they are faced with a specific demand of a heavy nature in this tax as an addition to their working charges. It will be no satisfaction to them to be told, for example, that the tax is only on imported fuel oil, because there is no alternative internal fuel oil to which they can turn. The Chancellor at one time seemed to be blaming manufacturers for having done such a silly thing as to use oil, and I am afraid that that will only add to the bitterness that some of them are feeling because of this unexpected and heavy burden.
    The Chancellor said one thing to which I hope my hon. Friend will reply. It seems to me that the Chancellor overlooked a point here. He said that if it were found that this additional burden made the existing measure of protection of industry in this country inadequate, they could easily go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and bring the facts to their cognisance, and in a suitable case get an addition to the protective

    759
    duty. But what about the people who come under the Anglo-German Trade Agreement and the other trade agreements? What about the hollow-ware manufacturers of my constituency and the Midlands generally, who, having had a duty of 25 per cent., and expecting a duty of 33 per cent., are now told that they are to have in future a protective duty of 20 per cent.? That may be all right; I am not arguing that point; but the Chancellor says that they can go to the Advisory Committee and get more protection. They cannot, for all those people who come under a trade agreement have no remedy. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear that point in mind when he is dealing with this matter at a later stage, because it is clear that in cases of that kind some regard must be had to the very difficult position in which these particular manufacturers find themselves.
    I want to call attention once again, as in duty bound, to special local circumstances. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) referred to the industries of North Staffordshire. I want to say something of those in South Staffordshire, which in their way are quite as important as those in any other part of the county. I am speaking of the industries throughout the Black Country. Manufacturers there are finding themselves in a serious difficulty. Fuel oil is used on a large scale throughout the Black Country for heating forging furnaces and in manufactures of that kind, and it is no unusual thing for a firm to use 10,000 gallons of fuel oil a week, and the tax will amount to something like £2,000 a year. As has been pointed out. with a cost of 3d. a gallon, the additional tax means something like one-third extra. Reference has been made to the question of the export trade, and I would point out that there are certain firms in the Black Country that I know well and are not far from my constituency which are selling a well-known brand throughout the world, and something like 95 per cent. of their business is export trade. They are having a tremendous struggle abroad and here they are to be called upon to pay another £2,000 a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) admitted, although he was supporting the tax, that in the
    760
    case of export trades it was a penal tax. I hope that there, again, the Chancellor at a later stage will bear in mind the position and ease it, possibly by reducing the tax considerably in cases of this kind.
    It is true that experiments have been made and are being made in connection with creosote oil produced in this country, but they have not arrived yet at a satisfactory position as regards quality, and it is available only in very inadequate quantities. I hope the Government are not going to run away with the idea that the only industry in this country that requires attention is coal. Last night we had an example where the only thing that seemed to matter was coal. None of the other industries got any benefit at all. The Chancellor told us to-day that one of the main objects of this tax is to assist coal, but there are many other industries in this country quite as important as coal which require the assistance of the State as much as coal. In many of the examples which have been given to-day of factories which are going to be affected by this tax, they cannot switch over to coal. Reasons have been clearly expressed why they must go on using fuel oil and they must bear the additional burden. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was only 1d. a gallon, but that means £2,000 a year to many of the firms, which they will have to pay out of their pockets or as an addition to their working expenses. I join in the appeal that has been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not shown himself unyielding, and I hope that at a later stage he will go a long way towards doing away with what, I think, he has realised, and certainly will realise during the next few weeks, is going to have a most serious effect on struggling industries in many parts of the country.
    7.23 p.m.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The point I wish to make on this question is with regard rather to the amount of the duty than to the justification for a duty of some kind. The most extraordinary argument that has been used in favour of this tax as it is proposed is the argument of the Coal Utilisation Council that, because coal is a cheaper fuel than oil, therefore it needs to be protected by a 50 per cent. tax on oil. We are not discussing whether it is a good thing to

    761
    burn coal or a good thing to burn oil. I entirely agree that there has been a quite unjustifiable flight from coal to oil, but the danger that I see in the present trend is that in our desire to protect the coal industry or one of our great staple industries, we are constantly hitting over the head any little new industry which begins to grow up and employ labour. The manufacture of oil-burners, for instance, is beginning to be a, new industry in this country, and it employs a certain number of people. It is the result of a certain venturesomeness on the part of individuals who have tried to start the industry. No sooner do they get their heads above the surface than the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down with this tax.
    It is perfectly justifiable to place a tax on fuel oil, but what should be the amount of such a tax? Surely it should be no more than the amount barely necessary to equalise competitive conditions as between coal and oil. There, I think, my hon. Friends from coal-mining constituences would agree. That is the only principle on which this House can tax in such a case. This tax, meaning as it does in the case of fuel oil, an addition of between 40 and 50 per cent. in many instances, is wholly out of any proportion to the competitive position as between coal and oil. As a matter of fact, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said, the substitution of oil for coal for central heating is a nice balance of considerations, and, generally speaking, the only thing that turns the scale is a belief, whether justified or not, that thereby a, certain amount of labour will be saved. A small tax on fuel oil would be perfectly sufficient to tip the scale and to give coal a fair advantage. But this tax of a penny a gallon is a kind of savage rule-of-thumb use of the bludgeon in taxation which really cannot be justified by any scientific principle of taxation. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider it from that point of view.
    7.25 p.m.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry) stated the point of view of the coal industry, and, in particular, the gas industry; and I think that if ever we have heard a Debate of vested interests in this House, we have had it to-night on
    762
    behalf of the coalfields and the gas industry. To try to compare, as did the hon. Member for Newport and the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike), coal and oil and the comparative cost of each, is to neglect the particular suitability of each particular fuel in certain sets of circumstances. Even the Noble Lord said that he wanted to see a tax on oil just so as to make competitive conditions approximately level with coal. What the Chancellor is doing in this tax is to put a heavy impost on industries which are using oil fuel and cannot use coal fuel for many technical reasons. I will take a particular instance. I am interested in a company, and if the Chancellor likes he can say that I am a vested interest, but it is trying to turn out a decent British article in competition with foreign articles, and if that is wicked vested interest, I would like to know what is endeavouring to be a sound industrialist.
    We have certain horizontal furnaces and we can run them on oil fuel at the equivalent gas price of 11d. per 1,000 feet. We cannot get commercial gas at less than 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet. I submit that the tax which is now put on our particular industry manufacturing stainless steel is not going to help equalise competition with coal. All it will do is to reduce our competitive power in relation to our foreign competitors. The point of the Chancellor that the Revenue must be safeguarded in view of the great swing-over from coal is a sound one, but I also submit that when new struggling industries in a world that is industrially depressed are rising, it is not a psychological moment in which to put heavier burdens on industry even from the point of safeguarding the revenue of future years. Let us wait until industry is in a more prosperous state, when it will be able to bear such additional imposts as will safeguard the revenue.
    I want to say a word about the completely erroneous statement which was made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), whom I regret is not in his place, although I told him that I was going to deal with him. Like so many others, he over-stated the case for the gas industries by building up a case that if we removed Acts of Parliament from the gas industry which are putting burdens on the industry, we

    763
    shall enable them to be in a more efficient position to compete with oil. He made the statement that the trouble is that Parliament has made quite sure that gas companies have to charge the industrial user of gas of 1,000,000 cubic feet at the same rate as they charge the private user using only a few hundred feet. I do not know whether the hon. Member has heard of a company in his own constituency called the Croydon Gas Company. It is evident that he has not. The company in which I am interested happens to take gas from the Croydon Gas Company, and it is erroneous to state that industrial manufacturers have to pay the same price for industrial gas as the private consumers. If he had studied the local conditions before he came here and made sweeping statements, building up a case on false facts, possibly his speech would have carried greater weight in the House than it will.
    Mr. CLARRY: As the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is not here, I would like to point out that the statement he made was a general statement, and the case which the hon. and gallant Member is citing from Croydon is undoubtedly an exception, or one of the exceptions. There, is no general legislation on the lines indicated by the hon. and gallant Member, but there are cases in which private undertakings have obtained special statutory powers, and Croydon is one of them. The hon. Member for South Croydon was referring to the general legislation of the country, which does not permit of the latitude of competitive bargaining.
    Captain BALFOUR: General legislation may not permit that latitude, but any gas company can take steps to secure legislation which will enable it to deal favourably with its industrial consumers. In the case of Croydon the domestic rate for gas is 4s. 9d. per 1,000 feet, but if tomorrow I turned over my furnaces to gas I could buy that gas at 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet, and if I liked to put various other appliances on to gas I should probably get the gas somewhat lower than 3s. 9d. per 1,000 feet. But however much the price of gas is lowered—unless there was an enormous reduction—I cannot get gas at a price to compete with my present fuel oil costs, and I submit that people who use fuel oil should not be condemned
    764
    so whole-heartedly as we have been condemned to-night by the coal and gas interests, seeing that it is this oil which is enabling us to compete with the foreigner with some success at a time when industry is very hard pressed. I once more urge on the Financial Secretary to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that this duty will not equalise the position as between coal and oil, but will only make it harder to employ British men in British industry.
    7.32 p.m.
    Major PROCTER: I was very pleased to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider granting certain exceptions from this tax on oil where it is a raw material or where no suitable substitute for oil can be found. I am pleased that he has made that concession, because it cuts the complaints from under the feet of the supporters of oil, which has been the gravest competitor to the coal industry. It is a competition which, if unchecked, would eventually destroy it altogether. It is a sound policy for any Government to make provision for the preservation of the coal industry, upon which the prosperity of all our industries has been founded. Coal is the natural fuel of this country. Coal has been the means whereby the industries of this country have made their mark in all parts of the world. It is only of recent years that oil has become a competitor. Owing to the lowering of price of oil, it is now endangering the prosperity of the coal industry, though without any doubt the burning of coal is still the cheapest method of producing heat. The greatest argument in proof of this is found in the fact that every oil-producing company in this country uses pulverised fuel for the refining of its petrol. They can get fuel oil at the cheapest rate, and yet the Anglo-Persian Company, and Shell-Mex use coal for producing heat. The quantity of heat in a pound of good coal is 12,000 British Thermal Units, and in oil 19,000 British Thermal Units. The cost of a ton of English coal suitable for use in furnaces such as the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) has mentioned is 11s.; if it is pulverised at a cost of 3s. that brings up the cost to 14s. Oil costs £2 per ton. With 100 per cent. heat release in the furnaces, such coal is the cheapest heat producer in this country.

    765
    The trouble is that some of our manufacturers are more concerned with their commodities than with their prime costs in the boilerhouse. The average efficiency of the Lancashire boiler used in Lancashire to-day is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60 per cent. Nearly half the coal is wasted, because it is not used efficiently. Industrialists have gone over to oil largely because of the lack of knowledge of the way to burn coal efficiently.
    Mr. HEPWORTH: Does the hon. Member suggest that engineers in Lancashire do not know how to consume coal?
    Major PROCTER: The trouble is that the engineers do not consume the coal. It is the stoker who consumes the coal. As regards the furnaces mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, there is a preventable loss in the ordinary hand fired reverberatory furnaces of over 40 per cent., simply because nobody takes an interest in how to burn fuel. If my hon. and gallant Friend would change his furnaces over from oil to pulverised fuel, which gives the same advantages as oil, he would be doing a great deal towards helping the prosperity of this country. The imposition of this duty will mean that all the great buildings in London which are at present burning foreign oil, which necessitates the export of money across the seas, will turn over to coal. One of the largest buildings in London is changing over because of this duty.
    It is no good having a tax on oil which will just turn the balance as between oil and coal, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Sir E. Percy) suggested. If we want to get coal used in our large buildings there must be such a, tax as will enable coal still to have the advantage even after payment for the transport of the ashes has been taken into account. This duty will give a new impetus to our scientists in their efforts to liquify coal. Already we have the hydrogenation process, in which hydrogen, at a pressure of 3,000 lbs., is pumped into a cylinder at a temperature of 800 degrees, in the presence of a catalyst. At the moment the expenses of that process are too high. I do not think we are on the right lines in this country; the Belgians are nearer to success. But a method will be found, in the same way as it was found in the
    766
    production of margarine, where they followed the same lines as in the present methods for the hydrogenation of coal—high pressures and high temperatures. They discovered a catalyst the presence of which cut out the high pressures and cheapened the cost enormously. So it will be in the liquifying of coal. A duty such as is now proposed upon oil will encourage our scientific men to search out some solvent for coal. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the mining of the future will consist simply in washing down the face of the coal and pumping the liquid product through pipes into our cities. There are other suitable substitutes for oil, one of them being producer gas. There, however, there is a loss of 20 per cent. in the conversion, but even then it is cheaper than oil.
    The use of town gas is out of the question for many industries at the moment, but there is a gas which could be used were it not for existing legislation. That is the gas from the low temperature carbonisation plants of this country. Under existing statutory provisions it is impossible to put a pipe line from one of those plants across the street in order to convey the gas to some industrial undertaking. Such restrictions should be removed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is to give consideration to the exemption of oil from the duty where the oil is a raw material or where it is the only suitable fuel, such as in muffle or small furnaces. I therefore can welcome this duty. Its imposition is one of the greatest things we have ever done in the interest of our distressed mining areas and our workers in the coal industry, an industry upon which the prosperity of this country has been built up and on which for ever will depend.
    7.43 p.m.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: There is something almost shocking, almost deplorable, in the trend of this Debate, which has consisted of a more or less continuous series of pleas for special industries and vested interests. I may lay myself open to the charge of being a representative of another vested interest, because I sit for a mining constituency, but I wish to treat this question from the broadest possible national point of view. Sooner or later this country will have to face the issue of coal versus oil; we shall have

    767
    to make up our minds whether we are going forward by the help of our home industry or whether we are going all out for the cheapest possible fuel, regardless of where it comes from, and of how many of our men are thrown out of employment. If we were still under a Free Trade regime I should not expect the House or the country to accede very willingly to any plea that attention should primarily be paid to the employment of British workers and British capital, but we have reversed our old attitude of mind. We have granted Protection to innumerable industries—whether rightly or wrongly is not the point to-day—and I submit that it is not unreasonable for the coal industry to lay before the country the actual issue as it appears to those who are engaged in it or who are in any way responsible for it.
    The issue is, shortly, are we prepared at all costs to go for the cheapest fuel? That question must turn very largely on whether there are efficient and adequate substitutes. I venture to suggest that the recent advances in science and in the organisation of the coal and gas industry are providing substitutes that will prove entirely adequate for the majority of industries whose case has been raised to-day. There are, of course, many particularly hard cases. This question was not dealt with in the beginning, and it is inevitable that vested interests should have arisen, interests which will undoubtedly be harmed by any protective duty such as this duty.
    The second issue before the people of the country is whether they are prepared to do the necessary harm to the interests that are at present involved, or whether they prefer to let things drift until the number of miners thrown out of work by the increasing use of oil reaches scores, if not hundreds, of thousands. It is not only a question of the miners who are involved. I ask the House to think of the number of hospitals, institutions, schools and bodies of that sort who have dismissed the men who used to stoke their furnaces, and have fitted automatic oil-burning boilers. The number of men who are concerned in this matter is not limited to the miners, but it concerns large numbers of other classes of workers. I beg the Chancellor, when he is reconsidering this matter, as no doubt he will,
    768
    to look at it from the broadest national aspect; not necessarily from the point of view of the mining industry itself, but from the point of view of the value of the mining industry to this country, as a whole, and without any regard to the amount of capital or the amount of influence of the other vested interests.
    7.47 p.m.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITH: I should be very happy and quite willing to support hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken, if I felt that industry had to-day adequate supplies of fuel that would take the place of the material upon which the tax has been put. We have heard that an increased price has already been added to the cost of fuel. When we heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech refer merely to a, penny per gallon we did not realise how much that meant. A penny per gallon is a very different thing from £1 per ton upon a £3-per-ton fuel. Had we reached the stage when there was an adequate supply of alternative fuel to go to those manufacturers who are using oil, I would be one to support the Chancellor to the full in his appeal for the duty, but in my opinion there is no adequate supply of alternative fuel, and though we have been appealing to the Government to give more help in the development of creosote or other coal oils, we have not reached that stage when we can say that there is an adequate supply. For that reason I am one of those who support the lowering of the tax.
    During the last day or two I have received communications, not only from works who have had modern oil-burning plant, which is the up-to-date plant, but also from one or two of those new works that have been established, and which are just starting out, owing principally to the help of the Tariff. They have put oil-burning apparatus into their powerhouses and for their process plants, but now they see these new and absolutely up-to-date plants, with electrical control, probably having to be supplanted by coal-fired boilers again. We should be putting the clock back, because a, duty such as this is a handicap upon scientific development. I hope that the Chancellor will carefully look at it before he allows it to go forward. Listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, I was very pleased to hear him

    769
    say that he was open to consider suggetions from those who could give him information as to the effect of the duty. There are many ways in which the industries affected might help to avoid what might be a calamity in several trades. In the nut and bolt trade this duty would be a great blow. In my constituency practically every light trade is using oil to a very large extent. Even the safety-razor trade, which suffered somewhat at the hands of the Board of Trade yesterday, is very much affected. There is little doubt that if an inquiry were made by the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury they would find that the time is not ripe for this duty on heavy oil.
    I might make an appeal that perhaps the oil used for road traffic might bear the duty and that differentiation might be made to safeguard the users of oil for industrial purposes. One hon. Member this afternoon mentioned that that difficulty could be overcome by separating the grades of oil into classes. I understand that under.9 specific gravity of the British Institute standard might be separated from the remainder, and that.9 might be the dividing point between the oils which are used for fuel purposes in industrial works and the oil that is used on the road. If in such ways, with the information which the various industries in this country could supply, the Chancellor were to avoid the heavy losses, which I am perfectly sure many industries will suffer, he would do exceedingly good work. I appeal to the Chancellor to consider very carefully lessening the new duty or doing away with it altogether on certain classes of oil.
    7.52 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: As the Chancellor has promised to go a very considerable way towards getting something done before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Ninth Resolution agreed to.
    Tenth Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Might I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain the implications of this Resolution?
    7.55 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the hon. and learned Gentleman will see, the rate of duty chargeable on British sparkling wines is to be increased to 7s. 6d. The present duty on British sparkling wines is exactly the same as it is on still wines, whereas in regard to non-Empire wines and Empire wines there is a surtax on the sparkling variety. We therefore propose to readjust the position so that all wines, whether non-Empire, Empire or home, shall have what is equivalent to a surtax on the sparkling variety. Accordingly, in future the duty will be 7s. 6d. on the home sparkling wine, 8s. 3d. on the Empire sparkling wine and 16s. 6d. on the non-Empire sparkling wines. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that there still remains a small advantage in favour of the domestic sparkling wine. I am informed that in quality and in bouquet, as in appearance, this wine is growing more and more equivalent to the genuine champagne, and it will be a pity for this industry to grow up in the misapprehension that it is to be exempt from appropriate contributions to the Exchequer.
    7.57 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: I had on the Paper an Amendment to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what I consider a very important matter. It was referred to in words that were used by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord Eustace Percy) at the end of the discussion on the heavy-oil duty. He used a remark to the effect that there are certain small industries which are just growing up and commencing to feel their feet, and that the moment they show any sign of prosperity the Government and this House come along and hit them on the head. It was complained, in regard to heavy oils, that the duty was an exceptional one, and that it was too heavy. If that was so, what can be said of the duty in this ease? Here is a little industry—let me in passing say that it cannot be known to many hon. Members that some of the finest wines in the world

    771
    are made in Walthamstow, and that it is on account of that more than anything else that I am drawing the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the extreme difficulties that this small industry is going to suffer, if the Chancellor persists in putting on the heavy addition that is proposed in the Resolution. Those engaged in this industry were led to believe that they would be treated reasonably, and a tax of 1s. 6d. was imposed. Without any warning or indication, the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer raise that duty to 7s. 6d., which is an increase of five times. The industry to which I refer is not in my own constituency, but is in the other half of the Walthamstow borough, and I have been in consultation with the people who represent it.
    This is the position: A man considerably advanced in years who has spent practically all his life in the wine industry in France, came back here, and, with the experience that he gained and with small financial aid that he was able to get from two or three local people, started a little wine industry. Without being in any way an expert in wine, I may say that I have had an opportunity of sampling the various wines that are made in this industry. The experience of the Englishman was obtained from France, but with local talent he has been able to make wines which are considered equal to many foreign wines, and he has put the industry into the very stable condition in which it is to-day. I am assured, however, by the people who own that little industry that not only in their own case but in the case of many other British wine manufacturers the crushing duty which it is now proposed to put on will make it impossible for them to carry on business at all.
    The Chancellor hopes to get £10,000 out of this industry, but I think it will be safe to say that, because of the heavy imposition which it is now proposed to put on the small wine manufacturers of this country, many of them will close down entirely and the £10,000 which he hopes to get will in fact not be realised. I am speaking now just in order to ask the Chancellor, through the hon. Gentleman opposite, whether he will not, in view of the very small amount that he can get out of the industry, and in view
    772
    of the fact that the duty will almost certainly crush out of existence many of the small home wine manufacturers, reconsider the whole matter with a view to putting on a more reasonable increase than that which he proposes to put on at the present time, an increase of five times the present tax. Personally, I do not suppose that I shall be very concerned with the drinking of any of the wine made in this country, or in any other country, but I honestly believe that, when a small industry has grown up as this one has, especially when the amount that anyone can get out of it is really small, a small duty should be imposed. I believe that I interpret the Chancellor's own view, and I hope he will agree that the smaller tax will realise almost as much as the larger one and at the same time preserve an industry which has recently grown up.
    8.2 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not always find myself in complete agreement on every subject with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but I am bound to say that before I heard his more expert experience on what is going on in this new industry, this little industry of manufacturing sparkling wine, I was much surprised to see a very large increase in the size of the duty imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary described so charmingly the delightful experience he had had in examining and tasting these wines made in this country that I would ask him whether he thinks that an absolutely new industry of this kind is being fairly treated if the only advantage it gets over the Empire products, which have now been in existence for many years, is 9d., which is the difference between the 7s. 6d. now proposed and the 8s. 3d. which, he says, affects the Empire products.
    Without putting it any higher or having any expert knowledge of the subject, I would suggest that it is very hard for new industries to feel, as they are bound to feel after an impost of this kind is put on them, that as soon as they get on their feet at all and see any signs of prosperity, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to come down on them and put on a heavy duty before they have a fair chance of getting properly started. To anyone, even without special know-

    773
    ledge of the industry, an increase from is. 6d. to 7s. 6d.—and, as I said, a mere figure of 9d. below the protective duty on an existing and well-established competing product in the Empire—is not giving the chance that we might give to a new industry in this country. For that reason I join with my hon. Friend in his very eloquent appeal that the Chancellor should reconsider a matter which is not of great importance to the Exchequer, and at the same time do away with the feeling that is growing up that the moment an industry gets on its feet the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at it very closely with the object, if possible, of extracting revenue which in the less prosperous days of the industry it would not have yielded.
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. PERKINS: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, before he replies, what exactly is meant by the word "sparkling"? Does it include such wines as potato wine, dandelion wine, carrot wine, or even sugar-beet wine? These wines are made in my constituency in rapidly increasing quantities; they are made by villagers and are becoming very important village industries. They are being encouraged by the Women's Institutes and other bodies in the villages. I should like to know whether they are to be taxed under the new proposal.
    8.5 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have already addressed the House; my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. McEntee) had not moved his Amendment, and accordingly I responded to the first invitation made to me, that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), to explain the Motion. That I did to the best of my ability. I can only say a few words now by the leave of the House. It is with pleasure that I learn that Waltham-stow is such an important wine-making district. I am glad that my hon. Friend's constituents are deriving such a wholesome livelihood from the building up of this industry. If he will look more closely into the matter he will see that there is a distinct preference in favour of the home-produced wine. It has a preference of 9s. over the foreign wine and, if we are to believe my hon. Friend who said it was as good as champagne, then it will have no difficulty in competing with
    774
    champagne. It is not in the least our intention to destroy this growing industry. I want to assure the hon. Member for West Walthamstow and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. WardlawMilne) of that. We cannot, however, allow a source of revenue to be sapped by the growing use of a substitute for champagne, which is subject to a very high tax.
    Mr. McENTEE: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the constituent parts of this wine have to be imported. There is a very heavy duty on the grapes from which it is made, which are, of course, imported; and also on the sugar, which is a large component part.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am quite aware of that. The manufacturers do, of course, pay a certain amount in respect of the sugar content and on the import of the must, as it is called. But we have allowed for that. They have a preference of about 9s. over the champagne, and of 9d. over the Empire wine. The Empire sparkling wines do not come very much into this country, therefore the real competition is with the genuine champagne. I do not think that my hon. Friend will find that this important industry in Walthamstow will be obliterated. It is not our intention to obliterate it, and I hope that at the encl of one year's experience he will be able to come down to the House and say that the industry has been very much assisted, rather than penalised, by the extra taxation.
    In answer to the question put by my hon. Friend, whether the beverages of which he has special knowledge are sparkling, I can only answer him quite compendiously, that that wine is sparkling which sparkles! If it has a sparkle in it, it is presumably sparkling wine. There is no legal definition I can give him; it is merely a question of fact, and hitherto the Customs and Excise officers have had no difficulty in distinguishing between what is still and what is sparkling.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Eleventh Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    8.10 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to ask the hon. Member whether he would explain the exact purpose of this Motion. It is not very clear on the face of it, and perhaps we might have a little explanation before we pass on.
    8.11 p.m.
    Mr. REMER: I rise, not in any way to criticise the decision of the Chancellor—and I have little reason for doing so, because during the Debates last year I several times pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do exactly what he is doing in this Budget—but I am asked to say to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the silk industry—and I hope that he will convey my words to my right hon. Friend—that there is considerable disappointment in the industry that so long a period as 12 months is sufficient for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to form a judgment on what are proper duties in this industry in time for the Budget Speech. The industry does not in any way wish to criticise or complain about the Import Duties Advisory Committee because the industry realises to the full the complex nature of the problem and the difficulties which the Committee has to face. Therefore, while they are very disappointed that the Chancellor was not able to make his announcement in his Budget Speech on what the final duties of the silk industry were to be, they recognise that it was better to have the matter put right by Treasury Order rather than to have to wait until next year's Budget, with the consequent delay.
    I should like to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this continued delay is having a very serious effect upon the silk industry throughout the country. It has led to uncertainty. Uncertainty always means difficulty in sealing the orders which are available. There are several people holding up orders at the present time because they know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Import Duties Advisory Committee are considering this matter; and, furthermore, the industry has knowledge that there are several foreign firms who, in anticipation of new protective duties for the silk industry coming into effect, have actually works ready under option and are prepared to come over here and manufacture their goods in this
    776
    country, if only the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Import Duties Advisory Committee can get to work. I therefore ask the Chancellor to give this matter his speedy attention, and I hope that very shortly he will be able to make that Treasury Order to which I have referred. There is another reason why this matter is urgent, and that is the Japanese competition which is taking place at the present time, and which is so ruinous to the whole of the silk industry of this country.
    There is only one other thing which I want to mention, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman to be so good as to give some reply to it. Anxiety is felt in the silk industry about handing over this matter to the Import Duties Advisory Committee instead of leaving it in the Budget, as it was before. I presume that this matter will come under the purview not merely of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, but also of the President of the Board of Trade. There is this anxiety, that they know that, if France is negotiating as to a trade agreement, the very first thing that France will say to this country is that she wants some concession in connection with the silk industry. I would ask my hon. Friend to see to it that, when these negotiations are going on, the whole of this protective duty which the silk industry has been promised for so long, and which up to this moment it has not yet obtained, is not withdrawn—that the silk industry is not sold as certain other industries were sold last night. After all the meetings that have been held with the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and after all the time and money that has been spent by business men in attending these inquiries, I hope there will be no question of all that being wasted by some kind of arrangement made with a foreign country. The greatest need of all, however, is speed—to see that this Order is made as quickly as possible, so that the present uncertainty in the industry is removed, and business men can get on with their work and find employment for their work-people.
    8.17 p.m.
    Mr. LEVY: I want first to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on getting rid of this very complex question and handing it over to the Advisory Committee. I may say at once that the Silk

    777
    Association have presented their case, have been received with all courtesy, and are looking forward with confidence to the report and recommendations. They feel that they have put forward such a case that they will receive comprehensive protection. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) that the essence of the matter is speed. There is no doubt that the delay is causing very great anxiety. I would also say, with great respect and humility, that, like the bon. Member for Macclesfield, I hope that this industry will not be used as a pawn to be sacrificed when other treaties come to be made. As far as the silk industry is concerned, the protection has been too long delayed. I want now to refer to the Japanese menace. The home market is flooded with these cheap goods, and not only the home market, but the markets of our Dominions and Colonies. In fact, I might say that the menace is worldwide, and it certainly does affect—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member is quite entitled to discuss the home market, but he must not go outside this country.
    Mr. LEVY: On the 1st November last I made a speech in this House calling attention to the Japanese menace, and since that time the competition has become more and more intense. I am not referring in particular to the Japanese shantungs, pongees, honans, and similar classes of goods, that were always manufactured in the East and came into this country, but I particularly want to refer to those goods of which the Japanese copy the patterns, and which they imitate and send into this market at a ridiculously low price. Perhaps I may be allowed to mention that an international conference was held on the 5th December in Paris, at which England, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland were represented. The president summed up the position in these words, which I hope, Sir, you will agree do affect the home market. He said that:
    "The Federation should call the attention of each of the national representative associations to the gravity of the question, naturally leaving to each of them the task of approaching their own Government in such manner as they felt most suitable. The Silk Federation would emphasise the fact that Japan has placed herself outside the comity of the great industries by keeping to a working day vastly beyond one of eight hours."
    778
    That seems to be a point which hon. and right hon. Members do not see sufficiently clearly. The first country to act upon the President's proposition was Switzerland. I hope I am in order in saying this, because I am going to ask the Government to take similar measures with regard to our home market. Switzerland passed an Act excluding Japanese silk goods entirely and absolutely, and, as regards the goods that I have already mentioned, that is to say, the Japanese shantungs, pongees and other goods which always were made in the East and imported into Western countries, they excluded 60 per cent., and the remaining 40 per cent. were only allowed to come in on condition that they came in in the grey, and that the printing and dyeing of those goods took place in Switzerland. No finished goods of any description are allowed to be imported into Switzerland from Japan. I am given to understand on authoritative information that Italy is taking similar but more drastic action.
    I have here a piece of Japanese cloth. It has a British design; it was originally made in Macclesfield. In my constituency the yarn was spun for making this material. Now, because of the Japanese competition, since cloth made in this country is not being sold, my constituents are not called upon to make the yarn, and at the present time they are only working to a little over one-quarter capacity, and unemployment in the silk industry is increasing. I may be asked why that is so. Here is the answer. This particular cloth is sold in London to the shopkeeper at 2s. 9d. per yard, duty paid. The actual British cost for the warp and weft alone, plus the dyeing, is 2s. 9d. per yard. To this have to be added the operatives' wages, bringing the cost up to 4s. per yard, and, further, you have to add rent, rates, taxes, depreciation, staff wages, factory and warehouse supplies, and so on, bringing the bare cost of the English cloth up to 4s. 10d. per yard, before there is any question of profit. How is it possible for British manufacturers to compete when goods identical with those which they manufacture at a cost of 4s. 10d. per yard are imported and sold to the shopkeeper in this country at 2s. 9d. per yard, which is exactly what the warp and weft costs us?
    You may ask how it is possible for Japan to produce these articles at this price. The reason is this: The average

    779
    hourly rate of pay for the Japanese silk worker is 1½d. per hour. They work 60 hours a week. Their wages, therefore, are 7s. 6d. per week of 60 hours. I say that without any hesitation or fear of contradiction. They are working their mills, in consequence, double shifts. They are running shifts of 10 hours each for 20 hours out of the 24, which naturally reduces the overhead charges. We in this country work 48 hours a week and the average operative's pay is 35s. per week. It is impossible not only for this country but for any Western country to compete. This is the menace that has to be tackled. Japan now supplies 80 per cent. of the consumption of raw silk product. This is important, and it will become more important as time goes on. Let us take some figures. In 1928 the Japanese production was 6,500,000 lbs.; in 1929 it was, 25,750,000 lbs.; in 1930, 26,000,000 lbs.; in 1931, 46,500,000 lbs.; and in 1932, 65,000,000 lbs. Although we are getting a decline in industry generally in Europe, we get this colossal and continual progress in output in Japan owing to the ridiculously low prices at which they can compete.
    So far I have dealt with the pure silk industry. I want to deal now with artificial silk. Rayon is now taking the place of the fine cottons that were manufactured in Yorkshire and Lancashire and, unless something is done soon, unemployment in those counties will become very great as it is ousted by this importation of rayon. In Yorkshire and Lancashire they used to make these fine cotton goods not only for bile home market but for our export trade, and this rayon is now superseding these fine cottons in the Malay States, Java, Indo-China, and British India, while in Australia, New Zealand, and all the African markets South-East and West there is the same tale. Neither we nor any Western country can compete with this Japanese menace. Japan exported to India last year 50,000,000 square yards, 5,000,000 more than we exported to the whole world. The total British export was 45,250,000 square yards. Japan exported 152,750,000 square yards—80 per cent. more than in 1930. May I give this quotation?
    "Against the low production costs, due to the social and labour conditions of Japan, no Western civilisation can compete. What
    780
    shall we do about it? Cotton, wool, silk, rayon, steel products, rubber goods, pottery and even chemical dyes—the list grows every year. Unless we take measures to prevent it, the Japanese menace will ruin one industry after another. Ordinary dumping measures are useless."
    But the most extraordinary part of it is that Japan herself has an Act of Parliament to prevent the very thing happening in Japan, if it were possible, that is now happening in this country, although they have never been called upon to use it. They had an Act of Parliament in 1910 and they had a supplementary law in 1921 which reads as follows:
    "If by the importation of unreasonably cheap goods or by the sale of imported goods at unreasonably low prices it appears that detriment may be caused to an important national industry, the Government may schedule such articles, after investigation by the Anti-Dumping Commission, and may impose upon them for a certain period, in addition to the duties laid down in the annexed tariff, a surtax within the measure of the fair price."
    Would it be considered unfair if we bad a similar Act which would operate in a similar manner? Does not the House think that we should do something quickly about this menace? Let me give a few figures. I want to deal with the Empire market.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot possibly deal with the Empire market. There is no Resolution before the House which affects it.
    Mr. LEVY: I hope the Government will find some means of combating this menace, which is a very real one to the silk and artificial silk industry as well as to all other industries which are in competition with Japanese manufacturers. Let us realise that they have industrialised themselves mechanically to 100 per cent. efficiency and, when it is a question of mechanism in manufacture, it then becomes the question of wages costs and hours of labour that makes the difference. Hon. Members opposite, as well as hon. Members on this side of the House, very properly want to see the standard of living raised in all countries of the world, and with that I agree. But while we allow goods to come into this country manufactured under the conditions of labour which now exist in those countries, I am sure that they will be the first to agree that, while those conditions exist, we ought to prohibit those

    781
    goods from coming into this country in the hope that those countries will raise their standard of living. When they do that and come up to normality as we see it, we can decide as to whether we will accept their goods or not. I say to the Government with all sincerity that unless something is done one industry after another will be utterly unable to compete, unemployment will be created, and the object for which this Government was put into power will not be achieved.
    8.37 p.m.
    Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: As a considerable industry in the silk trade has sprung up in Scotland during the last eight years, I rise to say that we welcome the alteration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Advisory Committee shall take charge of these duties. Those of us who know intimately the difficulties and intricacies of this question have marvelled at the excellent advice which has been given from time to time to various Chancellors of the Exchequer on this question. The silk industry have not been altogether satisfied or they would not at this moment be coming before the Advisory Committee, but they consider their case so strong that they welcome the move which the Chancellor has made. There has been so much uncertainty in the past that we hope that within the next few months, at any rate, a decision will be given which will regulate the silk trade in this country far many years to come. The three new factories in Scotland which I know so well have been established snore in anticipation of what is to happen than what is really happening as the result of any benefit which the present Silk Duties are giving them. They are all eagerly awaiting the decision of the advisory committee and are confident that, if fair play is given, great expansion will be carried out at the two factories established in the old city of Dunfermline—the linen trade having almost disappeared—and at the factory which was established a few months ago at Paisley. These factories are awaiting the decision with great eagerness, and I know of two additional factories which may be established in this country if fair play is given to the silk industry. We know that our case is strong and are confident that the advisory committee will give a decision which will result in greater employment in the silk industry
    782
    in this country, and which will establish it upon a firm basis.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. HALES: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), because I can corroborate from my own personal observations every word which he has said as to the serious menace to the silk industry from Japan. It was my good fortune in the course of a 20,000-mile trip to see what Japan is doing, not only to us but to the rest of the world. I assure the House that I am not exaggerating in the least when I say that, we as a nation to-day are facing the greatest menace with which we have ever been confronted since we became an industrial nation. Now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here I should like to take this opportunity of expressing to him the sincere thanks of the manufacturers of North Staffordshire for the increase in duties on pottery which has saved the industry. He has at all times been approachable, and it is a great asset in a Minister that he can be approached and is willing to receive information and so be in a better position to express an opinion after he has had all the facts laid before him.
    I would put before him a suggestion of what he has to face next year. Manufacturers after manufacturers in many industries are going into insolvency because of a competition against which nothing can compete. Sixty-six per cent. is the difference in price between goods manufactured in this country and similar goods offered by Japan. I ask him to give his earnest consideration to a matter which affects, not only the silk trade but many other industries in this country. He will do lasting good if he will give the matter his very careful, earnest and prompt attention and also give instructions to the Advisory Committee not to waste a moment on a matter which is so urgent, for time is the essence of this contract. If he does this he will help to stop the rot which is setting in, save many firms which are now on the eve of insolvency, and bring to them a future full of hope, confidence and help to restore the silk industry which is in sore need of assistance at the present time.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I had not intended to speak on this subject to-night, and it is the speeches of the hon. Gentle-

    783
    men who have preceded me which have induced me to rise. What the hon. Gentlemen have just said to the House is in some respects true. I refer particularly to what they call the Japanese menace, but I wish that my hon. Friends on the other side of the House had awakened to the Japanese menace a little earlier. I speak to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) rather than to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales), who, as a matter of fact, has spoken on this matter before in the House of Commons.
    Mr. LEVY: I made a speech in this House on 1st November with regard to the matter.
    Mr. JONES: I recall that instance, but what I had in mind particularly was that if hon. Members had kept the matter of Japanese competition and Japan's future in the Far East clearly in their minds when we discussed foreign affairs as well as trade affairs, they might have been less faithful to the Government than they have been hitherto. These duties were originally introduced for Revenue purposes only. As I understand the position, the right hon. Gentleman is asking the Advisory Committee to recommend to him ways and means whereby the Treasury may be able to impose duties without having to wait for the Budget year by year. It looks to me as though we are departing now from regarding these as duties for purely revenue purposes and are going further along the road to pure Protection as such.
    Mr. LEVY: Hear, hear.
    Mr. JONES: I quite appreciate that the hon. Member opposite entirely endorses that direction of policy. The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate where the hon. Member for Elland desires to go, because from what he has said no Protective duties whatsoever will completely and adequately protect the home market from Japanese competition. He has asked to-night not for the addition of duties to those that may be in existence, but he has asked plainly for complete prohibition.
    Mr. LEVY: I suggest that no comprehensive Protection that could be made Applicable to other countries would be of any value so far as Japan is concerned
    784
    It would mean special legislation for Japan alone.
    Mr. JONES: Yes. If I misinterpret what the hon. Member has said I apologise, but I gathered that he referred to an international meeting at which representatives of Britain, France, Switzerland and other countries were present, in Geneva.
    Mr. LEVY: In Paris.
    Mr. JONES: He informed the House that at that international meeting interested in the silk trade a decision was taken that the representatives of the various nations should go back to their homes and bring what pressure they could in any way upon their own national Governments. With what object in view? I understood the hon. Member to say that the intention was to try to bring each home Government to follow the lead of Switzerland.
    Mr. LEVY: No. They had to go back and bring pressure to bear on their Governments with a view to legislation to correct this menace. I said that Switzerland was the first to take action and that it had taken more or less prohibitive action.
    Mr. JONES: If the hon. Member reads his speech to-morrow, I think he will find that the OFFICIAL REPORT bears out what I have said, that he gave the House the impression that he was urging something on the lines of prohibition. Let me, deal with a further part of his argument, which was quite clear. He compared the cost of the production of silk goods in this country with the cost of production of similar goods in Japan and presented to the House interesting figures which disclosed the fact that on the basis of things as things now are it is almost impossible for Britishers to compete with the Japanese, seeing that the British employers pay such and such a figure, whereas the Japanese pay infinitely less. If he wants to deal with the elements of competition, the way to do it is not by the methods of adding adventitious duties here and there on this or that article but rather to seek the stabilisation of international conditions in regard to hours and wages, through an international agreement.
    Mr. LEVY: And in the meantime, what?
    Mr. JONES: You can get it as quickly as you like. Strive to bring about as quickly as possible an accord in regard to international conditions of labour and wages, and you need not bemoan the fact that too much time may be lost.
    Mr. LEVY: May I ask, with all respect, what about the meantime?
    Mr. JONES: No one on this side has yet issued a caveat in the discussion in regard to this particular Resolution, and I do not want the Chancellor of the Exchequer on some future date to be able to say that we allowed the Motion to go through entirely unchallenged. Our objection to remitting this matter to the Advisory Committee remains just as strong in its influence upon us as when we objected last year at the very beginning of this policy. We take the view that the effect of these tariffs must necessarily be, to a greater or lesser degree, to add to the cost of living. If that be true, it must inevitably add to the difficulty of life for the poorest people. I remember a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he entered upon office for the second time during the lifetime of the last Conservative Government, using a significant expression concerning Artificial Silk Duties. He said that through the medium of Artificial Silk Duties we were taxing the fineries of the poor.
    I think that was a sentence containing a great volume of truth, because everyone knows that of recent years, certainly in post-War years, more and more young people of both sexes have tended to use artificial silk in connection with their day-to-day apparel. The more artificial silk is taxed the more you tax a commodity which enters into the day-to-day apparel of the people and the more do the working classes through the Artificial Silk Duties become called upon to bear a larger share of taxation. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desire to be unfair to us, but lest anyone else should think we had allowed this matter to go by default I have risen on behalf of my hon. Friends to state that our objection to this form of taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to introduce through the medium of this Resolution remains as strong as it has ever been in the past.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) has,
    786
    no doubt, felt it necessary to indicate that the sparse attendance on the benches opposite does not indicate that they have ceased to oppose.
    Mr. JONES: What about the sparse attendance on your own Front Bench?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We take that as granted. The hon. Member has naturally put up the old argument which looks entirely to the increased cost of the articles which may be taxed, and pays no attention whatever to the increased employment which is given by the duties upon foreign imports. I do not think it is necessary for me to say more than a word or two in reply to the observations that have been made on the Resolution. Under this Resolution the Treasury will have power to give effect to recommendations made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee by means of the ordinary procedure of Order, and in due course no doubt that procedure will be brought into operation. It is true, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) that in regard to this particular industry especially we find ourselves in the presence of competition of an entirely exceptional kind. The hon. Member for Caerphilly thinks that the best way of dealing with this exceptional competition is to have an international conference, at which he hopes we can persuade the Japanese nation to adopt western standards of wages and conditions of labour. I am afraid that we should have to wait some little time before we can get such a change as would reduce this particular competition to what one might call normal terms.
    All I wish to say upon that subject now is that it raises questions which go far beyond the duties on artificial silk. It touches every industry in which Japanese labour and Japanese competition come into conflict with the industries of Europe. I agree that the ordinary methods of regulating the importation from competitive countries can hardly be said to be effective in the case of this particular and unusual kind of competition. What the remedy is I will not now suggest, because it would not be relevant to this particular Resolution, but my hon. Friends who are concerned in this matter may rest assured that the Government fully recognise the gravity of the case

    787
    presented by them and are fully seized of the importance to the industries of this country of some sort of an arrangement in regard to this competition; and that the matter is engaging their attention at the present time.
    Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which I put to him? Can anything be done to hurry up a decision of the Import Duties Advisory Committee because there is a great deal of anxiety, and a lack of confidence, in not being able to get a decision?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give an affirmative answer, because the problem is of exceptional difficulty. There is not only the great complication of the industry itself, various sections of the industry are different and sometimes their interests are not the same, but there is also the question, which has to be borne in mind, that there is important revenue to be safeguarded here. The problem of obtaining the protective element which is required in the duties and at the same time preserve the revenue, and reconciling the different interests, is one which I think cannot be hurried. I understand the desire to get a decision as soon as possible, but at the same time I hope they will prefer to wait a little longer and get a right decision rather than hurry the Advisory Committee unduly.
    8.58 p.m.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What always strikes me in these discussions, which have taken place time and again, is that those who complain of this competition forget that a considerable amount of it arises because of the investment of British capital in these countries, the loaning of British money, which represents machinery sent from this country for the very purpose of creating industries in Japan, in China and in India which, because of the lower standard of life in these countries must set up a competition against which British workmen cannot stand.
    Mr. LEVY: If the right hon. Gentleman had done me the honour to listen to my speech he would not now be making these observations. They are not relevant to my speech. I did not refer to any investments. I laid great stress on the
    788
    rates of pay and the hours of labour which are worked as compared with those of British workmen.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I have done the hon. Member the honour of behaving as an ordinary Member of the House in sitting here and listening to him putting questions and also putting his case. I know his case pretty thoroughly. I have been sitting here three hours this evening and I wanted some food. Unfortunately that time synchronised with the hon. Member's opportunity for speaking in the Debate. But, seriously, I want to put it to the House that the question of Eastern competition is vitally important, and I agree that you cannot brush it on one side in an easy way. It is a most difficult subject. There is the return on the money that has been invested by British capitalists and others, the return to small investors, whose money is tied up in these countries. If you prevent them doing business they will not be able to pay you. I hope that this question will come up at the Economic Conference and that we shall get some international control over investments in the future.
    With regard to ourselves, whatever scheme is brought forward we cannot blame the Japanese, the Chinese or the Indians for this competition, because most deliberately we have set ourselves to develop capitalism, or, if you like, to foster the trade and industries of these countries, without any reference to their competitive effect on our own higher standards of life, or their effect on the markets of this country. Hon. Members always leave that side of the question out of account. It is our own doing that these countries are now in competition with us and, honestly, under a policy of a working competitive capitalism I do not see any way out of it. The Japanese have a right to compete in these markets if they are skilful enough and if our people are stupid enough to supply them with the machinery and capital to do so. Until the world adopts our policy of cooperative industry and co-operative sharing of the results of industry—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is getting rather far away from the Resolution.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I quite agree.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. E. CAMPBELL: As one who has lived for 21 years in Eastern parts, may

    789
    I say that a great deal of the capital which is used in Japan is not British capital at all—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think we had better follow the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and defer this Debate to a more suitable occasion.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: You permitted the right hon. Gentleman opposite to make these accusations, and I was going to repeat that, as one who has local knowledge, they are not true.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I stopped the right hon. Gentleman; and I think it better that such discussion should cease.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Twelfth Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. ATTLEE: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give us in simple language a statement of what this Resolution means. It is a splendid example of legislation by reference.
    9.6 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I can explain the effect of the Resolution by means of an illustration. Supposing that parts suitable for use in a motor car are imported and pay the McKenna Duty which is leviable upon the parts of a motor car, and that, after the arrival of those parts in this country, it is decided instead of using them in a motor car to use them in an aeroplane. In that case the duty which had been paid on the assumption that they were going to be used in a motor car would be repayable, but no duty at, all would be leviable upon them under the Import Duties Act as would have been the case if they had been originally imported as for use in an aeroplane. The Resolution is intended to remedy that discrepancy.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Thirteenth and Fourteenth Resolutions agreed to.
    Fifteenth Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir S. CRIPPS: We are not quite certain as to the purpose of this Resolution. Apparently it is intended to make some alteration in the provisions of the Import Duties Act and the Ottawa Agreements Act and in the contents of the Schedule to the Import Duties Act. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what sort of alterations are in contemplation?
    9.8 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Resolution is in connection with the ascertainment of whether goods are Empire products for the purpose of the Import Duties Act and the Ottawa Agreements Act. The Resolution is required in order to enable Clauses to be introduced into the Finance Bill to remove certain doubts with regard to the provisions of those Acts in that respect. It has been the practice under the regulations of the Board of Trade, since the introduction of Imperial Preference, to allow preference on goods produced or grown in the Empire, or when a certain proportion of the value of the goods, as prescribed by regulation, is shown to be due to work done in the Empire. For this purpose it has been the custom to aggregate the values contributed by any parts of the Empire where the prescribed proportion of value has been reached. But the definition of "British Empire" contained in these Acts does not include the United Kingdom, and therefore goods manufactured, part in the Dominions and part in the United Kingdom, are not actually given the preference unless the proportion of their value prescribed by the regulations has been supplied by the Dominions, without taking into account the parts contributed by the United Kingdom. As this is undesirable, it is proposed to introduce an Amendment to remedy the position. There is also some doubt as to whether, strictly speaking, the provisions of these two Acts will allow of the aggregation of values contributed by various parts of the Empire.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We understand from the Press that the Prime Minister is shortly going to visit this country. We are now glad to know that England is going to be brought into the legislation which we pass here.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Sixteenth Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    9.11 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: We are a little puzzled by this Resolution. We do not quite appreciate how if the form and character of goods have not been changed, they could be different goods when they are reimported. It looks on the face of it as if there were some curious process by which these goods were altered in some manner without changing their form and character. At the same time when they are reimported, apparently they do not fall into the same class and description as that into which they fell in the state in which they were exported.
    Mr. CAPORN: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the absence of the powers dealt with in this Resolution has resulted in delaying a considerable number of cases now pending before the Import Duties Advisory Committee?
    9.12 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn) is quite right. This is a difficulty which had not been foreseen and which has held up a number of applications. The Resolution deals with a comparatively narrow point. It refers to the case of articles which are manufactured in this country and then sent abroad to undergo a process of embroidery. If they came back embroidered they would have changed their tariff category and would be subject to the duty on such goods at their full value. The object of the Resolution is to enable such goods, on being re-imported after they have undergone a process of embroidery, to pay duty only on the increased value contributed to them in consequence of that process of embroidery to which they have been subjected.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Seventeenth Resolution read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. BROCKLEBANK: In the City of Liverpool there has been an arrangement for many years past with regard to transport on dock roads, which are not modern roads in any way, but were made many years ago for very heavy traffic, and I want to call attention to the fact that the new duty which it is now suggested should be imposed upon mechanically propelled vehicles will very heavily hit this transport. I hope the Minister of Transport will give it his further consideration, so that we might have some relief in the Finance Bill.
    9.16 p.m.
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): This was a point which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Colonel Shute), and I have had the opportunity of discussing it with him since. I should be only too glad, between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill, to discuss the matter with those interested, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that the principle upon which these increased taxes are largely based is the principle that those who use the roads should contribute a fair share of expenditure incurred on them, and these roads to which the hon. Member refers are, of course, maintained at the public expense. I am afraid there is, therefore, little case for making any exception for them, but, as I said before, I should be glad to discuss the matter further with the hon. Member or any other representative of the docks in view of the interest which I know is excited on this question.
    9.17 p.m.
    Mr. GROVES: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for the concession given to the showmen—
    Mr. LANSBURY: What concession?
    Mr. GROVES: The hon. Member has only half applied the Salter Report. Can he tell me why the said concession is not given with regard to trailers? There are 778 trailers on the road of over 4½ tons, and the Government propose an increase in the tax from £6 to £20. That means that a very large number of these showmen will be faced with an expendi-

    793
    ture that they cannot meet. Therefore, I feel that the point has been overlooked, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will receive a small deputation of Members of the House to make representations with regard to what we think should be a just remission on the trailers.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Eighteenth Resolution read a Second time.
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. MABANE: I beg to move, in line 4, to leave out the words "five shillings," and to insert instead thereof the words "four shillings and sixpence."
    A considerable air of depression has been on the House in these four days' Debate on the Budget, and I am moving an Amendment which I hope has in it at any rate some spirit of optimism. It is an Amendment to reduce the Income Tax by 6d. in the pound, and I should at the very outset like to say that it is not my intention, in moving this Amendment, to unbalance the Budget. There has been a great deal of talk about the project for unbalancing the Budget, but it is not my object to use this reduction of tax for that purpose. I am submitting it as a constructive suggestion, which I hope, if adopted, would convert this Budget from what I might call passive finance into constructive finance. My object in moving the Amendment is solely in order that some contribution may be made towards industrial recovery. I am not moving this reduction because I have any particularly soft spot for the Income Tax payer, but because I believe fervently that a reduction of Income Tax would contribute to industrial recovery in quite a surprising manner, and that it would provide employment in a manner that I hope to show a little later.
    I feel that it is not fair to propose an Amendment to reduce the Income Tax to such an extent that there would be a loss of £24,000,000 on the Budget, without attempting to show how the deficiency thereby occasioned could be made good. Again, lest I be misunderstood, I should like to say that, although it is not relevant to this Amendment, I would, side by side with the reduction of the Income Tax, make another alteration in the general nature of the Budget for the same
    794
    purpose as that for which I am proposing this Amendment. I would use the £14,000,000 which bas been given to beer to spread it over and to restore to the fullest possible extent the cuts which were made in 1931. I mention that to show that, in proposing this Amendment, I am not doing it merely to alleviate the lot of the Income Tax payer, but as part of a considered scheme for converting the Budget into something like constructive finance. In this respect there is a phrase in a leading article in the "Times" to-day that I think condenses the whole situation. The "Times" says:
    "There has been as yet no break in the vicious circle in which enormous expenditure calls for oppressive taxation, oppressive taxation lowers the energy of industry, a debilitated industry gives less employment, and less employment calls for greater expenditure by the State."
    Let me now indicate how I believe a reduction of 6d. in the Income Tax would operate, could be made good, and would assist the recovery of industry. It would mean a loss to the revenue of £24,000,000, supposing it represented a, 10 per cent. reduction in the amount of £240,000,000 estimated for the year now current. You would, therefore, have £24,000,000 to find somewhere if you were going to balance your Budget. Well, £12,000,000 has been given to spreading over the Income Tax payment for this year, so that in July half of the amount due will be paid, whereas next January only a quarter of the amount due will be paid. I would take, first of all, that £12,000,000, and to that I would add £500,000 from the surplus of £1,291,000 that is provided for, making a total so far of £12,500,000. I am left with the sum of £11,500,000 to find. I do not think it is difficult to find it.
    Last year the average unemployment throughout the year was 2,855,000. That, of course, was an enormous figure. The average cost per man to the State of these 2,855,000 unemployed was £27 10s. each for the year. I do not think it has been sufficiently realised that the estimate that the Chancellor has submitted to the House for the cost of unemployment during the current year, at the figure of £76,500,000, represents a number of unemployed scarcely less than the number last year. It represents a figure of 2,783,000 unemployed. I think it should be recog-

    795
    nised by the House that the Government have, in this Budget, announced to the country that the average number of unemployed throughout the year 1933–34 will be 2,783,000. I suppose that might coincide with the somewhat gloomy estimate the Chancellor made on 16th February, but I fervently believe there is no reason why it should remain at that very high figure. There has been a reduction in recent months. There was a reduction of 72,000 in the March figure as compared with that of February, and if the reduction continues in the present month we would arrive at a figure of 2,700,000.
    I see no reason for supposing that it would be bad finance if we were to estimate our figures of unemployment for the year now current, not at this very high figure of 2,783,000, but at a greatly reduced figure. Surely, if after two years of National Government unemployment is not to be reduced from that enormous figure, the National Government can scarcely claim to have performed the task for which it was elected. I do not think that if we were to look forward to a figure at the end of this year of 2,200,000 it would be a figure which was unduly small. That would mean a reduction every month of about 60,000. The average reduction per month for the year would be 360,000. If we have an average reduction of 360,000, we would have a saving on e estimated cost of unemployment of approximately £10,000,000. It must be remembered, moreover, that if you restore 360,000 to work, those people are contributing week by week their quota to the National Unemployment Insurance Fund. For 360,000 people that is approximately £1,500,000, so that we would save £10,000,000 by a reduction of 60,000 a month in the number of unemployed, and they would contribute this increased amount also every year.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: In extra spending power?
    Mr. MABANE: They pay a certain amount of money for unemployment insurance to the fund, and in the course of a year these 360,000 people would contribute approximately £1,500,000. That is to say, you have this £10,000,000, and a further £1,500,000, making £11,500,000. If you add to that the £12,500,000 I have
    796
    already, you reach a figure of £24,000,000, which provides for a 6d. reduction in Income Tax. I think that is a more constructive way of looking at the Budget, because surely if you are going to deal with the Budget on a figure of unemployment of 2,783,000, and you continue to demand that the country shall pay Income Tax to provide for them, there is no opportunity whatsoever for industry to develop by reason of reduced taxation, and thus reduce unemployment in consequence. I do feel that the influence of the reduction of taxation would not stop there. Surely there would be an influence on some other items of the Budget estimate? Estate Duty, undoubtedly, would realise more if there were this reduction of 6d., and Stamp Duty, too, would reach a higher figure if Income Tax were reduced.
    There is one further point that I feel I should endeavour to show, and that is whether a change in the general nature of the Budget, such as I have suggested, would in fact provide any likelihood of such a reduction of the figures of unemployment. I have suggested a reduction in unemployment of 360,000 in the course of a year, and I have suggested also to provide for that 6d. off Income Tax—which is £24,000,000—a reduction in the estimate of £24,000,000. Taking the amount you have given to beer, which is £14,000,000, that makes £38,000,000, and I think there is very good reason for supposing that if £38,000,000 were to pass into expenditure you would have a reduction in the figure of unemployment such as I have suggested. Not very long ago the Minister of Labour, in reply to a question, stated that the cost of providing work for one man on relief work was about £250 a year. The cost of providing work of a productive nature is considerably less, and if you relate that figure of £38,000,000, which I have suggested should pass into the stream of trade, you would find there is very good ground for supposing that the money would provide work for something like the number of people I have suggested.
    I do ask the Chancellor, even at this late hour, to consider this reduction in the Income Tax. It may be said that a reduction of 6d. is of no use. It seems from the construction of the Budget, as it is at present, that the Chancellor is looking forward to a reduction of 1s. next

    797
    year. We should be very glad if there were a reduction of 1s. next year, because it is perfectly plain that, whereas in this year he is only going to receive three-quarters of the total amount of Income Tax, next year he must receive four quarters, and therefore he is going to get that addition to his revenue anyhow. From the construction of his Budget I think I may safely count on a reduction of 1s. next year, but I think it would be better for industry and the country if there were a reduction of 6d. this year. After taking off this 6d. the Chancellor would still be able to give us a 1s. next year. It is always jam to-morrow and never jam to-day, and I do ask, in the interests of industry, of unemployment and in the general interests of the country, that he should assent to this humble suggestion which I make for reducing the Income Tax this year by 6d. in the £.
    9.35 p.m.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It appears to me that the question of the amount of Income Tax can be argued in two ways. It can be argued on the basis that any Income Tax may or may not be a burden on industry. If it be argued in that way, it would involve my making a lengthy speech. It can also be argued on the basis that the country is now agreed that Income Tax of more than a normal figure is in fact acting deleteriously to the interests of industry. It is on this latter basis that I propose to say one or two words. There is little diversity of opinion in the House that if Income Tax could be reduced it would be a good thing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself put forward that view, but his opinion was that he was doubtful as to whether or not such a course would be safe. His view is that safety first is essential. Rightly he has to protect his revenue, but can the Chancellor of the Exchequer by any figure of Income Tax that he may impose in times when trade is declining be quite certain that in fact his Budget is going to be balanced? He cannot. The history of the last two years has shown clearly that until trade revives, no matter at what rate the Income Tax may be imposed, the revenue will not come in. The bad trade which we are experiencing is costing the
    798
    Revenue at least £150,000,000 per annum directly, apart from the injurious effects.
    If trade were anything like normal, an Income Tax of 3s. in the £ would give us more than 5s. in the £ now, because not only should we have a better yield, but there would be less national expenditure in unemployment relief. Most of the arguments connected with this Amendment are admitted. Clearly trade does need the stimulus. We are faced with the basic fact that the export industries of this country have higher taxation than any other country in the world. Against that higher taxation they are unable to compete. The result is gradual and continuous weakening in the economic efficiency of this country. The Government are proposing to help industry by passing cheap money to industry. It is very doubtful if that policy is working out satisfactorily. I should be very happy to think that, in fact, industry was obtaining the benefits of cheap money. I have no personal experience, and I know of no industry which has any experience of the advantages of cheap money. The Chancellor has in fact recognised that some stimulus to industry is necessary. The argument which he put forward in his Budget speech showing how the return to two equal instalments would give a fillip to the Christmas trade is an argument which, if carried a little further, would induce him to agree to this Amendment. I cannot help feeling that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were boldly to decide to help trade by leaving just a little money in the pockets of the taxpayers, it would enable the taxpayer to spend more. The improved yield which better times would engender would result in a Budget as securely balanced as this one.
    9.40 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said matters had been very dull in the House to-day, and he hoped to bring a bit of life into the proceedings. If he presses the Amendment to a vote, he will see me going into the Division Lobby with the Government. The Amendment has certainly brought some life into me. I have sat here all the evening finding very little interest in the proceedings, but when an Amendment like this is put forward I am ready for it. I listened carefully to the hon. Member because last week he spoke on the

    799
    same point, but he did not then elaborate it as he has done to-night. I wondered how he was going to provide the Chancellor with the money required. The Chancellor would like to relieve Income Tax payers no doubt, as he would like to relieve other taxpayers, but what would he have to do if he did that? He would have to get money from some other source. The hon. Member was ingenious in his plan for getting it. A sum of £12,000,000 has already been given to the taxpayers in this Budget, but the hon. Member proposes to take that back. He would retain possession of it for a period. The Chancellor last week, in answer to a question from this side, said it was only available for one 12 months, and that it would not be there in the next 12 months.
    Mr. MABANE: By the very nature of my case you would not need the £12,000,000 the second year because it would be provided for by the reduction in unemployment.
    Mr. TINKER: That is, things would be so improved that you would not require it.
    Mr. MABANE: That is the nature of my case.
    Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member went on to argue that unemployment would be so reduced that we should be able to recover all this money. So far as I know, there is no shortage of money in the banks. Whenever any issue of capital is floated with anything like a decent rate of interest, tons of money are ready for it. There is no shortage of money anywhere.
    Mr. MABANE: Surely the hon. Member will agree that there is a shortage of money in the pockets of the unemployed, and I am wanting to put money back into the pockets of the unemployed so that they can spend it.
    Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member was trying to put before the House a scheme for freeing money to allow people to create employment. I am trying to show him that there is money lying idle in the banks that could be used for that purpose. It is not a question of rich men being short of money, but of how to use it. There are no brains in the country able to show how to use the money which is lying idle. There is money in abund-
    800
    ance, but no one knows how to use it. Whenever the House of Commons can rise to the occasion and say to the unemployed that they will have another meal a day, another suit of clothes every 12 months, and an extra pair of boots, then is the time to say that trade will recover and there will be more work.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: May I ask the hon. Member if he is quite satisfied that all the industries in his constituency have an adequate supply of capital?
    Mr. TINKER: So far as I know, it is not a question of shortage of money. I have not heard of one case where they were short of money for development purposes. What they are short of is a market for their goods. If the hon. Member will go to any constituency he will find thousands of men and women who are poorly clad, short of food, and wanting many things. When we are able to give the unemployed what they require, then will be the time to talk about taking 6d. off the Income Tax and reducing other taxes. I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whenever he has any surplus the first thing he ought to do is to carry out the pledges of the National Government, that is, remove the "cuts" upon the benefit of the unemployed, and remove the "cuts" from the wages of the teachers and all others whose pay was reduced. I hope the Chancellor will not accept this Amendment, and I cannot think the hon. Member has any expectation that it will be accepted. I do not know what position the hon. Member holds as regards Income Tax payers. Last Wednesday an hon. Member made a fervent appeal on the same lines and said he spoke as chairman of a society of Income Tax payers. I do not know whether my hon. Friend holds any position with that society.
    Mr. MABANE: No, I do not hold any such position. I made it clear that I was not moving my Amendment on behalf of the Income Tax payers, but on behalf of the unemployed.
    Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member is speaking for the unemployed from the wrong place. He will have to come across here if he wants to help the unemployed. If he went to any working-class constituency and told them that he was trying to help the unemployed by reducing the

    801
    Income Tax the reply he would get from any one of the constituents would be: "I wish to God I could pay Income Tax. I would do it." Income Tax payers do not feel the pinch like men out of work. Anyone who has got to pay Income Tax ought to be glad to be in a position where he has to pay it. I speak feelingly. Before I paid Income Tax I was in a worse position than I am now. Ever since I have had to pay Income Tax I have never wanted for anything—always had a good suit of clothes, as much food as I want and everything that goes to make life comfortable. Those who do not have to pay Income Tax are not in that position, and I trust that hon. Members will not appeal for any reduction of Income Tax until they have put the unemployed in a better position than they are in to-day.
    9.49 p.m.
    Major HILLS: I know that it is beyond my power to persuade the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and his friends that we who want a reduction of Income Tax are not thinking of the Income Tax payers, but are thinking of getting the unemployed back to work. He and his friends have tried their system and it did not answer, and the unemployed turned against them. He knows very well that by simply relying on the dole we shall not get people back to work. I do not expect him to give me credit for anything else than the selfish interest which is usually assumed to actuate most people who plead for a reduction of Income Tax, but I do it because it is the only way of getting the country out of the rut in which it now is. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) put the case very clearly. If we took 6d. off the Income Tax the revenue would be down by somewhere about £24,000,000, and that sum has to be got back. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with the difficulty of getting his revenue if there were a reduction of 1s. in the Income Tax. I may say that I would quite willingly support a Resolution to take 1s. off the Income Tax.
    When the Chancellor dealt with that question all the figures he gave were put forward on the basis that he would have to get the money back from Income Tax. Of course it is not so. The case for a reduction rests on the probability, and as I
    802
    think almost the certainty, of getting back the money from two sources. First of all there would be an increased yield from all the consumption taxes—those on tea, sugar and beer. An increased yield from the Stamp Duty also depends upon prosperity, and the case is even stronger with the Death Duties, because if there is a rise in the value of securities all estates which are subject to Death Duties are increased in value. That is one source. But the real source of getting the money, as my hon. Friend very truly said, lies in the reduction of the £76,000,000 now going out for unemployment. Can we do that? If we can it is worth doing; if we cannot it is a dangerous gamble. It all depends on what will be done with the money left in the pockets of the taxpayers. Will that money be allowed to accumulate at the banks, and increase the amount of money, which already is more than business requires? Nobody is borrowing it, because there is no employment for money, even though the money is cheap.
    I think a reduction in the Income Tax would so encourage business optimism that that money would get out into industry and do what must be done if we are to have an increase in industry and get the unemployed to work, and that is, bring about a rise in prices. I see no other way of getting 'a rise in prices except—. Well, I should say that this thing can be done in two ways. We can get what we want by a, drastic cutting of all wages and all other expenditure, or we can bring about the same effect by a rise in prices. I believe we could start that rise in prices by leaving money in the taxpayers' pockets, thereby getting the money out into industry. I think that would happen. The unemployed are unemployed because employers cannot make a profit, and they cannot make a profit until prices are raised, and my great criticism of my right hon. Friend's Budget is that I do not see that it affords any means of raising prices.
    I do not see how that great benefit can come. He tells me that we must wait for the World Economic Conference, but I do not put quite the same faith in that event as he does. He may be right. I hope he is. I feel very strongly that unless we can help ourselves, and that unless we start some-

    803
    thing in this country, we shall not get what we want. Again I may be wrong, and I hope that I am wrong. I am not wrong in believing that the optimism and the hope that could be engendered in this country by a cut in Income Tax—that is one of the things by which our administration will be judged—would have such an effect that it would react on industry and would in the end bring back money to the Exchequer.
    The Budget statement was an honest, clear and able statement of the position of the country. It showed us our position and all our liabilities, and it was a good survey of the nation's accounts. My complaint against the present system which has obtained for some years is that Chancellors of the Exchequer look upon themselves more as auditors than as Chancellors of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is much more a finance Minister. He is concerned with far more than the money side of the nation's accounts, and he has a tremendous influence upon the trade and industry of the country. Of late years the Treasury and succeeding Chancellors have been so pressed for money that they have got it without considering the reactions of taxation upon industry. I will give two examples of that, which apply very much to Income Tax, but can apply even more to Income Tax upon company reserves. Company reserves are money which is not spent by a company but is put back into the business. Under a proper form of taxation I should have thought that company reserves would have escaped. That money goes back to revivify the business. It is mostly spent on capital and not on consumption, which is the very sort of expenditure that we want. We tax capital very heavily in the Death Duties and in the Surtax; we are taxing it to disappearing point.
    I would respectfully remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when you are administering a capital system you must not exterminate capital. The Government that called upon all industries to rationalise themselves are forgetting to rationalise taxation, and are not always considering the effect of taxation upon the different industries and its reactions upon all classes of the country. I confess that I regard with some dismay the position that we have to go through all this
    804
    year, with no alleviation of Income Tax. We as a National party will be judged, and rightly judged, by unemployment. We were supported at the polls by the unemployed who were drawing the dole, and we have a very special duty to them. I do not see so large a fall in the unemployment figures as I should like to see. They are going down, but they are doing so remarkably slowly. There is the danger, unless some reduction is made in taxation and something is done to give hope and promise to industry, of the figures of unemployment being round about the 3,000,000 mark next Christmas. Again I hope that that will not be so, but I do not feel at all sure about it.
    We have not got so very long. The term of all Governments is limited, and we have passed a certain amount of our time. Questions will be raised, and we shall be told that the capitalist system has had a good run, and unless it solves the unemployment problem and gets men back to work people will begin questioning the system. I regard this year as the critical year in the history of this country. I do not like the look of the future, either from the point of view of the country or from the smaller consideration with regard to the party. I believe that we are at the parting of the-ways, and that we can go one way which I believe will lead to greater prosperity. There are risks in any course of action, but I believe that in this case the risks of standing still are greater.
    10.3 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), in supporting the Amendment lectured me on the duties of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and gave a general survey of the question of direct taxation, directions in which I do not propose to follow him. I wish to confine myself to the Amendment which is before the House. Everybody will be disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) that a reduction of Income Tax would be a good thing. I should commend that sentiment to the authors of "1066 and All That," and if they continue their labours I hope that they will add that to the memorable sentiments expressed in 1933. We have, in this Amendment, to consider a specific proposal, and in what that proposal involves us. My hon. Friend the Member

    805
    for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) began by saying that he did not propose or desire an unbalanced Budget and that all he wanted to do was to take sixpence off the Income Tax. I listened with interest to know how he was going to do it without unbalancing the Budget, and I was disappointed to find that he was not going to do it without unbalancing the Budget. What he was going to do was to make a false estimate and then call it a balanced Budget. If I wanted to take sixpence off the Income Tax, I would rather do it, in present circumstances, by saying straight out that I was not going to balance the Budget, than by putting incorrect figures in. I did not know whether my hon. Friend was serious in his contention.
    Let me call the attention of the House to what his whole position turns upon. It all turns upon the supposition that by taking sixpence off the Income Tax this year you are going to reduce unemployment on the average by 380,000 this year. Think what that means; 360,000 on the average. My hon. Friend, of course, does not imagine for one moment that the day after we took the sixpence off the Income Tax the unemployment figures would go down by 360,000. He does not believe that for a moment; he hopes to start off with small figures which would gradually increase. I must, therefore, assume that he hopes that by the end of the year he would reduce the unemployment by 720,000.
    Mr. MABANE: I said 60,000 a month, making 720,000 in a year; 360,000 on an average a month.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I said. I said that your argument was that to take sixpence off the Income Tax was going to reduce the unemployment figures by 720,000 in a year.
    Mr. MABANE: Yes.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe almost anything. I must point out to my hon. Friend that he quite forgot one little feature of the Budget, of which I myself took some consideration and which I should like to bring to his definite notice. He complained that he got no alleviation of Income Tax this year. May
    806
    I remind him that, under the proposal to revert to the equal half-yearly system: in Schedules B, D and E, we do, in effect, get for 2,800,000 taxpayers a substantial reduction of one-quarter of the whole tax this year.
    Major HILLS: Next year; it does not operate until next year.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It operates during this financial year. It does not make much difference whether you calculate your year to end on the 31st December or on the 31st of March for this purpose. At any rate, within 12 months from now it will operate. I do not think that the taxpayers will agree with my hon. Friend at all. They will be faced with the reality when next January comes and when, instead of having to pay three-quarters of the tax, they will have to pay only half. That is a substantial sum of money. Moreover, that money is going into circulation. If it is true that sixpence off the Income Tax is going eventually to benefit the Exchequer in. increased returns, all those benefits would also inure from the circulation of the sum of £12,000,000, which is not to be collected in January. That sum, of course, is the equivalent of 1s. 3d. as far as those Income Tax payers are concerned. That amounts to 1s. 3d. in the £ for the period of 12 months. I could not find, in my hon. Friend's proposals, any indication of how the windfall which he was going to bring into his Budget this year was to operate next year. In some way not clear to me, the reduction of unemployment was of a cumulative character and was to continue. It is wonderful how these snowballs roll up in imagination, under a very earnest desire to get sixpence off the Income Tax. I cannot help thinking that that desire must have been a great part of the motive force. I can only express astonishment at my hon. Friend's moderation. If all these benefits are going to accrue from a reduction of sixpence in the Income Tax, why stop there? Why not take off a shilling? Why not he bold, take courage in both hands, and come out with a bit of really imaginative finance? If the hon. Member took off a shilling instead of sixpence, the reduction in the unemployment figures, instead of being 700,000 at the end of the year, might be 1,400,000!
    10.10 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Of all the Motions standing on the Order Paper with regard to this Budget I confess that there was none in which I was more interested personally than the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Gentleman who has moved it. We have heard the position of the Treasury in this matter but, as I ventured to make some remarks on the subject last Thursday, I crave the indulgence of the House to allow me to return to it for a minute or two. I followed the arguments of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who supported this Amendment, and I confess that—with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I found it extremely difficult to see what real arguments there were upon which this case could be founded. If I may be allowed to say so with respect, the Gentleman who last spoke in support tried to set up a, case but, so far as I could see, his main hope was that a reduction of sixpence in the £ would have mainly a psychological effect upon industry. I do not doubt that a reduction of sixpence in the £ might have such a psychological result, but I am afraid that Chancellors of the Exchequer cannot rely in the framing of a Budget on psychology; they must have finance to go on.
    There were two points which the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment put before this House. He hoped that by a reduction of sixpence in the £ two consequences would ensue. One was that there would be a revival of industry which would show itself mainly through a reduction of unemployment or an introduction of employment. I asked last Thursday night, when trying to speak on the main discussion of the Budget, where the evidence was obtainable from our history since the end of the War that a reduction of Income Tax would lead to increased employment. I ask the hon. Gentleman once again where, in the figures which we have had presented to us by the various Departments since the end of the War, are the figures that go to support the proposition that a reduced Income Tax automatically leads to a reduction of employment.
    Most of us, I suppose, have been Members of the House for a good many years, and many of us can remember the time when Income Tax was actually at
    808
    the rate of 6s. in the £. I think it was so when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even when Income Tax was as high as that, the unemployment figures were not higher than they are to-day, when Income Tax is lower. I submit to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who support this proposition that it is up to them to prove that their proposal will operate automatically. They must not merely entertain a hope; they must not be guided by mere optimism; they must be able to show us and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, beyond peradventure, that what they propose will lead to a reduction in unemployment.
    Mr. MABANE: But did not the reduction in Income Tax about the time of which the hon. Member is speaking—1922—result in two years in the lowest figures of unemployment since the War; and in 1923–24 did not the unemployment fund make a profit for the only year since the War?
    Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman and I clearly have not been looking at the same figures.
    Mr. MABANE: I had official figures.
    Mr. JONES: So I supposed mine were; and it is therefore up to us to support our respective cases by reference to official documents. I will not attempt to do that at the moment, but I will say what happened under the Labour Government in 1924. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in 1924 Lord Snowden—Mr. Snowden as he then was—Chancellor of the Exchequer, did in point of fact give a reduction in Income Tax and other reliefs in various forms yet neither in that year nor in the succeeding year, nor again as a consequence of the reliefs given in 1925 in Income Tax, was there any consequential substantial reduction in unemployment.
    I submit, therefore, that, even if the hon. Gentleman's case is proved, that in 1922–23 there was a reduction in unemployment, there are also two years on the other side, and that, therefore, it is still an arguable proposition whether a reduced Income Tax leads automatically to a reduction in unemployment. We, on this side, are concerned with the other side of this argument. Is there any

    809
    assunance that, supposing a given number of millions of pounds were allowed to the taxpayer through a reduction in Income Tax, that saving to the Income Tax payer would be reflected in the unemployment figures? To put the matter in a crude way, let us suppose that through the medium of this Amendment, if it were accepted, £1,000,000 were returned to Income Tax payers in, say, Lancashire. Will any hon. Gentleman tell me that that extra £1,000,000 returned to Income Tax payers in Lancashire will of necessity add employment for one single extra soul? What is wrong with our factories and workshops? It is that people cannot buy the goods. You can go on adding to your factories and workshops, you can extend your barns as much as you like, but, unless people are able to buy your goods, unless they have purchasing power, it is no use extending factories or operating spindles faster. Consequently, our reply to hon. Gentlemen is that, although they may honestly believe that this Amendment is designed, as I daresay it is, ultimately in the interests of the unemployed, you cannot create or recreate work, you cannot create or recreate a market, unless the people constituting the market have the power to buy things; and the people who constitute a market are, after all, the millions of men and women up and down the country to-day who have no money to spend upon boots, clothes and other various commodities.
    I want to put to hon. Gentlemen another proposition, because I submit to them that they are really unfair at times when they speak with such exuberance of a reduced Income Tax. If hon. Gentlemen will examine the last issue of the Statistical Abstract, comparing the year 1913 with the year 1930–31, they will find some interesting contrasts. I am controverting the claim that Income Tax should have the first consideration, as is suggested in this Amendment. The total amount of income liable to assessment in this country, in the year 1913–14, was £951,000,000, in round figures. The allowances in 1913, out of that £951,000,000, amounted to £159,000,000, that is to say, one-sixth of the total taxable income in that year. Will hon. Gentlemen be surprised when I tell them that in 1930–31 the proportion of allowances out of the total taxable income
    810
    was, not one-sixth, but between one-third and one-half, and nearer one-half than one-third. That was 14 years after the War. With the enormous burden that is falling upon the nation, with the stupendous National Debt, Income Tax obtains an allowance of between one-half and one-third in 1930, when it only enjoyed an allowance of one-sixth in the year before the War. Hon. Members really must be fair. There are people in this country who are burdened in various ways, and I do not deny that the burden oh some people is very great, but, after all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to find a certain sum of money and the question that arises is, Where is it to be found? If hon. Members succeed in their Amendment and Income Tax payers are allowed to escape even to the extent of 6d., that 6d. has to be found out of someone else. Already in the lifetime of this Government there has been a steady process of pushing the burden of taxation, through indirect taxation, on to the shoulders of those least able to bear it.
    Where, after all, is most of the money in this Budget to be found? This year Income Tax alone will find a sum of £228,000,000, and the National Debt will take £234,000,000. Who are the people who receive the interest on the National Debt? Mainly they are the people who are Income Tax payers. [Interruption.] Surely no one argues that persons who are below the Income Tax limit have any money in the War Debt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Certainly."] Suppose there are a few thousand who have. What is their share, after all, compared with the share of those who pay Income Tax and Surtax. It is negligible. The year before last, in September, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer roped in single working-class men down to a limit of £100 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Surely there must be some limit allowable to a man where he ought to be allowed to escape Income Tax altogether, and you have not allowed a single man, to escape even though he has slightly less than £2 a week. The Olen Chancellor said that in a full financial year he proposed to screw out of those men with incomes starting at less than £2 a week £17,000,000 a year. You have given almost that amount this year in returned profits to the brewers. Whatever the case may be for a reduced Income Tax, my simple point

    811
    is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must find the money and we must, in discharge of what we conceive to be our obligations to the poorest people of the land, demand that this burden shall fall upon the shoulders of those best able to bear it and, until hon. Members have shown that this money can be found elsewhere, other than through indirect taxation, they have no case for the proposition that they have advanced.
    If you look at the other taxes that the Chancellor proposes in his Budget this year, in one form or another they are indirect taxes which will ultimately fall upon the shoulders of the vast mass of the people of the country. The tax on hydrocarbon oils will involve more and more expenses in this or that form of industry. Even concrete roads maintained by local authorities will cost more and local rates may go up. Therefore, the tendency still seems to be to force this country back in the direction of making a larger share of the taxation of the country flow into the Treasury through the medium of indirect taxation rather than direct taxation. We take the opposite view entirely. We declare without any fear whatever that there is still place through the medium of taxation for a readjustment of the distribution of wealth in this country, not merely as a social expedient, but because we take the view that until you have taxed those best able to bear the burden of taxation you ought not to throw larger burdens upon the shoulders of those who are unable to bear it.
    Mr. MABANE: As the hon. Gentleman has challenged my figures and controverted statements which I made, that there is a relation between Income Tax and unemployment, does he agree with this? In 1921–22 the Income Tax was 6s. in the £ and in that year the deficit on the Insurance Fund was £15,000,000. In 1922–23 Income Tax was reduced to 5s., and in that year the Insurance Fund was in deficit only to the extent of £1,000,000. Next year, 1923–24, Income Tax was reduced to 4s. 6d., and in that year the Insurance Fund showed a surplus for the only year since the War of £9,000,000.
    Mr. JONES: I will not controvert that observation at all. I asked him to go
    812
    further in relation to the increase of the Unemployment Fund. If he takes the figures and percentages of unemployment for 1924, 1925 and 1926, he will find that there is no ground for saying that reduced Income Tax of itself automatically reduces employment.
    Mr. MABANE: On the contrary, the figures were the lowest as to unemployment. They are here on page 197.
    10.28 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can have any complaint to make as to the treatment he has reseived in the rapid approval of the various Resolutions which have been before the House to-day, and consequently he will not complain if a few moments are spent on what is perhaps the most important matter which the country has to consider, in connection with his Budget, namely, the immense burden which Income Tax places upon the whole trade of the country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) made some statements with which I should very much like to deal in detail, but it would take too long to go through the whole field. One thing which surprised me was the statement that people earning less than £2 a week paid any substantial sum in Income Tax. If he went into the matter thoroughly he would find, I think, that they did not pay Income Tax at all.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Single men. The figure is £100 a year.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not want to waste time however on the smaller points. The main point of his argument was summed up in the sentence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must get the money. The point I want to put before the House is that it is more than likely that, in this way, he will not get the money. In the argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer so very clearly put before the House the other day in connection with the proposed reduction of the duty on beer he made it perfectly plain, as I understood him, that he did not make that proposal because he desired to lower the price of beer particularly, but because he felt that it was a necessary concession from the point of view of the Treasury to enable him to secure the

    813
    revenue which was essential. That is equally true in the case of Income Tax.
    What is the exact position? In the description of the past year which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us last week it was stated that the Treasury had received £15,000,000 less than the Estimate on Income Tax alone. Let me give one other figure which is not perhaps so much in the minds of hon. Members, namely, that with an Income Tax 6d. higher than in 1930–31 we received £5,000,000 less last year than we received two years ago. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put before the House as to the reasons for reducing the Beer Duty are equally cogent in the case of the Income Tax, because unless he reduces the tax he will not get the money. Therefore, putting it on the very lowest basis—the hon. Member who spoke last seemed to think it was the most important—that of getting the revenue, the fact remains that there is a diminishing return from Income Tax, and it is perfectly clear that the rate of Income Tax, standing as it does, is on a basis that is bringing in year by year a smaller revenue. From no other point of view than that of getting revenue it is unwise to continue the tax at the present figure.
    The hon. Member for Caerphilly referred to what happened in 1913 and made a great point of the figures, showing the collection of Income Tax in that year as against the amount of the National Debt, but there is a very much more important comparison with 1913 than that. The interesting comparison to be made with 1913 is, in my view, that in that year we collected £44,000,000 in Income Tax, whereas last year we collected £251,000,000. Does any human being believe that industry, which alone is carrying this burden, can continue to function under conditions of that kind? Out of a total of £745,000,000 raised in revenue last year no less than £389,000,000 was raised by direct taxes—In come Tax, Surtax and Estate Duty, or more than half the total revenue. Again, to put the matter in a different form, in the last two years 2,300,000 people in this country have provided over £818,000,000 in taxes; 2,300,000 out of the total population, and every penny of that money has come directly or indirectly out of industry. How is it possible that we can
    814
    be in a position other than being faced with increased unemployment?
    The present high taxation is definitely an intolerable burden upon industry and undoubtedly a direct cause of the great burden of unemployment in the country. While the British industrialist is endeavouring to sell his products in competition with other countries he is paying taxation at the rate of £16 8s. per head of the population of the country against his competitors who in France pay £9 8s., in Germany £5 15s. and in the United States just under £5. From the point of view of getting revenue in the future, which can only come out of industry, it is essential that industry should be prosperous. How industry can be prosperous under these burdens it is extremely difficult for anyone to see. It would not be in order to deal with the reasons for our very high taxation. They are connected with many matters such as the vast increase in our social services, many of which are no doubt absolutely desirable and perhaps necessary. Some of the arguments which have been put forward to-night, very interesting arguments, with which I should very much like to deal, were not strictly in order. There was the question whether a reduction of taxation will bring an immediate drop in unemployment. Nobody believes that it will do this in a moment, but it is clear that a drop in unemployment can only come from an extension of industry, and there can be no such development unless two things are certain, first, unless industrialists can look forward to a gradual reduction of the burdens upon them, and, secondly, until they are assured—a matter upon which we have been in some doubt during the last day or two—that the tariff policy a this country is fairly certain and settled for some time to come.
    Let me give one other figure in connection with taxation. The total revenue derived from taxation since the War in this country is £13,000,000,000 raised from 45,000,000 people. Compare that with one of our greatest trade competitors, the United States, with a population of 123,000,000, nearly three times that of this country. They have collected £3,000,000,000 less than has been collected in this country! Is it any wonder that industrialists in this country feel that the burden of taxation is one which requires immediate attention?
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Have they a comparable War Debt?
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am not dealing with the use of the money. I am not concerned as to whether it is desirable or necessary to raise the money; I am dealing with the position of the man who has to sell his goods with this burden upon him as against the position of a man in America who sells his goods without having to carry such a burden upon his selling prices. I am not concerned with the question of how the money is spent. If that point was to be considered it would bring me to the question of the social services, which is one of the largest burdens of this country. Whether the money is thrown into the sea, is wasted, or is well spent, does not alter the fact that the burden on the industrialist of this country is so heavy that it places him in an impossible position in competing with other nations.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a great point in his Budget speech of the fact that it was an honest Budget and he implied, although he did not say so, that it was a balanced Budget. These are matters of opinion. One may say that a Budget is balanced if you do not take certain things into account. I do not want to go outside the question of Income Tax which we are discussing, but it is clear that there is nothing in the Budget which is likely to put increased purchasing power into the hands of the people. It is true that there is a vast amount of money lying in the banks, but that is a totally different thing to a, vast amount of money being used in industry, and you will not get the full use of that money in industry until you deal with the question of taxation. It is extremely difficult to reverse the circle. We cannot get a reduction of Income Tax until we reduce our National costs and charges, and we cannot reduce our expenditure until unemployment comes down. My own criticism of this part of the Budget—and I cannot deal here with any other aspect—is that there is nothing in the maintenance of Income Tax at its present level which is likely to help to put purchasing power into the hands of the people of this country. I am tempted to follow some of the matters which have been mentioned, but I content myself with repeating that the burden is so heavy
    816
    that there is no reason for us to find fault with industrialists who say that the question of direct taxation upon industry must be dealt with as the really urgent matter if we are to secure a return to prosperity.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. MACMILLAN: I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated altogether satisfactorily the Amendment which is under discussion. It struck me that the right hon. Gentleman gave rather scant and airy treatment to a very serious proposition. I quite recognise that Amendments of this kind must be of a somewhat academic character. Everybody knows that they will not be carried, yet they are the recognised machinery for securing discussion on these important matters and it is not altogether in accordance with custom that they should be dismissed with a few jokes and a certain amount of persiflage however excellent. The right hon. Gentleman chaffed the hon Members who had brought forward this Amendment on having submitted an obvious truism in saying that a reduction of Income Tax would be a good thing, but no sooner had he chaffed them for stating this "truism' than it was promptly controverted by several speakers in other parts of the House.
    If it comes to giving forth truisms, there is an obvious truism which Members of the Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have been constant in putting forward, and that is the statement that there should be a rise in the price level. They have not up to now been able to show how that is to be brought about, any more than the hon. Members who have submitted this Amendment have been able to show how it is to be brought about; but that does not deter them from continuing to make that statement, from repeating it on all occasions, both in this country and in other countries, without apparently being prepared with any definite proposition as to how that desirable state of affairs is to come into existence. The fact is that it is a fallacy to regard these calculations as purely static. It is not the case that there is an absolutely fixed sum out of which revenue can be raised to balance the Budget. These calculations must necessarily be regarded as

    817
    dynamic and the question is how best to stimulate the national income out of which future revenue can be raised.
    As the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) has just reminded the House, all those considerations which led the Chancellor of the Exchequer to recommend a reduction in the specific duty on beer, apply equally to the lowering of taxation when that taxation has ceased to be remunerative and is beginning to show alarming effects upon the revenue itself. It is too late to go in detail into all the questions which arise out of this Amendment, and indeed I am not one of those who are altogether dissatisfied with the Budget. I had the good fortune, unlike some Members of the Government, to be able to take a holiday during the Recess, and I heard the Budget, not in this House but in another part of the world. I am hound to say that.I was not disappointed. I never expected that we should have this reduction of taxation, or that we should have a very startling or what is called imaginative Budget. At any rate, we have not got a balanced Budget, and that is something. There is no chance of that. I was afraid that we would have had increased taxation in order to pay the Sinking Fund in full, and that we should remain upon that Gladstonian basis of finance which is now mainly supported on the Front Opposition Bench. At any rate, we have not had that. There is no pretence of that.
    If you take the fact that we are raising something like £70,000,000 out of capital taxation by way of Death Duties, we have an unbalanced Budget of some £70,000,000, and the only question is to what extent in present circumstances it might have been safe to extend this system. Would it have been safe to have made a further inflationary reduction of taxation to unbalance the Budget further than my right hon. Friend ventured to go? That is the point. In the circumstances of the time, when we are living in this turmoil of monetary and financial difficulties in every part of the world, I think that if the right hon. Gentleman had been tempted in the direction of a more ambitious Budget, the events which took place immediately before the reduction of the Budget would have determined it. The events that took place in America may have made the right hon. Gentleman
    818
    feel that this time it was better to strike a mean between an extremely bleak and rigid Budget, insisting upon maintaining the Sinking Fund at full, a truly balaced Budget, and, on the other hand, a more speculative Budget, such as seine of my hon. Friends recommend in this Amendment. I think that might commend itself to a great part of the House as not an unreasonable decision, but I feel that, taking the longer view, it is not possible for Ministers to be as sceptical as they appear to be of the recuperative powers of this country, if its industries and its people are given a chance, and as credulous, on the other hand, as they appear to be as to the beneficent effects of calling all the 60 or 70 nations of the world into a conference by which all these monetary problems are to he solved.
    It seems to me that they are sometimes apt to lean too much upon the possible good effects of international solutions, hwever desirable they may be if they are successful, and not to lean enough upon what can be done by the intelligence and foresight and by the efforts of our own people, if they are given an opportunity, if industry can be given the opportunity of a reduction of the taxation upon it, if demand can be increased by way of reduction of taxation, direct and indirect, and if it can be stimulated by expenditure. In all those ways we are able at any rate in this country to do something to deal with our own difficulties, and whereas I quite recognise that in this particularly difficult time we might not perhaps venture to hope for much more than we have been allowed in the taxation that is levied, yet I hope that Ministers will remember the fact that we are in a vicious descending spiral of deflation. We cannot continue that, we cannot combine high expenditure and this deflationary financial policy. Sooner or later we shall get to the end. Sooner or later we shall reach a point at which the revenue itself will begin to fall, and fall alarmingly, and it may be that the moment has now arrived when the revenue could best be buoyed up and conserved by sonic alleviation of the hard-pressed taxpayers of this country.
    Mr. MABANE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    Nineteenth and Twentieth Resolutions agreed to.

    FINANCE [POWER TO BORROW FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL PURPOSES].
    Resolution reported,
    "That the whole or any part of the sums required in the current financial year for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section twenty-three of the Finance Act, 1928, may be provided out of money to be borrowed for the purpose under Section one
    820
    of the War Loan Act, 1919, instead of out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt."
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

EDUCATION.
  REORGANISATION (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  REORGANISATION (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS.
  UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS.
  SCOTLAND (RED DEER).
  SCOTLAND (RED DEER).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  DENMARK (TRADE AGREEMENT).
  DENMARK (TRADE AGREEMENT).
  MACHINERY EXPORTS (ENGLAND AND GERMANY).
  MACHINERY EXPORTS (ENGLAND AND GERMANY).
  PUBLIC ANALYSTS (IMPURE FOOD).
  PUBLIC ANALYSTS (IMPURE FOOD).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  INDIA (UNITED PROVINCES SECRETARIAT).
  INDIA (UNITED PROVINCES SECRETARIAT).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
BLIND VOTERS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL. [H.L.]
TEE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate with amendments the enactments relating to authorities for the purposes of local government in England and Wales exclusive (except in relation to certain matters) of London; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WIMBLEDON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: My Lords, after consultation with the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, I have thought it well to draw your Lordships' attention to a matter that is of more than local interest and local importance. It is, as a matter of fact, a point of general practice and principle in connection with this Bill which was brought before a Committee over which I had the honour to preside. In one part of this Bill it was proposed—and the proposal was approved by the
642
Committee—to take power to appropriate a certain area of land adjacent to the River Mole for the purpose of a public cemetery. This was agreed to under certain conditions. The question to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention is whether one local authority ought to go into the area of another local authority, to purchase land for the purposes of a cemetery or any other of the functions of local government, without the knowledge, and still less without the approval, of the local authority of the district concerned. I venture to think, having heard the evidence submitted, that so to do is contrary to the traditions of local life in England and subversive of the fundamental ideas of local administration.
As a matter of fact, the practice is not a new one and it is growing in amount and extending in area. I am only now dealing with corporations and metropolitan councils included within the County of London or the boroughs just outside: that is, with the metropolitan side of the movement, But there are many cases in other parts of the country —especially, I think, in the County of Lancashire—where the same principle applies. In the Metropolis most of the boroughs have bought or are buying burial grounds outside London. For example, Battersea has one at Morden; Fulham and Hammersmith at Sheen; Kensington at Gunnersbury; and Islington, St. Pancras and Marylebone at East Finchley. Other cases of boroughs which have bought land not yet devoted to cemeteries are—Hampstead at Edgware; Paddington at Mill Hill; and Wandsworth at Tolworth, in the urban district of Surbiton. The Urban District Council of Willesden have purchased land in Kingsbury urban district for the same purpose. If I wished to go outside the metropolitan area I could quote the case of the Town Council of Wallasey which propose to purchase land in Wirrall for the purpose of a burial ground.
Naturally, we had a good deal of evidence as to precedents which have arisen and it is only fair to say that the Ministry of Health, who were represented at the inquiry before my Committee, said that they had not fully considered the point though they were aware there was a growing practice, or perhaps I might say a growing evil. The whole point of the matter is whether one local authority ought to invade the area of another with-

643
out giving it, a chance to express an opinion as to the appropriateness of the area for the purposes of a cemetery and the objections that may be raised by the ratepayers and inhabitants. We had before us various witnesses, and to show that the question is of long standing I would only refer to the evidence given by the Surveyor of Cemeteries of the London Burial Board. He told us how as far back as the late forties negotiations took place between landowners in Essex and the Corporation of London. At that time many of the old City churchyards were being closed and the Corporation had to find some place where they could dispose of the City dead, because at that time there was a very large resident population in the City. A cemetery was laid out in Essex and the first interment there took place in June, 1856. Since then there have been something like 400,000 interments. During the early life of the cemetery many of the old City churchyards were demolished and the remains found there removed to the City of London cemetery in Essex. He also mentioned an interesting consequence which could hardly have been foreseen. The Corporation of London, becoming the owners of the City of London cemetery, were able to purchase Epping Forest, Wanstead Flats and Wanstead Park. It was through their becoming owners of Epping Forest that they were able to prosecute people who were grabbing common land at that time and eventually to throw open to the public about 7,000 acres. It can therefore be said that it is not all unpleasantness that has arisen out of this practice.
Your Lordships know that matters of this sort cannot come before this House on the Second Reading of a Bill. The difference between a Public and a Private Bill is that on the Second Reading of Public Bills, although it is not in order to go into the details—I have often heard it objected that certain matters were points for the Committee—still the facts are considered; in a Private Bill the facts are not considered and the whole matter is sent upstairs, where it is the duty of the Committee to go into the facts as well as to consider the principles involved. Of course, that is a great difference. What I am suggesting to your Lordships is that it ought to be a matter of understanding which, if not enforced by rule, should be at least observed in
644
practice, that the clerk of a local authority proposing to purchase land for a cemetery or any other of the purposes of local government should communicate with the clerk of the local authority of the area concerned. The objection in this case, in regard to the 70 acres purchased by the Borough of Wimbledon at Randalls Park, just west of Leatherhead Station, was that the price would have been raised against the intending purchaser had it been known that a local authority was inclined to bid. I have no doubt that may have been so in this case, and may be so in other cases, but it does not seem to me to cover the real objection to what goes on now. It is not very dignified for a local authority secretly to send down agents to survey and report on the land without anybody in the locality knowing they are there or that it is proposed to devote the land to a cemetery.
If money is to be made I submit that, as in other cases, the owner of the land ought to benefit. In this case it was an old man—I believe not in full vigour of mind, or at any rate not able very well to take care of himself, and undoubtedly the Wimbledon Corporation got the land at a bargain price, though they will have to spend upon its conversion to a cemetery a very large amount for the purposes of drainage. Still, in any case I do not think that the interests of the ratepayers of the purchasing authority ought to be the first consideration. It seems to me that it is not in accordance with the standards of our local government that one local authority should invade the territory of another in this way, without any communication to its brother authority on the spot. Confidence begets confidence, and I believe it to be in the interests of good local government, which is the foundation of British greatness, that there should be full and fair communication between local authorities in such a case as this. That is the point which I venture to submit to your Lordships' House, and although I do not expect that any rule can be framed, if the Ministry of Health can feel that that was your Lordships opinion I do not think that these scandals will recur. I have no motion to make—I simply draw your Lordships' attention to the fact.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, as my noble friend has mentioned, he was

645
Chairman of the Committee which examined into this Private Bill, and he came to me and asked my views in regard to this question. The question is whether one local authority should go into the area of another for any purpose without informing the local authority in which the land is situated, and under whose control it is, of their intention. I did not think that it was at the moment my province to express an opinion, and I suggested that my noble friend should bring the matter before your Lordships' House when the Bill came up for Third Reading. I think it is a Matter on which we should seek guidance from the Government—from the, responsible Department concerned—and when they have expressed their considered opinion it will be for the advantage of the Chairmen of Private Bill Committees to learn their views. I do not think I can express an opinion on the matter on its merits, but that it should be left to the Government.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Burnham apparently told the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, that he proposed to raise this matter, but unfortunately no such intimation has reached me, and the first I heard of what he had to say was when I was listening to him a few moments ago.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: I announced it at the Committee, when the Ministry of Health officials were there.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was only explaining that as Leader of the House I knew nothing of the business, and know nothing now beyond what I have heard since the noble Viscount began his speech. I have done my best to find my noble friend Lord Gage, who normally represents the Ministry of Health in this House, but unfortunately I have not been able to ascertain his whereabouts. There seem to me to be two possible alternatives. Quite obviously it is impossible for me to express a considered opinion, because I have none—I have not considered it—and I should have to consult the Ministry of Health and ascertain from the responsible Minister what his own views were. There are, as I have said, two alternatives—either to adjourn the debate, to enable the Minister of Health to express
646
an opinion, or, if your Lordships thought fit, to pass the Third Reading now, on my undertaking to communicate to the Minister the views which the noble Viscount has expressed.
VISCOUNT BURNHAM: Whichever you think more convenient.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I gather that my noble friend does not desire that this particular Bill should not pass. Therefore, perhaps it will be convenient if you should pass it now. The observations of my noble friend obviously have raised a, question of importance, although I will not go so far as to say that it shakes the foundations of British greatness. At any rate it is a point of importance, and a point on which there ought to be settled practice. If he will leave me to communicate what he has said to the Minister of Health I am sure that the Minister will consider the matter and, if necessary, put himself in communication with my noble friend.
On Questions, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
STAFFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE CANAL BILL.
Read 2a.
NORWICH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
RUGBY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WORKSOP CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
COLNE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (NECESSITY OF SCHOOLS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (LORD IRWIN): My Lords, I beg to move that this House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.—(Lord Irwin.)
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERIVENT: My Lords, on this Motion I desire to say a few words, because I was not in a position to do so on the Second Reading. My noble friend in charge of the Bill will remember that on that occasion the most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, foreshadowed that probably there would be serious heartburnings with reference to this Bill. I feel bound to tell my noble friend below me that, speaking as I am at the moment on behalf of the clergy, managers and teachers of the Catholic schools in this country, they do not give anything like a welcome to this Bill. I of course recognise that there are certain safeguards in the Bill. There is one very important safeguard indeed, for which I wish to thank my noble friend, and that is the safeguard that no school can be closed unless the displaced children can find accommodation in another school of the same creed. Without that safeguard I need hardly say that we should have to offer most strenuous opposition to the Bill. Things being as they are, so far as I am concerned, I support it, because I realise that it has been introduced more on economic grounds than as an educational measure. Therefore I am not going to oppose the Bill. There is one point about which I should like to ask my noble friend. He will remember that on the Second Reading he intimated that two schools on what I think we were agreed in calling the border line could be amalgamated if the two local authorities concerned agreed to do so. I understand that that is the case, but I also understand that no such agreement can be come to unless the managers of the schools concerned are also agreed
648
about it. I would like to ask whether that is so.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, with reference to what has fallen from the noble Viscount I want to say only one word. I cannot say that I welcome the Bill, because I know there are many schools which may be declared unnecessary but which are necessary for reasons other than a really administrative kind. But having regard to the considerations put before the House on the Second Reading by my noble friend the President of the Board of Education I think this is a Bill which ought to go through. I am not prepared to put forward any Amendments, nor am I prepared to say that Amendments may not be moved elsewhere. I should merely like the Bill to go through its Committee stage now on the understanding that possibly Amendments may be moved in another place after the authorities representing non-provided schools have had an opportunity of considering the Bill.
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, I think that I can answer quite briefly both the points that have been raised by my noble friend behind me and by the most rev. Primate. I recognise, of course, that my noble friend, as indeed the Primate on the last occasion, exhibits no particular enthusiasm for this Bill for reasons which will be readily appreciated by us all. At the same time it is gratifying to me, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, to have their assurance that, though enthusiasm is lacking, opposition is not forthcoming. I think that I can set my noble friend's mind at rest in regard to the point that he raised as to border-line cases. I think that he stated the position quite correctly. There is, as he knows, no provision in the existing Education Act of 1921 permitting of the amalgamation of two non-provided schools, one in each of adjoining areas of separate authorities, without the consent of the managers, and that safeguard for schools is still provided by the Bill, although, if the consent of the managers is forthcoming, there is nothing to prevent local authorities, if they so choose, making agreements between themselves. But they cannot make those agreements without the managers' consent. With regard to what fell from the most rev. Primate, I entirely recognise the fact that those

649
for whom he speaks may wish to suggest and move Amendments in another place. That is obviously within their power at all stages to do, and I need hardly assure him that, if those Amendments are moved, they will receive very full consideration.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly (the Earl of Onslow in the Chair): Bill re ported without amendment.

RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they can now state what policy they intend to pursue generally in their relations with the Government of the Soviet Union of Russia, with special reference to diplomatic relations, trade, debts, export credits, the Lena Goldfields arbitral award, and the treatment of British subjects in that country; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, last week your Lordships had a very interesting debate upon the fate of the six British engineers who were arrested in Moscow, and the overwhelming majority of your Lordships welcomed the stimulating policy adopted by His Majesty's Government, and set the seal of their approval upon their action. Unfortunately, there are still two British engineers in prison in Moscow, but those best able to judge are convinced that not many weeks will pass before they are released and we shall have the whole six of them safe in this country. If this Government, and any following Government, will pursue a stimulating policy, and not continue, as in the past, to go in for plaintive entreaty, I feel sure that it will be far safer for British subjects to Barry on business in Moscow, to reside there and to work there, than it has been at any time since the Revolution.
And why? Because the Russian Government, and especially the head of it, Stalin, seem entirely to have misunderstood the mentality of the British people. Stalin no doubt thought: "I see great discontent arising in my country at the failure of the five-year plan. I must do something to assuage the unrest in my own country. I must find some scapegoat for the failure of Bolshevism and Socialism. Let me therefore arrest cer-
650
tain engineers connected with the Metropolitan-Vickers Company; let me associate with them a certain number of Russian subjects who are their fellow employees; let me stage a trial; let me shoot the Russians and condemn the Englishmen to long terms of imprisonment. What will happen? My prestige will be re-established in Russia, and the British people—and, above all, the British Government—will pay no attention to these happenings in Russia." I am rather afraid that the past action of successive British Governments may have afforded some ground for the adoption of that view by Stalin. But if he had studied the mentality of the British people he would have realised that, though the British people are long suffering, though the British taxpayer is always supposed, and himself expects, to find all the money necessary to meet troubles, internal and external, the one thing that the British people will not stand is an injustice done to any of their nationals, however humble their station. Therefore he miscalculated when he imagined that because these British engineers of humble origin, of no social rank, were almost banished from their own country when they were arrested, Englishmen would stand for trouble of that sort. And, therefore, whatever else the present Government may do as regards Russia in the future, I do urge them not to abandon their present moderate and patriotic attitude and go back to the policy of the past, the policy of simply writing Despatches and doing nothing else.
There are, I am sorry to say, many outstanding questions between the British Government and the Government of Russia. The one which I think has created most feeling in this country and has given the most trouble to successive Governments is that of Bolshevist propaganda in this country and throughout the British Empire. That question has not, in my humble opinion, been handled well by any Government, except possibly the Conservative Government of 1927, and there were rather regrettable features even then connected with the Arcos raid. But for the last thirteen years we have inserted in successive trade agreements, at the instance of the British Government, a clause which forbids the Bolshevist Government to carry on any propaganda in this country or inside the Empire which would be harmful to the

651
present social system or subversive of the present law and the Monarchy as we know it. This prohibition has never been observed. Successive Foreign Secretaries, from Lord Curzon onwards, have written innumerable Despatches protesting against the state of things. The Soviet Government have paid not the slightest attention to any of those protests, and we have really become the laughing stock of the world, because it is impossible for any self-respecting Foreign Secretary to go on writing Despatches and receiving simply negative answers or no answers at all.
Therefore, may I put forward with great humility as a suggestion to His Majesty's Government that if, and when, they do sign a new trade agreement with Russia, they should eliminate this clause altogether? It is no use putting such a clause into any agreement unless you are able to enforce it, and I submit that we are not able to enforce this clause except at the cost of a serious breach with Russia, which apparently no Government, except the one of 1927, has thought fit to incur. It would not prevent us at all from pursuing with the utmost rigour of the law any Britisher or foreigner engaged in propaganda in this country, and whom we could prove to be engaged in propaganda, but to put it in as an undertaking on the part of a foreign Government seems to me to be useless and unnecessary.
There are many other outstanding problems between Russia and this country besides that of propaganda. There are diplomatic relations, the Lena Goldfields arbitral award, the trade agreement, and export credits and debts. Now, may I suggest, having done everything possible to protect our nationals in Russia—and I gladly bear testimony that I think the present Government have done that, and done it extremely well—that we should approach these subjects as far as possible without prejudice so that a fair settlement may be arrived at; but you must remember that this Metropolitan-Vickers incident has rather altered one's point of view as regards Russia and this country in several respects. I submit that the policy of negotiations, backed only by persuasion, has been entirely ineffective. The line always taken has been that of the Foreign Secretary writing to the Soviet Foreign Minister: "You really
652
must do something to fulfil your promises and legal obligations. If you don't, I shall write a cross Despatch, and publish it too." As your Lordships know, that was the actual policy followed not long ago by a Foreign Minister, and we have therefore become the laughing stock of the world as far as persuasiveness is concerned. On the other hand, reasonable firmness has been most effective in the case of the arrested engineers, for undoubtedly, if the Government had not taken very strong action, practically all those Russians arrested with the engineers would have been condemned to death, and the engineers themselves would have been condemned to long terms of imprisonment. Let us, therefore, adopt this policy of reasonable firmness.
Let me pause for a moment to consider the question of diplomatic relations, which is very important. In my view, with a country like Russia, there are two possible plans to pursue, and one impossible. The last Government and the present Government up to now have adopted the impossible. What did they do? They treated Russia as if she were a civilised country, and she is not a civilised country—that is the whole trouble. You cannot treat Russia as if she were a country like France. You must realise that underneath the very thin veneer of civilisation there is the Tartar and the savage. I submit that the "all-in" policy of complete recognition and no safeguards has been a complete failure. Our protests have been ignored, we have been robbed right and left, and our prestige has disappeared. May I put forward what in my opinion are the two possible policies to pursue? There is official recognition on terms, and there is no official recognition at all. No official recognition has been the policy of the United States from the time of President Wilson onwards. It certainly appears to have been successful, at any rate as far as the trade of the United States with Russia is concerned, because their trade is infinitely larger, and on an infinitely more favourable basis, than our trade with Soviet Russia. One can understand a great nation like the United States saying: "Our Government will have nothing to do with a, tyrannical oligarchy which bans the Bible, seeks to destroy capitalistic society, has abolished all private trade,

653
has suppressed all individual opportunity, and whose jurisprudence is a travesty of justice." I can understand, though we need not necessarily follow it, a great nation adopting that policy and continuing that policy for a term of years.
Then there is the other alternative which has its attractions—namely, the recognition of the Soviet Government on terms, and I stress "recognition on terms." Now, may I, with the greatest respect and humility, put forward the terms on which I would recognise the Soviet Government? I think the terms should be that no Ambassador should be exchanged or diplomatic relations entered into until a settlement has been reached about the Lena Goldfields arbitral award and the money owing by Russia to this country, both money owing to us as a 'State and money owing to our nationals in this country. Further, a condition precedent to diplomatic relations must be some payment under the settlement. How is it we have got into this very difficult and unsatisfactory state? I submit that the first great error—a blundering mistake—was made by the first Socialist Government. The first Socialist Government started, if I may say so with respect to my friends on the Opposition Front Bench, on right lines. They said: "We will not have any diplomatic recognition, we will not send an Ambassador to Moscow, we will not receive an Ambassador here in London, until some settlement has been arrived at in regard to debts." We were in a very strong position. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby shakes his head—
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but there was recognition of the Russian Government in the first fortnight after the Socialist Government came in. There was no exchange of Ambassadors, but there was a Chargé d' Affaires.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: That was the mistake. It was a mistake to have official recognition of the Russian Government before you had some settlement as to the debts, because directly they got recognition they simply played with us so far as negotiations were concerned. The negotiations went on for two years, and it was not until Sir John Simon and the present Government came in that these lengthy negotiations—the Soviet
654
Government never meaning to pay at all—were brought to an end. If, on the other hand, you had said: "You have got to settle debts and then you can have diplomatic recognition," we should be in a very much stronger position than we are in to-day. The next outstanding difficulty between Russia and this country is the Lena Goldfields arbitral award. I see the noble Lord, Lord Marley, in his place. He spoke last November, if I remember rightly, on this particular case and no doubt we shall hear something from him on this point this afternoon. Here I think we have a case so strong against the Russian Government that I will not apologise for a second in bringing it up again for the attention of your Lordships. All the other cases of debts owing to this country may be got out of by the Soviet Government saying, "These are Czarist debts." Why, because you change your form of Government, a nation should be allowed to repudiate its public debts is something I do not understand. We might just as well get rid of all our public debts here by starting a Republic and saying: "The public debt was incurred under the Monarchy." Obviously it would be absurd.
You can say there are difficulties about private debts because no judicial tribunal, at any rate as yet, has assessed the amount of the private debts, but the Lena Company's award stands on an entirely different footing, because the amount of money which the Soviet Government is held to owe the Lena Goldfields has been settled by an independent tribunal, and by a tribunal agreed to by the Soviet Government. What is the history of the case in three or four sentences? In 1925 the Soviet Government granted a concession to the Lena Goldfields Company, a company registered in this country but which has large foreign holdings. Under the terms of the concession agreement all disputes were to be submitted to an Arbitration Court. This was agreed to by the Soviet Government. All disputes were to be submitted to an Arbitration Court and the Arbitration Court, appointed with the full concurrence of the Soviet Government, consisted of Professor Stutzer, of Freiburg Mining Academy, who was elected by both parties as super-arbitrator, and Mr. Leslie Scott, K.C., who was nominated by the Lena Goldfields Company.

655
The Court sat for three weeks, so that it did not give small and meagre attention to the case. Having sat for no less than three weeks, the Court found that the company had been prevented by the Soviet Government from carrying out their concession agreement. What did the Court do? The Court directed the Soviet Government to pay the Lena Company £12,965,000 with interest. And what were the reasons they gave for this finding? They found that the Soviets incited trade unions to intimidate the company's workmen, that the Ogpu made raids on the company's offices and carried off books and documents, and finally arrested some of the company's employees, making it impossible for the company to carry on. In fact the Court found, what we all know, that when a foreign concession becomes sufficiently valuable the Soviet Government then proceeds to make it impossible for the company to carry on its business, and seizes the company's goods on the ground that the company have not carried out their concession. To sum up this case. Here you have a country, Russia, which gives a concession to a foreign company. It agrees with that foreign company that any matter of dispute shall not only go to arbitration, but agrees also to the particular composition of the Court and its powers, and when the company goes to that Arbitration Court and gets an award for a large sum of money, then the Soviet refuses to pay a single penny. It seems to me that in this case, whatever else His Majesty's Government may do, they must include the carrying out of this award as one of the first things which they have to insist on with the Soviet Government.
The next problem is the question of the debts owing by the Soviet Government to the Government of this country—that is to say, the taxpayers of this country—and to private individuals. As far as the money owing to the Government is concerned, that has been officially stated in another place as amounting to a few million pounds over a thousand million pounds. They owe us over £1,000,000,000 and we, the taxpayers of this country, have the privilege of paying every year £45,000,000, the interest on that money, which we should not have to pay if the Soviet Government had carried out its monetary obligations. Then there is the other problem as regards debt—namely, the amount of
656
money which the Soviet Government owes to private individuals in this country. When the Soviets got into power they seized all the factories, all the goods, all the land and all the buildings belonging to Britishers, and others indeed, in that country, and the claims total anything from £250,000,000 to £350,000,000. Many individuals and companies have become bankrupt owing to this unjustifiable act of robbery on the part of the Soviet Government. I hope and trust that when this Metropolitan-Vickers incident is liquidated and closed and new negotiations are entered into, His Majesty's Government will not forget those thousands of wretched individuals, both British and foreigners, who have been ruined by this robbery on the part of the Soviet Government. It may be said: "Well, what is to happen? The Soviet Government have practically no money available to send abroad." That, I think, is true, and I believe it is a fact that they have been obliged this year to cut down their purchases abroad from £90,000,000 to £58,000,000. That no doubt will be taken into account in coming to some arrangement. But I attach more importance to the principle of making some payment as recognition rather than to the actual amount for a year or two, so that we could at any rate feel we had got back some of the money they owe to us.
May I sum up? I will not detain your Lordships more than another five minutes. I urge that the Government should give no diplomatic recognition till some payments are made on account of debt. You have to provide in case payments should cease after the first one or two instalments, and, if payments cease, I urge that diplomatic recognition and any trade agreement in existence should be suspended. We should then, till payment was resumed, bring pressure to bear by treating Russian exports to this country as we are now treating Irish exports to this country. His Majesty's Government cannot say that is an impossible or a wrong suggestion, because they themselves have brought in this method of treating Irish imports. I submit that the Russians could not very long stand up against this total prohibition. During the last two years, that is 1931 and 1932, we bought from Russia £52,000,000 worth of goods, whereas they only bought from

657
us £,16,500,000—that is to say, three to one. We are in a very strong position, therefore, when any trade is interrupted between Russia and this country.
The next problem, the last but one, is a trade agreement. I confess that I have changed my opinion. Perhaps it does not mutter, but I have changed my opinion as regards a trade agreement. Up to now I have been against any trade agreement, and rather favoured the policy of the United States of leaving it to private individuals to trade as best they can, and certainly, in the case of the United States, it has not been unsuccessful. But we are in a rather different position from the United States. If His Majesty's Government think it necessary to have a trade agreement with Russia, as we are now making trade agreements with the Argentine and Denmark, Germany and other countries, I do not think it is for those who are not in a position to have as much information as His Majesty's Government have to oppose them. What I do say is that if you are going to have trading arrangements with Russia and a Russian trade delegation here, do not give that delegation diplomatic immunity. There is no necessity for it. Diplomatic immunity is reserved for Ambassadors. I do not see why the Russian delegation, who I understand have been not inactive in bringing money here for political propaganda, should have that protection extended to them.
The last problem of all, one of very considerable importance, is that of export credits. I put it to His Majesty's Government, is it prudent to give export credits to stimulate trade with Russia? No one was more vehement in denouncing export credits than the leaders of the Conservative Party when the last Socialist Government was in office. My noble and learned friend Viscount Hailsham moved audiences to tears by his denunciation of export credits. Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister and Mr. Baldwin denounced them up hill and down dale. What was wrong three years ago I should say, as far as principle is concerned, is wrong now. Indeed it is much more wrong now in view of the happenings in the Metropolitan-Vickers case. Mark you, my Lords, we have no inconsiderable sum of money at stake. Up to the end of May, 1932, the Export Credits Department had assumed liabilities for
658
Russian trade up to £10,000,000. Last May the present National Government thought they would like to extend the export credits to Russia, and they granted a further sum of £1,600,000. That was only for short-term credit, I admit, but still they granted that extra credit. At the present moment the total export credits amount to £12,000,000, of which £5,000,000 has run off, leaving £7,000,000 outstanding.
Suppose the breach with Russia becomes a really serious breach, who has to find that £7,000,000? The British taxpayer. Export credits are all right so long as they run on, but directly there is trouble the person who has given the export credit finds himself in the position of having to find the money. At the present moment if we had a real breach with Russia the British taxpayer—he is always the patient ox—would have to find £7,000,000. What is done, is done, and you cannot change it, but I hope and trust that these export credits which are excellent when dealing with a civilised, reliable country, will not be given again by His Majesty's Government as far as Russia is concerned.
I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long on a subject which has been before you on previous occasions, but I consider it a matter of very great moment that the Government should decide as early as possible what is to be their general policy. I do not expect them to give any definite outline of their views to-day. Unhappily these two engineers are still in prison and one must be as careful as possible—I hope I have been—to say nothing to endanger them getting their liberty as soon as possible. But whatever is the policy of His Majesty's Government I do hope that it will be a stimulating policy, a patriotic policy, a definite policy, and that once and for all we shall have done with this crawling to Russia. We must remember that England with all her faults is far superior to Russia with all its vast territory. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, a number of points which should be considered by your Lordships' House arise in the other direction from the very moderate remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord. I say "moderate" because usually in your Lordships' House all references to Russia create such excitement that in the present

659
case the noble Lord's remarks really are comparatively moderate. Of course they are, as usual, inaccurate. I do not mean inaccurate as far as the noble Lord is concerned, but inaccurate as references to Russia usually are. The noble Lord asked that the matter might be approached without prejudice and I venture to support his plea and to ask that the House will realise that there is another side to almost every point that he put before your Lordships. The noble Lord laid down certain conditions for diplomatic recognition. I should have thought that in the interest of the prosperity of the world recognition in any case is better than no diplomatic relationship. Surely for British nationals living in Russia it must be more satisfactory to have a British Ambassador and an Embassy than to be without recognition and to be in the position United States citizens are in at the present moment in the Soviet Union of being represented by, I think, Nicaragua or Ecuador or some other nation not usually considered of first-class rank. I cannot help thinking that it is essential for friendship that there should be knowledge and understanding, and if an Embassy carries out its tasks adequately it should prove a means of acquiring knowledge of what is going on in another country.
It is no good saying that we do not like the system of government in Russia and therefore we will not recognise it. I do not suppose we like the system of government in the United States, but we do not break off diplomatic relationship with the United States merely because we do not consider that a Republican system under which 125,000 posts change every time there is a change of President is a particularly good system. The noble Lord apparently prefers to consider expressions of hatred and expressions of dislike as a method of dealing with Russia, whom he characterises as a nation of savages. If he had a more adequate knowledge of the Russian nation he would surely realise that that is scarcely a moderate description. I do not remember many protests from him in another place against the recognition of Russia under the Czarist régime. The Russian people have not changed in fifteen years. They are the same people that he now so cheerfully describes as savages. Yet I do not remember his protesting against
660
recognition in those days. He then goes on to say that he only wants trade with Russia provided they recognise and pay their debts and provided they pay the arbitral award.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I did not say that I did not want trade with Russia. I said trade agreements with Russia. Private trade could go on.
LORD MARLEY: I accept naturally what the noble Lord says, but it is quite clear that adequate private trading cannot go on unless there is some form of trade agreement, and in fact the noble Lord recognises that. The noble Lord recognised that point when he said he had changed his opinion and was now in favour of a trade agreement in order that such trade might be carried on. If it makes no difference whether there is a trade agreement or not, why object to a trade agreement? Clearly a trade agreement is of value.
Let us first look for a moment at the Lena Goldfields award. The one-sided account of the Lena Arbitration Court should not be allowed to remain as an accurate description of what took place. Let me remind the noble Lord that the Lena Company got a concession about 1925 to work goldfields in Russia. For about two years they did carry out the terms of that concession, but about 1928 it was clear that they could not get any more money. They tried to raise more money in America and in this country and could not get enough to carry out the terms of the concession. They then had to borrow from the Russian Government something like £1,500,000—money which under the terms of the concession they had agreed to raise in other countries—in order to carry on the concession; and, finally it became clear they could not carry out the concession. Then, naturally, a number of disputes took place and it was agreed by the Russian Government, at the request of the Lena Company, to refer these disputes to the Arbitral Court to which the noble Lord has referred, so that the disputes could be settled and arrangements made to carry on the concession. That agreement was come to about April—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My information is that the Court to which the

661
arbitration should go was agreed on when the concession was given, not in 1928.
LORD MARLEY: That is just where the noble Lord is inaccurate. The Arbitral Court was set up for the specific purpose of deciding these disputes—as a matter of fact on February 12, 1930. That Court was set up, and the members of the Court agreed upon, during the week following the request by the Lena Company that these disputes should be referred to arbitration. I can assure the noble Lord that that is absolutely accurate.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Anyhow it was an agreed Court.
LORD MARLEY: An agreed Court to decide whether the concession could be carried on. As he says Professor Stutzer—I think of the Freiburg Mining Academy—was agreed upon as the Chairman or super-arbitrator and the two other members of the Court were Sir Leslie Scott, representing the Lena Company, and M. Tchlenoff, representing the Soviet Government. About a week before that Court actually sat—and this is an interesting fact which has not been mentioned—the Lena Company decided not to continue to work the concession at all, withdrew their engineers from the ground where the concession was being worked, revoked the power of attorney of their representatives, and notified the Russian Government that in no circumstances would they continue to work the concession. As a consequence the Russian Government decided that a Court which had been set up as an ad hoc Court to decide disputes which had arisen in working the concession was not a suitable court to decide the ending of the concession and demanded that another and special Court should be set up for the purpose. Those are the facts of the position.
They notified the Lena Company and the Chairman of their decision a week before the Court sat, and the Lena Company from London wired "Refuse to accept the position taken up by the Russian Government," and said that Sir Leslie Scott would leave for Berlin the day following the receipt of the telegram. The Russian Government refused to send their representative to the Court and notified the super-arbitrator that they did not recognise the Court for this pur-
662
pose of deciding, in accordance with the terms of the concession, the terms under which the concession was to be wound up. The result was that the Court sat with no representative of the Russian Government at all and found, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, nearly £13,000,000 as the sum due for compensation.
But this matter has been dealt with more recently by the British Government, and it is a great pity that the noble Lord omitted to inform the House that in the House of Commons on March 13 of this year the present Government, speaking through Mr. Baldwin, gave a description of the present position and pointed out that despite the award of the Arbitration Court, to use Mr. Baldwin's own words, the British Ambassador at Moscow was authorised
"to discuss unofficially with the then President of the Chief Concessions Committee, M. Kamenev, the prospects of a settlement [of the Lena Goldfields Award] at a sum of £3,500,000"—
and these words are important—
"representing approximately the proved capital losses of the company after taking into account all counter-claims put forward on behalf of the committee."
In other words, this £13,000,000, as I pointed out last November, is an absurd inflation of all possible losses, and the present Government, through Mr. Baldwin, have admitted that the capital losses are at a maximum no more than £3,500,000.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Was that offered by the Soviet Government?
LORD MARLEY: They began by an offer of £800,000 subsequently raised to £1,000,000; but the actual money raised on behalf of the company did not approach the £3,500,000. As a matter of fact they raised £750,000 on the 8 per cent. original issue; £646,000 owing to German creditors for machinery supplied and not paid for; and £270,000 owing to British companies for machinery supplied and not paid for, making a total of £1,660,000. The balance was supplied by the Soviet Government in the form of some 30,000,000 roubles to help the company to carry out the terms of its concession. The fact of the matter is that the whole of this is hopelessly exaggerated. An award was come to by a Court deliberately not recognised by one

663
side the week before it sat, and constituted for one purpose and then used for a new and entirely different purpose. Naturally the super-arbitrator of that Court, a mining engineer, is not a man suitable to deal with an immense financial problem such as is involved in winding up a concession. This Arbitral Court reported with no representatives on one side giving evidence, and in consequence, I maintain, and I am supported by Mr. Baldwin and the present Government in this matter, that the award was hopelessly inflated and ought not to stand in the way of further trade between this country and Russia.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for one moment, but he must not misrepresent the Government by suggesting that they take the view that this is a hopelessly inflated award. What Mr. Baldwin said was that the proved capital loss was £3,500,000, but that is not the measure of damage for repudiation of the contract at all. The Government have never said that the award arrived at by an independent tribunal was one which ought to be challenged by the Government or brought into doubt by them. The proved capital loss is a totally different matter.
LORD MARLEY: Of course, the noble Viscount represents perfectly accurately the position taken up by the Government. What I was pointing out is that the Government have offered to accept £3,500,000 as a basis for settling the claim, which I suggest is equivalent to saying that the other amount is inflated. I may be wrong, and the noble Viscount does not agree with me, but I am merely stating what would appear to the ordinary observer—and I am only putting myself forward as an ordinary observer—with regard to this settlement.
The next point which the noble Lord raised is the question of debts. I am not going to say more than this about debts, that while it is true that the debts to this country may amount to over £1,000,000,000, the Russian Government at the Geneva Conference put forward a counter-claim on account of damages inflicted by this country and others during the intervention period. Some £200,000,000 of this country's money was spent on entirely unjustifiable attacks upon the Soviet Union during that period, and upon that money the taxpayers are
664
now paying about £10,000,000 a year in taxes, which would not have to be paid if the Government of the day had had the sense to see that it was entirely unjustifiable to interfere by force with the government of another country. That £10,000,000 a year represents sixpence, and possibly more, on the Income Tax, and while it was paid with enjoyment possibly by those who approved of the intervention, their sons possibly do not enjoy it so much.
I am, however, not concerned about that. What I am concerned about is what is the matter to-day. To-day we have got in Russia one of the few expanding markets in the world. We have got a Government spending immense sums of money in building large factories and workshops, developing agriculture and raising the standard of living of its people. There are immense opportunities for trade, and yet the noble Lord appears not to want this trade unless certain fantastic demands which he makes are agreed upon between the two Governments. I say that it is entirely wrong to cut ourselves off from this expanding market and to hand over the benefits of that trade to other countries. At the present moment the action of this Government has resulted in trade which was coming to this country being transferred to other countries. France has benefited enormously. I am very glad that she should benefit, but I do not see why she should benefit at our expense, as the noble Lord appears to desire. Italy, by her remarkable credit proposals, has benefited at our expense. Japan is getting goods from Russia which she needs and which she is getting extremely cheaply, and is giving in exchange her produce. As to the United States, I say at once that the noble Lord is entirely inaccurate when he says that Russia's trade with the United States is infinitely greater than with the United Kingdom. On the contrary, the Soviet purchases of goods are much higher in this country than in the United States.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I said the United States sold to Soviet Russia more goods than we did.
LORD MARLEY: I venture to say that the words which the noble Lord used were that the trade with the United States exceeded greatly that with the United Kingdom, and I am showing that

665
this country sells more goods to Russia than does the United States. Let us look at the latest figures. In 1932 Great Britain sold 46,800,000 dollars worth of goods to the Soviet Union. In the same year the United States sold only 16,000,000 dollars worth. Therefore in 1932 our sales were three times as large. It is perfectly true that three years ago—and the noble Lord's figures are based upon out-of-date facts—the United States were selling far more than we were, but the mere fact that that is so proves the madness of the attitude of the Government taken up in this connection in the present position. Let me remind the House what is the present position. British exports to Russia, which were £11,000,000 in 1927 and of course went right down when we had the Arcos raid in 1923, have been gradually rising, year by year, until 1932, when we sold £10,500,000 worth of goods. The noble Lord said the balance of trade is against us. That is true but this adverse balance of trade has been getting less every year. It was as much as £20,000,000 in 1929, and £25,000,000 in 1930, but ever since then it has been getting less, and in 1932 it was only £9,000,000. The noble Lord omitted to say that we were selling year by year more goods to Russia and having an improving balance of trade each year since 1929 and 1930. We did not stop trade with the United States because we had an adverse balance of hundreds of millions of pounds. We have an adverse balance with many countries. Are we to stop trading with them because of that? This argument about the adverse balance of trade is just sheer rot and nonsense, and the sooner it is realised that you can never have a balance of trade with every country the better. You yen only have it when all the nations of the world lie on their backs, do no work and have no trade with anybody.
The position is really absurd that we should cut ourselves off from this expanding market, and that the noble Lord should be objecting to export credits which have brought a profit to the taxpayers of this country of more than a million pounds in the last few years. It is absurd that we should cut ourselves off from all means of participating in this trade. As Russia expands more and more her tools and machinery will come from the United States, Germany and
666
elsewhere, and we shall be the one country which is left out. The Government and the noble Lord may not care about the result of this embargo, but the result of this embargo which the noble Lord wants to see continued until every one of his fantastic conditions is accepted, is to increase the unemployment of this country. It may not be important to him or the present Government, but their action causes extra unemployment to sixty thousand British workers at the very least. With their families that means something like 200,000 British men, women and children who are suffering by this action of the Government. In addition to that there is a rise in the cost of living. It is estimated that the extra cost of timber alone used in the houses that the Government are supposed to be building to deal with the slums will be £15 per house at a very moderate estimate.
The noble Lord has laid down suggestions: I do not know what the Government are going to say. So far the Government's dealing with this matter has been, in my opinion, hopeless. It has done an immense amount of harm, and I am very glad that it should be quite clear that I personally am not in agreement with the activities of the Government in this matter. I personally am divided entirely from them on the line they have taken: I remember reading once a description of a government which compared them to a row of extinct volcanoes. The present Government are not a row of extinct volcanoes. They are a row of erupting volcanoes, but they are erupting always at the wrong end.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down criticised my noble friend Lord Mount Temple for speaking in an unfriendly manner of the Russian nation. I do not believe for a moment that Lord Mount Temple intended to do so, but may I explain beforehand that the strictures which I am going to pass are not strictures upon the Russian nation, mainly composed of vast dumb, suffering, masses, whose real wishes we cannot know, but on that very different and distinct entity the Russian Soviet Government. I happen lately to have been thrown into a position which associates me closely with exiled communities of Russian Christians. I am going to call your Lordships' atten-

667
tion to the grinding system of repression which operates in Russia against every kind of religion and against all freedom of thought. I do so because in this debate on our general relations with Russia it would be unseemly that there should be no mention of such a subject, which goes really to the root of the relations between our people and the Russian Government. It would be not merely unseemly, it would be misleading. Sooner or later English people always revolt against any undue complacency towards a Government which stands for oppression. Quite lately certain revolting news, disgusting news, which came to us from Germany created at once feelings throughout this country to which in another place Mr. Attlee and Sir Austen Chamberlain both gave strong and by no means exaggerated expression. I refer to that merely for the sake of remarking that in the presence of great public wrong and oppression English feeling is perfectly impartial as between different nations, different classes, and different creeds.
I need not take up your Lordships' attention with much detail of the system in Russia to which I have referred. A year or two ago it was dealt with fully by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in a statement of very great moderation and very great power. Just shortly, the position then described to us was this: For avowed motives of prudence a much diminished, but very considerable, number of churches were open and are open, and in those churches a prescribed ritual may be performed. Every other activity naturally associated with churches, save that prescribed ritual, is strictly forbidden by a vigorously enforced law. For example, and above all, while a singularly intolerant atheism is being inculcated by the schools and by every other influence which Government can bring to bear, the teaching of any religion to a group of children exceeding—I forget whether it is four or six—is a criminal offence. That is one example. Meanwhile the life of every minister of any religion is by an extraordinarily mean and petty civil disability made as poor and miserable as may be, and those ministers and any prominent persons among their followers live continuously exposed to those periodic outbreaks of ferocity which visit impartially professors of religion, farmers who happen to prosper, engineers in the employ of
668
Government, and apparently harmless men of science and of learning.
There has been no change, certainly no material change, since the most rev. Primate laid these matters before us, since other leaders of other churches in this country did the same outside these walls, and since His Holiness the Pope, speaking with special and peculiar information on this subject which he personally as well as officially possesses, put substantially the same facts before the whole world. There has been no great change, nor can there be any intelligent doubt of the truth of the case that has been made, because it rests upon the published laws, upon the official utterances and speeches of leaders of the Russian Government, and upon constant and exultant confession of what happens under those laws, which may be read in their own authorised newspapers. Here we have these things sometimes ignorantly or fatuously questioned: there in Russia remember that they are avowed exultantly and triumphantly.
Not to labour that further, I wish as briefly as I can to ask how this bears upon the general question before us. What I have been speaking of is not some temporary abuse or aberration of power: it is something which belongs to the fundamental principle of the Soviet State. The economic principle upon which, as we all know, they stand, and as to which we English people are very little concerned, is by some peculiar process of thought inextricably tied up with a dogmatic atheism, held with quite extraordinary fanaticism. That is not all. In our attitude towards most countries in the world we are apt to assume certain principles as common ground between us. We are apt to look for, in other people, the operation of some sentiment at least of human compassion, of some sense of justice due to man as man. We are also accustomed to look in this modern world for some sense of freedom of the mind, the freedom with which human thought ought to be exercised. My Lords, each and all of those principles are in Russia not merely transgressed in the practice of government—they are expressly, and with perfect frankness, denied in the official utterances of the highest authorities in the State.

669
It really comes to this, that we never can, in our dealings with Russia, lose sight of the fact that what we call the Russian Government is not are organ more or less adequately representing the public life of the nation. It is the organ of a creed and of a cause. That creed it is engaged in enforcing with patiently-exercised, systematic cruelty upon the population subject to it; and that cause, wherever occasion offers and by every means available, it is engaged in propagating in the other countries of the world. That last consideration is one of menace which probably worries us in this country very little indeed so far as we are concerned. It is a very different matter to smaller countries, closer neighbours of Russia, which are fellow-members with us in the League of Nations. Whatever relations in this or in any other respect our Government may find it well to have with the Government of Russia, do not let us ever assume that the Russian Government is anything else than what it proclaims itself to be. You may be sure that not one of the things that I have said by way of what must sound a grievous accusation against the Russian Government this afternoon will ever be denied in any utterance of any person in authority in Russia which is intended for the consumption of his own supporters there.
I am not going to ask, nor should I expect from the Government, any precise definition of their policy and of the steps they are likely or may feel called upon to take in the very difficult situation which exists between any British Government and the Government of Russia. The relation between the two Governments is, in itself, something quite anomalous, far removed from the, possibility of war on the one hand, equally far removed from any possibility of a stable and cordial friendship the other hand. But there is this to be said, I think, if your Lordships will pardon the expression of a very general principle, that the policy which every British Government ever since the War has avowedly and sincerely pursued has been that of binding together some sort of family of nations in which not merely formal but real friendship may prevail, and in which the interests and the welfare of mankind at large will count for something. We cannot think, we must not think, that by any possibility the Russian Government
670
as at present constituted, resting on its present principles, can ever enter into that family circle.
I have very little more to add. It is very little that we can possibly do to lighten the burden of oppression which rests upon countless numbers of people in Russia, but let that little which from time to time is possible be done. There is, first, the question of slave labour, or, rather, of something worse than slave labour, of labour vindictively and cruelly enforced for the purpose of persecution, whether against religious persons or against independent farmers or against anyone else. Whatever our trade relations may be, nothing can possibly justify us as a people in continuing to buy any class of goods which we are reasonably sure is the product of that sort of labour. Secondly I used to think that no protest which could be made here by public demonstrations or by the Government would have any effect on this oppression in Russia; but I have to say that this is not the opinion held by such Russians in this country or in France as I have been able to talk to about it. They definitely believe that manifestations of public opinion here have led at any rate to some slight temporary mitigation of some of the odious incidents of this tyranny, and they still more strongly believe that representations which they think our Government, has on one or more occasions made to the Russian Government have had a very real effect in individual cases in lightening the hardships of which I have spoken.
Meanwhile, whatever can actually be done to help the oppressed, I think those who have played the part of the advocates and patrons of the Soviet Government in this country must be beginning to be aware that they render themselves accomplices not merely in many crimes but in systematic and continued oppression. It goes without saying, I think, that on the part of our Government special concessions and favours granted to the Government whose principles and whose actions are such as I have indicated do very great wrong, and that every mark of favour that they receive from us, whether from the Government or from masses of the public, does help to strengthen the hands of the rulers of Russia, does encourage them, and does strengthen their hold upon their immediate following and thereby tightens their

671
grip upon the whole of the people. Just lately it has been very much the fashion, I should suppose chiefly among that class of persons who think that a hard heart is some compensation for a soft head, to talk much about the promotion of cultural relations between this country and Soviet Russia. There have been many manifestations in this or that section of the public, or on the part of this or that more or less well-known man, of great friendly and encouraging interest in the Soviet Government and its wonderful works and ways. All that, probably more than those responsible for it imagine, is helping in a considerable degree to fasten firmly the yoke of tyranny upon a most unhappy nation.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, my noble friend who has just sat down was, I am glad to say, clear that he did not expect the Government to be in a position at this moment to be able to give a very definite expression of its views, and my noble friend who moved the Motion also realised that this was not a time when we could lay clown the future policy of this country in regard to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. My noble friend Lord Charnwood said that the Government in Russia was one that was entirely different from that in any other country, and that they differ also in regard to their trade relationships. That is a statement which I think even the noble Lord, Lord Marley, would not dare to dispute, because it is a claim which Russia herself boasts of frequently. As regards the remainder of the noble Lord, Lord Marley's remarks, I can only imagine that he is looked upon in Russia as one of the best advocates that that country has ever had. At any rate we know where his spiritual home now is.
Your Lordships are all aware that relations between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Union have recently entered a phase of some difficulty as the result of the arrest and prosecution of six employees of the firm of Metropolitan-Vickers, two of whom are still in prison in Moscow. The action taken by His Majesty's Government in regard to this case has already been fully explained by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in another place and to your Lordships by the Leader of this House. Your Lordships will, of course, agree that I ought
672
to be particularly careful in anything I say to your Lordships this afternoon because every one of us desires to see those last two British engineers brought back in safety to this country. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marley, in one remark he made, and I think in one only, and that is in regard to the preservation, at any rate for the time being, of diplomatic relations. I think your Lord ships will all agree that to the British subjects imprisoned in Russia it is of great advantage that there should be a Chargé d' Affaires present there to see that they are still being properly treated, and to endeavour, so far as possible, to influence the Soviet authorities to grant their early release. In regard to other British subjects in Russia, too, I think they would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marley, that there are advantages in maintaining diplomatic relationships because, at any rate, they have some one they can go to if they happen to get into difficulties such as those that have occurred in the case of the six British engineers.
It is obviously unnecessary for me to do more than observe, with reference to trade relationships between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government, that the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the case of the six engineers involved among other things the suspension of negotiations with Soviet representatives for the conclusion of a fresh Anglo-Soviet trade agreement to replace the instrument which expired on the 17th of last month. I think the noble Lord, Lord Marley, said that if we had no trade agreement we should, of course, have no private trade.
LORD MARLEY: I did not say no private trade.
EARL STANHOPE: I understood the noble Lord to say, at any rate, very little private trade. He then went on to claim that foreign countries have got a very large trade and a largely increasing trade with the Soviet Union. But at least one of those countries which the noble Lord quoted—namely, the United States—never has had a trade agreement, and the noble Lord claims that their trade is increasing very largely. I think his own statement proves that no trading agreement is necessary in order to do private trade.
LORD MARLEY: Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to say that what I said was that trade was decreasing, and that the only reason the United States had a large trade with Russia was that, because of the immense wealth of such organisations as the General Electric Company, they were able to give credits for four or five years. But since the depression in the United States those credits have ceased, and actually the Soviet purchases from the United States have fallen from something like 46,000,000 dollars in 1930 to only 16,718,000 dollars in 1932.
EARL STANHOPE: That really enters into another part of the argument. I was merely at the moment dealing with the contention that if you had no trading agreement you could have no private trade or very little. As regards increases or decreases of the trade of all other countries with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I should like to point out, when the noble Lord says this is a largely increasing market, that our recent information is that it is exactly the opposite. It is a decreasing market for the reason that the Soviet Government feel that it is necessary to reduce to the smallest possible amount the trade that is coming into their country, and, there-lore, if the noble Lord will examine the figures, I think he will find that the import trade into Russia in recent months has fallen very materially indeed, and that it is not an increasing market but a decreasing market. As regards the three countries he quoted—France, Italy and Japan—the amount that they actually import into Russia is such a very small amount compared with the total imports that it is worth very little consideration indeed.
As regards the other important questions mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mount Temple, those of debts and the Lena Goldfields arbitral award, I need hardly say that these matters continue to engage the attention of the competent departments of his Majesty's Government and that the endeavours which have previously been made to arrive at a satisfactory settlement will be renewed when circumstances enable such action to be taken with some prospects of success. I should like to add in regard to the Lena Goldfields arbitral award that the noble Lord,
674
Lord Marley, only told part of the story. Under the concession I understand that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agreed with the company that in the event of any disagreement a Court should be set up and that it should consist of one individual nominated by the U.S.S.R., one nominated by the company and one nominated jointly. When difficulty arose the nominations of these three individuals were made and the Court was about to sit. At that moment the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics withdrew its member from the Court and the Court had no alternative but to proceed in the way courts have to proceed when one side makes no appearance—that is, to take the case by default. It was considered by the independent Chairman appointed by both sides and by the representative of the company, and it was they who came to the decision that £13,000,000 was the proper sum to award. It had, of course, nothing to do with the company itself. When the noble Lord opposite said that the amount of capital lost was—I think he said, £3,000,000—
LORD MARLEY: Three and a half million pounds.
EARL STANHOPE: That, of course, as the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House pointed out, is an entirely different question to the question of damages incurred and the amount the Court may award for the breaking of a contract. The noble Lord has given a description of this case which His Majesty's Government cannot, for one moment accept. The description I have now given is fuller and I understand more accurate than the one the noble Lord has given to the House. As regards, debts, that is a very large question which, as my noble friend Lord Mount Temple knows, has been under discussion between the two countries for a very long time indeed.
I now come to the question of export credits. There, I think, the House has more than once been given a. good idea of what are export credits. I think my noble friend Lord Templemore, on the last occasion when the matter was discussed, explained to the House that the Board which decides whether export credits should be given or not is a. statutory body composed of bankers and

675
business men, and they give the credit to any firm which can satisfy them that the business is worthy of such credit and where they consider the security is adequate. When the noble Lord, Lord Marley, said a profit is being made on these transactions he was hardly accurate. A premium is charged on these credits, and until every transaction has been wound up and the whole of the credits repaid we are not in a position to know whether we shall have any profit or whether these premiums will be adequate to meet any amount the country has to pay on these export contracts. I am glad to say the situation is a little better than my noble friend Lord Mount Temple thought, because I believe that nearly half the amount originally guaranteed has already been repaid and therefore the sum outstanding is not as high as he thought.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: May I interrupt my noble friend to say that I took my figures from an answer given in another place, I think not more than a month ago? The figures given were £12,000,000 credit and £5,000,000 paid off, leaving £7,000,000 outstanding. However, if something has been done in the meantime that may have altered the position.
EARL STANHOPE: It is rather better than my noble friend thought. Of course the question of further export credits does not arise at this moment. As your Lordships are aware, the Soviet Government are placing no further orders in this country, and until such further orders are placed the question of the resumption of export credit facilities does not arise. If, and when, it does arise it will be considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.
As regards the question of the treatment of British subjects in the Soviet Union, His Majesty's Government anticipate that as a result of the attitude which they have adopted in the Metropolitan-Vickers case British subjects now resident in Russia are not likely to suffer any further molestation at the hands of the Soviet authorities, although, of course, no guarantee of immunity can be given to British subjects desiring to proceed to the Soviet Union and such persons would do well to defer their visit if possible. I need hardly add that further interference with British subjects will
676
create an even more serious situation for Anglo-Soviet relations than that already created by the recent trial. In the meantime I can assure the noble Lord that all British subjects resident in the Soviet Union or who may proceed there either on business or on pleasure will continue as heretofore to receive the advice and assistance of His Majesty's Embassy and of British consular officers. I think I have dealt with a good many of the points which have arisen in a debate, which has spread very wide over a very large subject, and as far as it is advisable perhaps to do in the situation existing at this moment. We are all agreed that the first thing that we require is that these two British subjects should be released and should return in safety to this country. Once that has happened and the embargo has been removed we shall be in a position to consider further what course we should take.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I only rise because I feel that some apology is due to your Lordships for my having had on the Paper so long a Motion relating to the proposed new trade agreement with the Soviet Union. In the circumstances which now exist—which I may remind your Lordships have been defined by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House as follows—namely, that there can be no resumption of commercial relations beyond those now permitted in Russia until the release of the two engineers and that as soon as those two engineers are released negotiations can at once be resumed—this does not seem the time to discuss in detail all the considerations which apply to any proposed new trade agreement with Russia. When, however, as we all hope, the two engineers have been released and it is possible to reconsider this matter, I shall hope to be given an opportunity of addressing your Lordships and of bringing forward in some detail a great many considerations which have not yet been touched upon in your Lordships' House.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, in view of the sympathetic answer given on behalf of His Majesty's Government, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RUBBER INDUSTRY BILL. [H.L.]
LORD IRWIN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for contributions by rubber manufacturers in the United Kingdom to the Research Association of British Rubber Manufacturers, for the collection and application of such contributions, and for purposes con-
678
nected with the matters aforesaid; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Irwin.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.

Preamble
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Dewsbury and Ossett Passenger Transport,
Southern Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

BRIDLINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  DEARNE DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    TORQUAY AND PAIGNTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Strafford and the Lord Dorchester be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Hardinge of Penshurst and the Lord Russell of Liverpool; and that the Earl of Strafford be Chairman of the said Committee: Read, and agreed to.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  STAFFORDSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE CANAL BILL.

    NORWICH CORPORATION BILL.
    LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Committed.

SCOTTISH MILK MARKETING SCHEME, 1933.
Order of the 12th of April last relating to the Draft Scheme for the regulation of the marketing of milk in Scotland, discharged.
Draft Scheme for the regulation of the marketing of milk in Scotland submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland
680
under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, together with report made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation thereto under Section 1 (9) (a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931 (in substitution for the Draft Scheme presented on the 12th of April last):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

HARWICH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1933.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of Tendring in the County of Essex:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF ROCHESTER ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Rochester:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF WEMBLEY ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Urban District of Wembley:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF QUEENBOROUGH ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the Borough of Queenborough:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.