Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 180: debated on Monday 16 February 1925

House of Commons

Monday, February 16, 1925

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

Members Sworn

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Right hon. Sir Robert Stevenson Horne, G.B.E., K.C., Burgh of Glasgow (Hill-head Division).

Lieut.-Colonel Walter John Montagu-Douglas-Scott, commonly called Lieut.-Colonel the Earl of Dalkeith, County of Roxburgh and Selkirk.

Oral Answers to Questions

India

Reforms Enquiry Committee

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India when it is likely that the Reforms Enquiry Committee presided over by Sir Alexander Ruddiman will present its Report?

I have been asked to answer these questions, in the absence of my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Earl Winterton). The Committee have presented their Report. My Noble Friend hopes to be in a position to publish it about the middle of March.

Civil Services (Recruitment)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the figures of recruitment for the higher Civil Services in India are now satisfactory; and whether the class of candidates coming forward is equal to that previously secured?

The quality of the successful candidates recently ap- pointed to the Indian Civil Service has been distinctly good, and in the case of the other major services a satisfactory standard has been maintained. An increase in the number of men offering themselves for appointment is, however, urgently required, and it is hoped that the concessions now approved for the Superior Civil Services as a consequence of the Report of the recent Commission presided over by Viscount Lee of Fare-ham, to which the attention of the universities is being drawn, will produce a steadily increasing supply of candidates.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman cannot do it, but can he give us any idea as to the number of candidates now coming forward?

Questions

Suket (Agrarian Riots)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the agrarian riots in the native State of Suket; whether he has any information as to the reasons of the peasants demonstrating against their landlord and rajah; why British troops were sent into this independent native. State to protect the rajah; and whether the rents or taxes to be collected from the tenants have now been reduced or are still being exacted at the enhanced rate?

It appears from reports received from the Government of India that the people of the State put forward various grievances, of which the new land revenue assessment was one of the most important. A small number of British troops were sent to establish control of the situation when the British political officer, who proceeded to the State in the first instance with a police escort, reported further disturbances and found himself faced by a large and truculent mob. The British authorities, who assumed control of the administration owing to the departure of the Raja, announced that the new settlement would be held in abeyance until it had been thoroughly checked, and that the other grievances put forward would receive full consideration. No further trouble has been reported.

May we understand from that that the Raja was not reinstated, or that if he is reinstated he will not be allowed to force up the rents of his people?

Could the hon. Gentleman say what is the size of the State of Suket?

Kenya

Land Tenure

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have recently been made to him as to discontent amongst the natives of Kenya in regard to land tenure; and, if so, what steps, if any, he is taking in the matter?

The question of native lands and native land tenure in Kenya was brought to the notice of the East Africa Commission on frequent occasions during their visit. These repre- sentations are being dealt with in their Report. In addition, I have just received proposals on the subject from the late Governor of Kenya, whose death we all deplore. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the importance of the problems involved is fully appreciated, and that it is my intention to deal with them at the earliest possible moment.

Wakamba Tribe

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give any information regarding the removal of the Wakamba, with their cattle from the Yatta plains in Kenya?

No, Sir. I have not yet received a reply to the despatch which I sent to the late Governor of Kenya on this subject in December last.

Supreme Court Records

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state the conditions under which the records of the Supreme Court of Kenya are housed at Nairobi; and whether they are adequately protected against danger by fire?

I have not yet received a reply to the despatch which I sent to the Governor in December last as a result of the hon. and learned Member's previous question.

Questions

Cyprus (Petition from Archbishop)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen the petition sent by the Archbishop of Cyprus to Mr. Speaker; and what steps, if any, are being taken in respect of the complaints contained in that petition?

The matters referred to in the petition had, for the most part, formed the subject of similar petitions addressed to my predecessors which had been duly answered, and I did not, therefore, consider it necessary to take any action upon it, beyond notifying the petitioners that Mr. Speaker was unable to take the action requested.

Es the right hon. Gentleman examining into the situation in Cyprus with a view to trying to satisfy the majority of the inhabitants of the island?

I think my answer made it clear that the matter had been examined very closely on more than one occasion, not only by myself but by my predecessors.

Is it not a fact that a large majority of the inhabitants of Cyprus are quite content to remain under British rule?

Empire Settlement

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, under the new emigration scheme recently accented in principle at the Conference of the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth with the Premiers of the States, the British Government has offered to pay half the interest for a period of five years on loans not exceeding £20,000,000, in addition to loans which might be raised in the Commonwealth under existing schemes, together with one-third of the interest for a further period of five years; whether it is stipulated that, for each £1,000 lent, the Australian Government should settle at least one family and whether he can estimate how many settlers the new scheme will provide for within the next 10 years?

The scheme in question at present under discussion between the Commonwealth and the State Governments. I do not feel that I can usefully make any reply to my hon. Friend's question until I am informed of the outcome of this discussion, when I shall be very happy to give him full information as to the final form of the scheme.

Are we to understand that this scheme, which I think was announced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department last May, has been modified?

I am still awaiting any representations that may reach me from the Commonwealth Government as the result of their discussion with the States.

Is the right hon. Gentleman waiting for Mr. Collier to come across here, as there are several cases held up by the Australian Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] You be quiet.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] You can hear the voice of a Welshman anywhere.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is waiting for Mr. Collier, the Premier of Western Australia, to come across here and discuss the arrangements, because I know of several cases which have been held up by the Australian Government on account of the arrangements?

As I understand the position, the point of view of Western Australia is being represented in these discussions to which I have referred in Mr. Collier's absence, and he will no doubt he informed of the views of his Government before he arrives here.

Is it a fact that certain suggestions have been made to the Commonwealth Government in regard to this scheme on behalf of His Majesty's Government which have not proved acceptable to the Commonwealth?

Nigeria-Sudan Motor-Car Journey

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if any steps are being taken to encourage a motor-car journey from Nigeria to the Sudan, seeing that such an expedition is now being made, via Lake Chad, by the French?

So far as I am aware, no steps are being taken by the Nigerian Government to encourage such a journey.

East Africa (Southborough Committee)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he contemplates the dissolution of the Southborough Committee and for what reasons, seeing that the Committee was set up to devise measures for the permanent protection of the natives of our East African Colonies and mandated territories; and whether he will obtain the approval of this House before reversing the action of his predecessor in office?

As the right hon. and gallant Member was informed on the 10th instant, I have come to no decision regarding the future of the Southborough Committee, which stands adjourned until I have received the Report of the Commission which has recently visited East Africa. This Report will be published as a Parliamentary Paper and I can make no further statement until then. If after the publication of the Report there is a general desire for a discussion on this subject, it could be arranged on the Colonial Office Vote, when I shall be in a better position to make any statement regarding the desirability of further inquiry into matters dealt with in the Report.

May we take it that the Southborough Committee will not be dissolved without the House being informed first?

Ceylon (Mr. Venkataram)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a Report with regard to Mr. Venkataram, the manager of the newspaper "Swarayja," who was recently detained by the Ceylon police as a destitute Indian immigrant on the ground that he was dressed in khaddar; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action?

I have received a report in this case. Mr. Venkataram arrived at Talaimannar with no credentials and with only 10 rupees in his possession. Under the provisions of the Ceylon Ordinance governing the admission of destitute immigrants, he was detained until a bond had been signed on his behalf as required under the Ordinance, when he was allowed to enter the Colony. I do not propose to take any action in the matter.

Palestine (European Medical Assistance)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what European medical assistance is available for the families of British officials employed in the mandated territory of Palestine; and whether facilities can be given to one or more of the Government medical officers to accept as patients members of the families of such officials?

The medical practitioners licensed by the Palestine Government include 30 British doctors and some 150 others of European and American extraction. I therefore see no need for any special action on the lines suggested in the second part of the question.

St. Vincent and Grenada Legislative Councils (Women)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the grounds for prohibiting the election of women to the legislative councils of St. Vincent and Grenada?

The provision excluding women from election to the legislative councils of Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent was adopted on the recommendation of the local committees, representative of both official and unofficial opinion, which considered and reported on the details of the new constitutions of those islands. In accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Wood's Report the settlement of all but a few essential points was left to local opinion.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it might be left to the electors to decide these matters in each individual case?

I think the opinion of the Committee, which went very fully into this question, is that by which we would naturally be guided.

Duke and Duchess of York (Visit to East Africa)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any expenditure from Colonial Government funds has taken place in connection with the visit of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to East Africa?

On a point of Order. May I ask if an hon. Member is in order in asking for an explanation in this House of expenditure made by a Colonial Government

I think the hon. Member is entitled to ask for information, as it is not one of the self-governing Colonies

Contracts (Dominions and Crown Colonies)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he possesses any statistics showing the amount of large-scale contract work placed by the Dominions and Crown Colonies in this country during the last year, especially as compared with the amount of such work placed by them in other countries?

So far as the Dominions are concerned no definite or complete statistics are available here. The Crown Agents for the Colonies placed practically the whole of their orders in this country.

Irish Free State (Compensation Claims)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that awards in respect of compensation for damage to property made by the Wood-Renton Commission do not in all cases reach the persons for whom they are intended; and whether he can state what provisions exist for ensuring that the agreement between Great Britain and the Irish Free State is carried out on both sides?

I have no information which would suggest that the agreement with the Government, of the Irish tree State regarding the payment of awards made by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission is not being carried out on both sides; but if the hon. Member will give me details of any cases of the kind referred to in the first part of his question, I will make inquiry into them.

Has the Colonial Secretary any information as to a Proclamation issued by the Governor-General of the Irish Free State last Monday and published in the "Dublin Gazette" purporting to vary and enlarge the powers of the Wood-Renton Commission and to amend the Indemnity Act of 1920?

Can the Colonial Secretary say whether the payments by the British Government have been carried out on a 50–50 basis?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the agreement with the Irish Free State, by which money was paid for the purpose of discharging the British liability for pre-truce damage, contained any provisions by which the British Government could satisfy itself that compensation was actually paid to those who suffered damage at the hands of persons for whose activities the Free State Government assumed responsibility; and what steps are taken to enforce the carrying out of the agreement?

The agreement, provides that the sun' agreed upon shall be paid to the Government of the Irish Free State as and when awards to that amount are issued by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission and satisfied by that Government. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Commercial Travellers (Foreign Taxation)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the taxation to which commercial travellers entering Norway, Sweden and Denmark are subjected; whether he is aware that since 29th March last the licence fees in Denmark have been considerably increased, and that the Norwegian authorities are considering similar changes; that it costs a manufacturing firm in this country £1 a day in licence fees to send a representative to Denmark for a fortnight's visit and whether, seeing that the nationals of Norway, Sweden and Denmark are free to sell their commodities here without payment of any fee or tax, he will consider the advisability of approaching the Governments of these countries with a view to securing, if not the abolition, at any rate the lessening, of these burdens upon British trade?

Thu answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that I am not aware of the precise proposals of the Norwegian Government, and an inquiry has been addressed to His Majesty's Legation at Oslo. As regards the last part of the question, the whole matter is under consideration. Representations have already been addressed to the Danish Government.

Overseas Trade Department (Advertisements)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, instead of advertising Russian raw materials for Arcos, Limited, Soviet House, 49, Moor-gate Street, London, E.C.2, as is now being done on the backs of Government, publications for the Department of Overseas Trade, he will consider inserting matter connected with the British Empire, such as reports on the trade and commerce of East Africa, and some other similar publications?

It has been decided not to renew the contract entered into last year for advertisements from the undertaking referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. The advertising space in the Economic Reports isued by my Department is always available for the publication of information calculated to promote the trade of the British Empire.

Agriculture

Beet Sugar Factories

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the number of beet sugar factories in this country; the number under construction or contemplation, and the total amount advanced or authorised under the Trade Facilities Act for this purpose; and whether he is in a position to state the amount of foreign capital invested in these undertakings?

The number of beet sugar factories in this country is three. The number under construction or in contemplation is seven. The total amount so far guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act is £90,000. Further guarantees are under consideration. The amount of foreign capital invested in the above factories is £473,208.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of factories proposed to be erected for the manufacture of beet sugar this year; where will they be situated; the names of the companies which will operate the respective factories and the names of the directors of the companies?

As the reply is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The number of factories proposed to be erected for the manufacture of sugar beet this year of which I have definite information is five; one by the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation at Spalding, one by the West Midland Beet Sugar Company at Kidderminster, one by the Ely Beet Sugar Factory at Ely, one by the Ipswich Beet Sugar Factory at Ipswich, and one by the United Sugar Company at Bury St. Edmunds. The names of the directors of these companies are given as follows:—

Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation .—Lord Weir, Lord Invernairn, Sir John Baird, Sir Ernest Jardine, and Mr. J. B. Talbot Crosbie.

West Midland Beet Sugar Company .—Lord Weir, Lord Invernairn, Sir John Baird, Sir Ernest Jardine, Mr. J. B. Talbot Crosbie, Mr. Cecil Brinton, and Mr. Counciller Woodward.

Ely Beet Sugar Factory .—Sir James Martin, Sir Frederick Hiam, Colonel Courthope, Mr. J. P. Van Rossum, Dr. A. Wijnberg, and Dr. J. A. Van Loon.

Ipswich Beet Sugar Factory.—Colonel Courthope, Sir James Martin, Sir Edward Packard, Mr. J. P. Van Rossum, Dr. A. Wijnberg, and Dr. J. A. Van Loon.

The United Sugar Company. —Sir Ernest Tate, Sir Leonard Lyle, Mr. Charles Lyle, the Earl of Denbigh, Sir Douglas Newton, Dr. Albert Hirsch, Dr. Edward Aczel, Baron Paul Korfeld.

Livestock

asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the high price of meat, he is taking special steps to increase British livestock; and, if so, of what nature they are?

I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that all classes of livestock used for food have increased in numbers during the past few years, sheep being more numerous than in any year since 1918, while the number of pigs last year was the largest recorded since returns were first collected in 1867. In addition, I would remind my hon. Friend that my Department, through its livestock improvement scheme, has been for several years past, and still is, encouraging the breeding of high grade stock, which, of course, bears directly upon the economic production of livestock in this country.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the price of pork is so high?

I think my hon. Friend ought to address that question to another Department.

Is it not the fact that there are 1,000,000 less sheep in the country now than there were two years ago, correct?

I cannot deny those figures without notice, but I am aware that there has been a large reduction. All I said was that the number was increasing as compared with 1918.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that there ought to be some revision of the regulations for the inspection of store cattle from Canada?

Questions

Export of Live Horses (Committee of Inquiry)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the terms of reference and names of the Committee which he proposes to set up to consider the export of live horses for butchery purposes?

The terms of reference are:—

"To inquire into the conditions of the export trade in horses from Great Britain to the Continent and to advise whether, having regard to the necessity of ensuring that no avoidable suffering is inflicted on such horses, any further restrictions should be imposed on the trade."

The personnel of the Committee is not finally settled, but an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms of reference will cover an Inquiry into the fate of the horses after exportation?

Pending the report of this Committee, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agreements with Belgium and France for the slaughtering in this country of horses intended for food are working properly?

Yes. Whatever arrangement, is now in force by way of restriction is working satisfactorily. It is in order to see if any further provision is necessary that I have appointed this Committee.

Will the report be forthcoming in time for legislation this Session, should legislation be found to be necessary?

I cannot anticipate the work of the Committee, but I should not think it would be a very long Inquiry.

S.S. "Edith Cavell" (Officers and Crew)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the imprisonment in French Guiana of the captain, chief officer, and chief engineer of the British steamer "Edith Cavell," on 13th January last, following upon the wreck of that vessel at St. Laurent du Maroni; whether he is aware that the remainder of the ship's crew were forcibly detained and billeted in the negro quarter of the town, although there was a considerable white population; and what steps have been taken to secure the release, repatriation and reparation of these British merchant seamen?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Peto) on the 11th instant. As regards the second and third parts of the question, the information which I have does not indicate that the crew were forcibly detained. I understand that they were sent home from St. Laurent on the 25th January, and I am unaware of any grounds which would justify a request for reparation on their behalf.

Morocco and Tangier

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to whether any assistance has reached Abdul Krim from British sources?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that it is widely believed, both in Spain and Morocco, that British interests are supporting Abdul Krim in his campaign against the Spanish army, and that this belief is impairing the friendly relations that exist between England and Spain; and if he will take steps to make it clear that His Majesty's Government will in no way countenance any relations that have been entered into by private persons in this country with Abdul Krim?

I am glad to have this opportunity of denying publicly reports which I am told are current at Tangier and in the Spanish zone of Morocco, that the Riffis have the sympathy and support of His Majesty's Government in their campaign against the Spaniards. These stories contain no truth whatever. His Majesty's Government sympathise with the Spanish Government in the difficulties confronting them in Morocco, and have consistently refused, and will continue to refuse, to give any countenance to relations or communications between British subjects and Abdul Krim.

Persia

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that an ultimatum has been issued by the Prime Minister of Persia, Rise. Khan, to the Majliss, with reference to the position of the Shah; and whether he can give any information as to the steps which are being taken to safeguard British interests in any eventualities that may arise?

Information to this effect has been received, but there is at present no threat to British interests which would necessitate the adoption of special measures?

Germany

International Commission of Control

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the full Report of the International Commission of Control in Germany is to be presented to the German Government; and whether it will be published?

Until the Report has been received and considered by the Allied Governments it would clearly be improper for me to make any statement regarding its publication, or the action to be taken upon it.

When is it expected that the Report will be received by the Allied Governments?

Expectations in these matters are apt to be disappointed, and I should, therefore, prefer to express none.

League of Nations (Membership)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Germany has communicated to the League of Nations the terms under which she would join that body and, if so, what are the terms?

Presumably the hon. Member has in mind the Note which the German Government addressed to the Secretary-General of the League on the 12th December, of which summaries have appeared in the Press, and of which I understand that copies may be obtained on request from the League of Nations office in London. I do not understand that Note to be in any sense a statement of the terms upon which Germany would he prepared to apply for membership of the League, but rather the formulation of certain apprehensions, more particularly concerning the application of Article 16 of the Covenant, which unqualified membership might entail upon Germany in the special circumstances in which she is situated.

Cologne (British Occupation)

asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to make a statement with regard to the non-evacuation of the Cologne area by His Majesty's troops; and what is the next step His Majesty's Government proposes to take towards the fulfilment of the Versailles Treaty in this respect?

The communications which have passed with the German Government on the subject have been published. I am not in a position to add anything to these at the present juncture. In regard to the second part of this question, when the further communication to the German Government promised in the Allied Notes is made, it will be for the German Government to make good the defaults to which their attention is directed in order that the conditions upon which evacuation is made to depend by the Treaty of Versailles may be fulfilled and the evacuation itself take place.

With regard to these defaults, are we going to have the Report of the Control Commission in which these defaults are referred to?

My right hon. Friend has already said that we are waiting for the Report. He said he could not say when it will come.

In view of the fact that our troops are being kept in Cologne may we have his Report when it is received

I have answered that question already. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the answer I gave.

Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the position is invidious if we withhold the charges and yet continue to occupy, despite the Treaty?

Inter-Allied Control Commission

asked the Prime Minister if the issue of the Report of the Inter-allied Control Commission is being deferred in deference to the wishes of the British Government?

Questions

Parliamentary Elections, Europe (Compulsory Voting)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to inform the House with regard to European countries where compulsory voting for Parliamentary elections is in practice; and whether this practice that all electors should exercise the privilege of the franchise has worked satisfactorily?

I am in possession of the information desired by the hon. Member only in so far as it relates to Belgium and the Netherlands. Copies of reports made in 1922 on the working of the compulsory voting system in those two countries, which were given to the hon. Member at that time, have been placed in the Library of the House. Whether the system works satisfactorily is a matter of opinion about which I may have my own ideas, but on which I am not in a position to express an opinion officially as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Unemployment

Insurance by Industries

asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider schemes whereby unemployment grant may be capitalised in any industry and utilised by such industry under the direction of committees formed in equal representation of both masters' federations and employés' trades unions on the condition that such industry carry its own unemployed?

I am afraid I do not understand precisely what the hon. Member means by the capitalisation of the unemployment grant. In any case, however, a scheme of the nature indicated would be a form of unemployment insurance by industry. Under existing legislation special schemes for this purpose such as are contemplated by Section 18 of the 1920 Act cannot be put into operation earlier than one year after the end of the deficiency period of the Unemployment Fund, and the reason for this postponement would apply equally to any other kind of scheme which would separate the financial responsibility of any one industry for that of the others.

Would the hon. Gentleman, in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, give opportunities for legislation on such schemes to be presented and debated in respect of any or general industries?

With regard to an opportunity for debating such a scheme, no doubt that will arise on the Estimates, but, as the Act stands, no special scheme can be entertained until one year after the end of the deficiency period. New legislation would, therefore, be required to carry out the object which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Benefit (Evidence of Qualification)

asked the Minister of Labour if he will give instructions to his representatives in the Employment Exchanges over the country that they be allowed to accept evidence of desire to obtain employment from unemployed applicants other than a signed statement from the solicited firms, as this ofttimes is difficult and inconvenient both to applicants and business firms to whom such applicants come?

There is no instruction that documentary evidence must always be supplied. As a rule, local employment committees, in whose discretion the matter rests, only call for documentary evidence when they have grave doubt whether the applicant is genuinely seeking work, and are not prepared to recommend benefit unless he can produce sufficient evidence to remove that doubt. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Memorandum to committees, which deals with the matter.

If I give the hon. Gentleman evidence that this practice is obtaining in the North of England in many centres, will he take steps to minimise the difficulties and hardships which rest upon genuinely unemployed people in respect of the same?

Certainly; I will willingly consider any such cases which the hon. Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, may care to send to me.

Employment Exchanges

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability, especially in view of the constant overlapping that occurs, of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole problem of the working of the Employment Exchanges and the present administration of the Poor Law?

This question appeared on the Paper on Thursday last, and a reply was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date.

Unfortunately I did not see it. Will my hon. Friend tell me what it was?

Is it not the duty of a Minister to answer a question to the best of his ability, and not refer hon. Members to questions which have been answered before?

Benefit

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a man by the name of David Wells, Rochester, was allowed unemployment benefit by the rota committee; that the insurance officers objected to payment being made to the man on the grounds that he had not been doing sufficient insurable work within a given period, although the man had done some other work; that the case came before the appeals committee, and the appeals committee upheld the decision of the rota committee that the man should be paid; that the authorities in London still refuse payment of the benefit; that the case was further considered by the appeals committee and again upheld, in consequence of which the under-manager paid one week's benefit; that in consequence of the case again being sent to London instructions were given that the man was not to be given any further payment; that the whole question was considered at a full meeting of the Rochester unemployment committee, and a resolution was unanimously passed by the committee asking the authorities in London to reconsider their decision; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter, in consequence of the appeals committee deciding on three separate occasions that the man is entitled to unemployment benefit?

I am having inquiry made and will let the hon. Member know the result as soon as possible. I may add that notice of the question was only given on Saturday, but having regard to the representations made by the hon. Member I thought it right to obtain, through the Divisional Officer, all documents relating to this case. There has not been time as yet to fully examine them, but it shall be done.

Mining Industry

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give some indication of the Government's plans for dealing with the increasing unemployment in the mining industry?

Unemployment in the coal mining industry has in fact fallen during the last three months from 130,000 persons in October, 1924, to 100,000 in January, 1925. The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the various schemes of financial assistance for the relief of unemployment now in operation. No practicable suggestions for special relief in the coal mining industry have, so far as I am aware, been submitted to the Departments concerned.

I have not before me the districts to which these figures refer, I only give the figures in the aggregate, I cannot allocate them.

May I ask whether the numbers given are the numbers of those receiving benefit, or the numbers of those registered at the exchange, or in what way the figures were obtained?

Is the hon. Member aware that large numbers of miners have been struck off the benefit roll simply because they were unable, on a miner's wage, to leave their families, and go to work in other parts of the country? It does not mean that they are employed now where they were unemployed before, but simply that they are not getting benefit.

Questions

Ex-Service Men (Civil Service)

asked the Prime Minister, whether, in view of information brought to his notice, he is now prepared to say what facilities he will grant to discuss the proposals as to the future employment of ex-service temporary civil servants?

There will be ample opportunities for such a discussion during the Debates on the forthcoming Estimates.

Are we to understand that these arrangements will not be put into operation until they have been fully discussed in this House?

Are we now to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is going back on his pledged word?

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give attention to the letter which I showed to him, in which there is an explicit statement that nothing will be done until full opportunity has been given to the House to discuss the matter?

Did the right hon. Gentleman, before coming to this agreement, consult those parties who might be considered to be justly entitled to a voice in this matter, and whose positions were involved?

May I ask for a reply as to whether or not the right hon. Gentleman is going to observe the terms of the letter which he has addressed to the Civil Service organisations, namely, that nothing would be done until a full discussion had taken place in this House?

I will make inquiries of the Treasury as to the exact position, but I think I have referred to it as the position is, and, in regard to the pledges that I gave, I think that they have been fully and consistently maintained.

May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that I, at his own request, brought the letter to his attention, and whether he did not expressly state that that altered the situation, and an opportunity for discussion would be arranged? What is his reply on that?

There will be an opportunity for discussion on the forthcoming Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of making his position perfectly clear.

I want to submit to you, Sir, as a point of Order, that the Prime Minister has stated that we can discuss this on the Estimates, whereas in a letter he has stated that before anything is done it will be discussed. Is it not right that a reply should be given?

Cabinet Meetings (Publicity)

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the accounts of Cabinet meetings recently published in certain newspapers; whether any account of Cabinet proceedings has been issued officially; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the newspapers in question?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

All-In Insurance

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any definite statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to what is known as the all-in scheme of insurance?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the progress of the comprehensive insurance scheme; and is it the Government's intention to proceed with it?

The inquiries referred to in the King's Speech are proceeding, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Safeguarding of Industries

51 and 52.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether it is proposed that any duties leviable for the safeguarding of industries shall be imposed upon commodities of Empire origin

(2) whether the Government has decided what rate of duty is to be charged under the new proposals for the safeguarding of industries?

I have been asked to answer these questions. The rate of duty to be recommended to Parliament in any particular case will, as indicated in the White Paper, be determined after consideration of the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the application. The intention is that, in accordance with the usual practice, any duties shall be imposed upon imports from all soures, but subject to a preferential rebate upon imports of Empire origin.

Does the Prime Minister consider it part of his Imperial Preference policy to impose new duties upon Empire trade?

One Man, One Vote

asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to introduce legislation with a view to giving legal sanction to the principle of one man (or one woman), one vote?

Trade and Commerce

Jute Companies (Indian Registration)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the number of limited liability companies operating in jute and registered in this country which have cancelled their British registration during the past 20 years and have secured registration in India?

The Board of Trade have no information which would enable them to give the figures asked for.

Steel Bars

asked the President of the Board of Trade the total tonnage of steel bars of all kinds other than rails and constructional material manufactured in 1913 and 1924, and the number of workpeople employed on this work for the same periods?

I regret that figures are not obtainable which would put me in a position to furnish the information desired for either of the years specified in the question.

Tin Plate Industry

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give particulars of the imports of semifinished steel in 1913 and in 1924 which was subsequently re-rolled and exported as tinplates and galvanised sheets, and the number of workpeople employed in tinplate and galvanised sheet works for the same period?

The total quantity of steel sheet bars and tinplate bars imported into the United Kingdom in 1913 amounted to 345,503 tons, and the quantity imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1924, to 377,901 tons. I am unable to state what proportion of these imports was subsequently re-rolled and exported as tinplate and galvanised sheets. According to information published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, the estimated average number of work-people employed in tinplate works (including steel sheet works) in 1913 was about 26,500. The number of insured persons employed in the tinplate trade was 29,260 in 1924. Similar information respecting the number of persons employed in galvanised sheet works is not available.

Questions

Royalties and Wayleaves

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply the highest and the lowest and the average total amount per ton of mineral royalty and wayleave rents on West Cumberland iron ore, Cleveland iron stone, and iron ores in other parts of Great Britain, respectively?

I have been asked to reply. I regret that this information is not available.

Military and Naval Stores (Exports)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantities and value of arms, ammunition, and military and naval stores exported during each of the years 1922, 1923 and 1924; and what was the destination, other than the British Empire, to which such stores were sent?

I would refer the hon. Member to Volume III of the Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom, pages 514–533, in which particulars are given, in considerable detail, of the exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores of United Kingdom manufacture—in the years 1922 and 1923. Corresponding details for 1924 are not yet available, but the total exports of arms, etc., in that year are shown in the monthly Accounts relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for December, 1924, page 177. If it will save the hon. Member any trouble, I shall be very pleased to lend him my copy of the Blue Book with the information, in which all the pages are flagged for reference.

Is it a fact that during last year considerable sums were paid by the Russians for the sale of English machine guns to them?

I have no knowledge of the matter. If my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question, I will do my best to answer it.

Housing

Building Trade Wages

asked the Minister of Health what has been the increased rate of wages per hour obtained by the building trade employés since February, 1924; and how much this increase would represent in additional cost of an average working-class house?

Including the increase which took place in February, 1924, the total increase has varied, according to districts and grades, from ¾d. to 2d. per hour. Twopence applies to London; and the most general increase has been 1d. The effect on the cost of the house varies according to the character of the building and the output of work; but, assuming reasonable conditions, a general variation of ½d. per hour would represent between £4 and £5 variation in the cost of erecting the house.

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying "including the rise in February, 1924"? Does not my question ask what the increase is since February, 1924? Does he include anything before that period?

In the answer I have given I have taken the increase which has been made in February, 1924, and the subsequent increase, and the amount of the increase is ¾d. to 2d.

Brick-Making (Wages)

asked the Minister of Health whether there has been any increase in wages paid to labour engaged in brick-making since February, 1924; and, if so, does any such increase yet enter into the cost of materials actually used?

In many brickfields there was, my right hon. Friend understands, an increase in wages of adult men of 4s. per week, with proportionate amounts for women and boys, from 24th June, 1924. A rise of 5s. per 1,000 in the price of bricks took place in many places subsequently to the increase in brick-makers' wages.

Does that mean that the brickmakers make only 1,000 bricks a week, if the increase is 5s. per 1,000 in the price of bricks and wages are 5s. a week extra? Can he explain it?

No. 5s. per 1,000 increase in the price of bricks corresponds roughly to an increase of £4 10s. in the case of a non-parlour cottage.

Questions

Clerk-Dispensers (Trade Union Membership)

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Bethnal Green Borough Council, in inviting applications for the post of woman clerk-dispenser in connection with maternity and child welfare, stipulates that candidates in addition to possessing pharmaceutical qualifications must be, or agree to become, members of a trade union; whether he is aware that most women pharmacists are not trade unionists and do not know of any trade union appropriate to their profession; if any public money is applied towards the pay of this post; and if he will take action to prevent the imposition of the above condition?

My right hon. Friend has already approved the proposal of the borough council to appoint a clerk-dispenser, and the Exchequer grant of 50 per cent. will be payable in aid of the salary of this officer. My right hon. Friend was not previously aware that the council proposed to attach to this appointment any condition as to membership of a trade union, but his Department have had occasion in the past to deprecate the action of the council in attaching a similar condition to the appointment of a health visitor. It is proposed to communicate with the borough council in regard to the present appointment.

Have any solicitors been appointed who are not members of the Law Society to any Government post?

Royal Navy

Discharged Officers and Men (Pension Appeals)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that officers and men discharged from the Navy after 30th September, 1921, are not allowed to appeal to the independent tribunal regarding either entitlement to disability pension or the amount of pension and whether he will take steps to extend to these men the same right of appeal that was granted to those ratings discharged during the great War on account of disability?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 15th December, to the hon. Member for North Portsmouth.

Malta (Harbour Accommodation)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the length of ships of war and their number in Malta has reached the stage at which they have occasionally to be tied up double banked, it being then necessary to displace a ship to enable another to get out; whether he has considered that with the rapid growth of Australian and Eastern trade those difficulties will increase and add to the inevitable overlapping of the needs of the King's ships and merchant vessels; whether since the grounds that induced the construction of the Valletta breakwater in 1902 have been reproduced with accentuated urgency he is now prepared to call for reports as to the advisability of connecting Marsa Sirrocco with the dockyard by rail, as suggested by Admiral and Commander-in-Chief Sir Michael Culme Seymour, and of constructing a breakwater in Marsa, Sirrocco Bay, starting 600 yards north of Benghaisa Point and ending 1,200 yards thence to a spat bearing 145 degrees from Fort St. Julian at 1,400 yards therefrom in 11 fathoms of water?

The restricted facilities for ships in the Grand Harbour and in Marsa Muscietto are realised, and measures to meet the requirements of the Fleet are under consideration. It is not considered that the great expense of making Marsa Sirrocco a protected harbour is necessary.

Questions

Belfast Post Office (Sorting Tables)

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that standard primary sorting tables utilised for direct sorting have recently been introduced at Belfast and that 90 postmen are employed thereat on work proper to the class of sorting clerk and telegraphist; that the employment of postmen on this work is contrary to the practice in operation at other Class A and B offices and is at variance with an undertaking given to the representatives of the indoor staff by the Post Office authorities at headquarters; and that the sorting of the postmen is afterwards checked by sorting clerks and telegraphists; and whether, in order to expedite the handling of public correspondence, he will undertake to authorise the employment of indoor staff exclusively on all outward sorting work at Belfast?

I am aware that new fittings for primary sorting have been introduced at Belfast; but the character of the work required of the postmen has not been changed, and there is no intention to effect a departure from any undertaking given to the staff. I am not prepared to make the change suggested.

Derby Brights (Pit-Head Price)

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state what was the pit-head price for Derby Brights on or about the 20th January, 1925?

I have been asked to reply. I have no official information on this subject, but according to the trade papers the pit-head price of Derby Brights about this date was 25s. to 27s. for the London market.

W. C. Hobbs (Trial)

asked the Attorney-General whether he has read the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in the Hobbs case; and what steps he proposes to take with regard to the trial?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am satisfied that the learned Judge who hears the case will ensure that the defendant has a fair trial. I am considering whether the circumstances render it desirable that I should myself conduct the prosecution, but I have not yet reached a decision on this point.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the appointment to the London Recordership is in the hands of the Aldermen of the City of London?

Secondary School for Girls, Mitcham

asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received a proposal from the Surrey County Council to include a secondary school for girls at Mitcham in the county programme of capital expenditure on education; if he is aware that the urban district of Mitcham has a population of over 35,000 persons, which on a basis of 10 secondary school places for girls per 1,000 of the population would point to the desirability of a girls' secondary school of not less than 350 places; if he is aware that, owing to the difficulty and expense of travelling to the other secondary schools for girls provided by the Surrey County Council, only 46 girls from the urban district of Mitcham are receiving education in secondary schools provided by the local education authority; and if he will allow the Surrey County Council to proceed with the proposal to erect a school at Mitcham?

A proposal to purchase a site for a girls' secondary school at Mitcham has been received, and will be considered. No proposals for building have yet been submitted.

Cycles (Rear Lights)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from any local authorities resolutions in favour of requiring the provision of red rear lights on all cycles and motor-cycles; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

I have been asked to reply. I have received many representations both in favour of and against the carrying of red rear-lights by all bicycles. As I have already stated, the Government hope to introduce a Bill dealing generally with the Regulation, including lighting, of road vehicles, and I would prefer not to state in advance what provisions may be included in the Bill on this particular point.

Irish Prisoners

asked the Home Secretary if he will say how many prisoners are at present being housed in British prisons on behalf of the Irish Free State or the Northern Ireland Governments; what length of sentences are such prisoners serving; and what are the offences with which they are charged?

No prisoners are at present detained in prisons in England and Wales on behalf of the Irish Free State Government. There are 57 prisoners detained on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland. All are serving sentences of penal servitude varying from three years to life. Their offences are chiefly murder, robbery, possession of explosives and breaking and entering.

Are we to understand that there are no political prisoners held in this country?

We have no information that any of them are political prisoners.

Flora Macdonald's Birthplace

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will take steps to preserve what remains of the house in South Uist in which Flora MacDonald was born?

The First Commissioner is causing inquiries to be made into this matter, and I can assure the hon. Member that his suggestion will receive very careful consideration.

Motor Accident (Ferry Lane, Tottenham)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the serious motor accident on Saturday last at Ferry Lane, Tottenham, whereby one person was killed and four others seriously injured; whether he is aware that this spot has been recognised for many years to be very dangerous and if he will state who is responsible for the delay in commencing the scheme of widening which has been approved by the Ministry and the local authorities?

My attention has been drawn to this unfortunate accident, and I am also aware of the need for an improvement in Ferry Lane. The negotiations to this end have been prolonged and complex, as several local authorities and undertakings are concerned, and everything depends upon the possibility of connecting the tramways on the Middlesex and Essex sides of the River Lea. This can only be effected if the entire lengths of Ferry Lane and Forest Road in Walthamstow are widened so as to take a double tram track. My Department, which is anxious to assist in the improvement, has convened many conferences in the hope of adjusting the difficulties and agreeing an allocation of the cost, which would be extremely high, but I am sorry to say that so far it has been found impossible to reach a solution.

In view of the frequency of accidents at this spot, will the right hon. Gentleman make another effort to try to get the local authorities together, so that the work can be started?

Yes; we have not ceased our efforts. I think the road, though narrow, is not so narrow as the hon. Member believes it is 23 feet wide, with a three-foot path at the side.

Business of the House

Would the Prime Minister kindly inform us what business he proposes to take on Thursday?

On Thursday we propose to take:

Anglo-Italian Treaty (African Territories) Bill, Committee and remaining stages.

Northern Ireland Land Bill, Second Reading.

Northern Ireland Money's Committee Borough Councillors (Alteration of Number) Bill, Second Reading.

Importation of Pedigree Animals Bill, Second Reading, and, if time permit, some other small Orders on the Paper.

At 8.15 p.m. consideration of four Electricity Bills by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Bills Presented

Elizabeth Fry Refuge and Refuge for the Destitute Bill,

"to conform a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charities in the County of London called or known as the Elizabeth Fry Refuge and the Refuge for the Destitute," presented by Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Offices Regulation Bill,

"to regulate offices and the employment of young persons therein; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. WILLIAM GRALLA supported by Mr. Charleton, Dr. Dalton, Mr. Rhys Davies, and Miss Wilkinson; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

Former Enemy Aliens (Disabilities Removal) Bill,

"to repeal certain enactments imposing disabilities on former enemy aliens," presented by Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER; supported by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, and Sir Burton Chadwick; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

Orders of the Day

Safeguarding of Industries

I beg to move: leisure moments during this week and last week I have been trying to benefit by the wisdom which Professor Hewins has put into this book, and I wonder if I have discovered why this Bill is not produced. Perhaps the House will allow me to read an extract which is not so short as I should like it to be, but which is very interesting. Professor Hewins is dealing with the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and, referring to the qualifications and reservations introduced into that Measure when it was going through the House of Commons, says, that those qualifications and reservations were the reason why the Act was so ineffective. He says that all those things which happen to be the qualifications and reservations in the White Paper ought to be put into a White Paper. To embody them in legislation is the most absurd thing that Protectionists can do who wish to introduce the thin end of the wedge of Protection through the Safeguarding of Industries Act. He says: this country, and it has never been discussed and we cannot discuss it. Imagine the position if the Government had carried out their first intention. It would have introduced its Bill with the proposed provisions. There would have been a Second Reading. During the Second Reading the general principles which the Government proposed to apply would have been the subject of thorough discussion. That is not all. We could raise, as I am sure hon. Members will in scores of cases, points to-day which indicate at any rate that we want more precise information, that we cannot follow it out, that we cannot pursue it. The Government, finding it inconvenient to ask this House to make a great change in policy by way of a Bill, have produced a declaration of policy in such a form that it deliberately deprives this House of its right to discuss the details as well as the general principles.

Suppose that this Bill, when produced, had been sent to a committee. You have extraordinarily meaningless phrases about ascertaining costs of industry. What is the meaning of an expression that an industry which is to receive the benefit of this legislation must be subject to competition which amounts to a substantial threat to its interests and involves a substantial amount of unemployment? What is that? What do they mean by conditions of production in the foreign competing trade that are essentially lower than the conditions in this country? Every one of these questions is indefinite, embodied and clothed in something which is mere words. In Committee of this House they would have been the subject of examination and of criticism, and I venture to say that even with the vast majority that the Government have, they would have been the subject of change, because they are so contrary to common sense from a legislative and business point of view. We would also like to know whether we are to take this proposal as a proposal which is never meant to be worked from the beginning, or whether we are to take it, as both sections of the Opposition have taken it, seriously. We can read the White Paper. We can consider how it is possible for any trade to escape the various meshes which it has to go through in accordance with the verbal conditions, and we can come to the conclusion that the whole thing is mere humbug and farce. On the other hand, I think it is far better for us to assume that Ministers really meant that the thing should work, and that it should have some substantial effect upon employment and labour conditions.

At any rate I know this, that the Committee that the President of the Board of Trade is to appoint could be selected from gentlemen who would make this White Paper a very effective instrument in the introduction of Protection. I know, too, that I could appoint a Committee which would make this White Paper a laughing stock to everybody who expected anything from it. I doubt very much if that is the way for any Government to show its concern for trade and industry and for the well-being of the working classes, the consumers and producers of the country. But we will take it on the supposition that it is going to have real effect. What do the Government propose, to do? As I understand it, the intention is to prevent unfair competition from one of three causes low levels of competing industrial conditions, exchange, and bounties or subsidies. There are certain conditions proposed. First of all, the industry claiming protection because it suffers from one or other of these grievances must be efficient in its own organisation, and if it gets protection as it asks, it must prove that by being protected it does not do more damage to dependent industries than it itself is receiving when it is not protected.

There we get a great expectation which in its general result pleases Protectionists. They have a chance. Conditions are laid down to pacify Free Traders. They are given to understand that they may vote to-day with the Government and be perfectly safe in the knowledge that they are not putting their heads into any Protectionists' noose. Talk about sweating and the improvement of labour conditions! A great bait is thrown out to my hon. Friends around me and to Labour in general, which is suffering far too much at present from low wages and unemployment. So that the great achievement of the Government up to now, in drafting this White Paper, is to raise the expectations of Protectionists, to pacify Free Traders, and to try and raise the hopes of Labour that, if only they will agree, something may yet happen as a result of these proposals. On examination of the proposals I say that those great expectation of one or the other canot be fulfilled. So far as I am concerned, and so far as my hon. Friends here are concerned, mere Free Trade is not regarded by us as something that in itself solves the social problems of the day. But as between Free Trade and Protection, as between Free Trade and Tariff Reform, we are convinced that, with a policy of internal construction and a policy that would build up labour, the consumers, the mass of producers, on to a stronger and stronger position, by evolution of forces, Free Trade is preferable to Tariff Reform—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I do not care where you go. You come here or you go to America. Labour lame and Labour in America talk in pretty much the same voice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes, or anywhere else. It may be that one says Free Trade on this issue and the other says Protection. Yes; but did anyone hear them say, "We are content with our wages"? Did anyone ever hear them say, "We believe that under Free Trade or under Protection we have solved the unemployment problem, we have been able to abolish the Poor Law, we have required no more subsidy for housing, and we do not ask for Old Age Pensions, because we do not require them"? Not at all. Under Free Trade and Protection both, Labour, dealing with its own social and economic conditions, speaks in precisely the same voice, and its speeches are interchangeable.

4.0 P.M.

A promise is made in this White Paper that high wages somehow or other are to be secured when this proposal is put into operation, and I noticed that an important Corservative newspaper on Sunday tried to persuade some of us to support the proposal because it would enable us to eliminate sweated goods from our own market. What does that mean? Does any hon. Member mean to tell me that the case which can be made out for imports is a case of sweated goods? Were dyes the products of sweated labour? Were motorcars the products of sweated labour? The fact of the matter is that during all those fiscal controversies, when unemployment and low wages figured so much in the forefront of the attack of hon. Members opposite, the imports to which they ob- jected were not sweated imports and the industries which they said were threatened were not threatened by sweated imports, but by the imports of more efficiently organised industries in which higher wages were paid.

It is perfectly true that if you take Trade A or Trade B a case may be made out that sweated imports are a menace, but are we here to consider Trade A or Trade B except in relation to the whole volume of national trade?

And when we consider British trade, as we must consider it, as a national thing, facing problems of the national market, especially from the consumers' point of view, and facing problems of the international market, the relatively unimportant deflections of economic trade caused by sweating is so small and the other things overshadow them so much that those larger issues of national trade must be those upon which we concentrate our attention.

Order: We could not conduct a Debate if hon. Members followed the example of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Peto); it would make it quite impossible.

The right hon. Gentleman asked if any Member of the House could name a trade in that way.

Surely, the hon. Member has learned before now what is a rhetorical question.

I am very sorry if a rhetorical question has been the means of bringing any hon. Member up, but I hope during the rest of my speech that hon. Members will remember that any question I address to them will be rhetorical. It will be only one way of putting an argument. I was dealing with the question of unemployment and of high wages. My hon. Friends, in making up their minds about the effect of the promises and declared intentions of the Government, must use their experience. What have the Government done even in their very short time of office to give us any guarantee that this proposal or any other is going to emanate from them for the purpose of raising wages and making employment more secure? Last week we fought and fought—and we were charged with obstructing because we stuck to our point—in order to make it perfectly clear to the country that involved in the Government's housing proposal was one for a reduction of standard wages that had been enjoyed by large numbers of workmen in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Skilled workmen!"] I am as interested in skilled as in unskilled workmen and in unskilled as in skilled workmen. What has happened to our policy? We are not indifferent to the production of sweated goods either at home or abroad. We are not indifferent to the importation of sweated goods. What are the Government doing about Washington? We go to Washington and come to an agreement about an eight-hours' day or a 48-hours' week. If that were carried out on the Continent., my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would have many quieter nights of sleep and would not need to worry about the awful state of British labour, which is overworked and underpaid. But he has not done anything. Will the Government, instead of trying to put up a wall against sweated goods that experience shows never can be fully effective, help us to eliminate sweated goods altogether, so that they will not be available either for home or for foreign consumption? Up till now they have done nothing.

Our other proposals are found in the International Labour Office at Geneva. There we have the instrument for coordinating labour conditions in Germany, Austria, Czechslovakia, Great Britain, and wherever industry has set its roots into the soil of the country, and I shall be very much surprised if the Conservative Government and Conservative party have recently lifted a little finger to increase the authority of the International Labour Office in order to raise the status of labour throughout Europe. They talk about other forms of production and low wages in German coal; for in- stance, in French coal, and in fabrics for making gloves. They know perfectly well, or they ought to know, that every British trade union enjoying high conditions of pay and of circumstance has been working for years with the foreign trade unions to get them to level up their standard of life and pay to the British standard where the British standard is higher. What help have they given to us to carry on that work? Why, even now, on an early Friday, we are going to have a Bill that aims far more at the efficient organisation of industrial labour than its title implies, namely, The Trade Union (Political Levy) Bill.

Then there is the operation of trusts. I cannot go into these matters on their merits; I can only mention them as illustrating where the cure does lie. Any Government sincerely desirous of raising the standard of labour's consumption—by wages, by shortening its hours, by making the workman more master of himself, more master of his society, and more master of his aims and his ends—could not overlook those things. Those are the essential ways in which the change has got to take place. Instead of helping them, they block them, and they produce this White Paper, which is absolutely meaningless, and the pledges which appear to be given to labour which are as worthless as the paper on which they are, printed. One of the limitations of this White Paper is that the manufacture of food must be left out of account. Why? Why is agriculture going to be left out? Is there a profession, a trade, a calling, an industry from John o'Groats to Lands End whose average wages are nearer to what we would define as a sweating level than the wages paid to agricultural labourers This White Paper meant to be a labour-improving Resolution, or declaration, or whatever it is called, begins by saying that the one trade where labour has to fight not merely for improvement but for decency, owing to party exigencies, has got to be left out of this beneficent Measure which is going to help ill-paid labour to such a liberal extent. Labour is far more wide awake than the right hon. Gentleman imagines.

There are two sources of unjust competition. There are fluctuations of exchange acting very often as though it were a bounty and there are definite bounties and subsidies. I am not going to take up the time of the House in dealing with them, because those two issues have always been embodied in the ordinary common-place Tariff Reform argument. They are very important, but they are the Tariff Reform case. One can only add this. The exchange is fluctuating from day to day and from week to week. We did our best to stabilise it. I think we have done something, though not so much as we should have liked, and not so much as I know my hon. Friend opposite (Sir F. Wise) would have welcomed. But the tendency is to stabilise it. Supposing we fail, supposing all our efforts are fruitless, does any practical business Member suggest that a Committee, or a bureaucrat, or legislation, or resolutions or instructions, or anything emanating from central Government Departments can follow those fluctuations from day to day, or from week to week, or—let us be more reasonable—from month to month and adapt to every fluctuation a tariff that is going to equalise the conditions of the exporter and the home producer. It is absolutely impossible.

Yes, if my hon. Friend will only read that very interesting exploration, called "The Making of a Tariff," which has emanated from absolutely impartial sources in America., and is far more an historical document than a controversial one, he will see there a complete confession that it is child's play, has resulted in folly, and has never succeeded in the end it intended to reach.

That is a very pertinent question, but it is a question that I associate more with the moralist than with the politician. We all of us know how very difficult it is to give up bad habits. The point is this. The Exchange problem—of course it is there—is a serious problem for business men, both exporters and importers, for the people who manufacture for the home market, for the people who manufacture for the foreign market, and for the people who manufacture for both; it is an exceedingly difficult and every now and again a very grave problem. The observation I make upon it is this—that the proposals made in the White Paper for dealing with it are absolutely absurd and can never satisfactorily help the home manufacturer or the home producer to face the problem. Regarding bounties and subsidies, that point brings us back to controversies 20, 30, 40 and 50 years old, the result of which has been to prove right up to the hilt that the volume of our trade, taking it year in and year out, instead of being damaged by bounties and subsidies given by other countries as a matter of fact has been improved. The whole volume has been improved. Now and again this system has created a very serious problem for individual trades here, but in no case has a trade been crushed out, and taking a periodical survey, a cyclical survey of its ups and downs, in no case can it be proved that it had any permanent evil effect upon the prospects and profits of an industry.

What is there in the contents of the White Paper and the way in which its proposals are going to work? What is behind it? I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a deputation of Free Trade Conservatives the other day, and he, quite naturally assured them—I am perfectly certain he meant his assurance—that there was no Protection here that they need trouble about, and that this was one of the most innocent documents a Protectionist ever produced in order to gain Free Trade support. What happens when these proposals come into operation? Czechslovakia, let us say, has either got sweated conditions or gives a bounty or enjoys special privileges in the production of something or another which it exports in considerable quantities—I am getting into the language of the Paper which I am criticising—to this country. A decree is issued that because this is so, all countries sending us that product will have to pay a flat tariff which will be fixed in order to equalise conditions between the producer here and the producer in Czechslavakia. My right hon. Friend says that is not Protection. What is it? He says, "I select this, that or the other industry, and in accordance with my inquiries I decide whether they are going to be tariff industries or non-tariff industries. "What does America.

do? What is the difference between that process and the process undergone by the Senate and House of Representatives in America when considering a Tariff Bill. They appoint a Tariff Commission, and I hope hon. Members will possess themselves of some of the very interesting volumes in which are published the Reports of the Tariff Commission. They have a Tariff Commission, loaded as I dare say these Committees would be, by the party in power. The Tariff Commission does not sit down in a vacuum, with comfortable chairs around a table and decide to impose a tariff. It says: What American individual and separate industries require protection? I happened once to be in Washington when such a Commission was sitting. The lobbies were crowded, not with theoretical. Free Traders or men like Professor Hewins. I saw the lobbies crowded with representatives of industry and the members of the Commission coming out and consulting with them. The iron industry, for example, did not discuss the theories of Adam Smith or List or any of the others. The iron industry, let us say, produced figures, arguments—so-calledmoney, other inducements to get the Committee to say, "The iron industry is an important American industry; if it is left unprotected sweated products from England will come in and take its place and therefore, we will fix a tariff for the iron industry which will protect it, not on general principles but on the books of the producers, taken from the counting-houses to our committee rooms to show us the case for a subsidy."

I happen also to have had the privilege of being in Australia when a similar process was in operation. I heard there myself a great case put up in favour of more Protection for the Australian wool industry. That case sounds in my ear this afternoon as though it was only yesterday that I sat in that room and heard the discussion and the evidence presented. The case I remember well was this. The advocate of Protection produced a statement of Yorkshire wages, showing what wages were paid in Huddersfield, Bradford, and other competing towns. He produced a statement of the wages that had been settled in Australia by the industrial arbitration courts, and he said: "There is the difference; if you let English goods come in, unless you put a tariff upon them; you are doing us a grave injustice," and he asked the committee to adjust the tariff so that well-paid, independent, Australian labour could successfully compete over sweated Yorkshire labour. [HON. MEMBERS: "A good argument."] It may be, but the point is this: the hon. Gentlemen opposite who interrupt are Protectionists, but their whole case is that this White Paper is not a Protectionist document. Those Free Traders who received the honest and honourable assurance of the Prime Minister must now see from that simple description that what takes places under this document which they were told did not amount to the Protectionist process is, as a matter of fact, Protection, and is the very process that America and Australia pursue not to safeguard industries in this way, but in order to establish what they call scientific tariffs and is a process of good old-fashioned, full-blown, honest Protection.

It may be, but will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister get up and say that this is, as a matter of fact the Protection for which he has always prayed? Of course he will not. What happened? The election prevented the right hon. Gentleman from doing what he would have liked to do, but I do not believe he has changed his mind, and I should not, if I were in his position. We have all to bow to electoral exigencies, sometimes in one way sometimes in another. My right hon. Friend has been in two boats in that respect and I have been in one. This is what he said in 1923:

One of the characteristics which I see plainly in this method of doing business, in contrast to the all-round tariff, is that the all-round tariff is fixed and remains, whereas this, on the face of the White Paper itself, is going to be only temporary. I put it to anybody who has responsibility in this House for business: What prospect of security has any business man if this is passed, if it is applied and if he becomes a beneficiary under it, when he knows that all that is required to scrap the whole thing again is a change of Government? There is no security—not even security during the life of the Government itself. I was too generous when I said that a change of Government would make a change. Supposing there is an attempt to tinker with exchanges. Supposing the German exchange were going to tumble down again with all prospects of keeping fluctuating—not keeping down because that is not the difficulty, but keeping fluctuating for, say, 12 months—and a tariff was imposed on the assumption that the exchange was in the nature of a bounty. Then suppose a change came in the exchanges, and the Government, finding the tariff too high to meet the equity of the case, decided to change it. What security, what comfort, is there in a state of trade run on conditions such as are indicated in the White Paper? There is no remedy for anything there at, all. Insecurity is the very last remedy that business wants for any of its troubles. While they say they have no mandate for a general tariff scale, they say they have a mandate for this. When did they get it? My right hon. Friend has no mandate. It is true he has Parliamentary power, but that does not give him a mandate. He has not got the backing of the country. A mandate is not an accidental majority in the House. A mandate, if it means anything at all—and I do not know that it does—is a majority in the country. Those swollen benches, those great crowds that go into the Lobby when my right hon. Friend whips them in, represent a minority in the country, and they have no call and no pledge for this. There is one other consideration that I should like to advance to the House, and it is this: I can quite see how this may be the beginning of a new development of Tariff Reform policy, not only here, but all over the world. I think there are a good many signs that Protection is beginning to be found out.

I have already referred to one of the most admirable economic surveys that ever has passed in front of my eyes, about America,—a dmirable because it is not a survey of Protectionists and not a survey of Free Traders; it is a survey of minds that have looked upon America as an objective problem, that have gone through all its experiences in applying tariffs, its theories of tariffs and its expectations of tariffs. I find that Germany has had much the same sort of experience. In France, the more that France gets away from the War, the more it is seen that this policy of Protection is not going to be to her industrial benefit. [ Interruption. ] Very often the rapidity of the rise shows the nervousness of those who are in power and is a prophecy of the coming collapse, but I do not want to be dragged into, what, after all, is a secondary aspect of the argument. The argument that I want to put is this: I can quite see how those who are beginning to have to defend Protection in a very stiff way in their own country may seize upon this as an opportunity of giving them a new generation. Take the case of Germany. Germany can say "Look at our burdens. One of the things to be taken into consideration here are fiscal burdens. Look at the Dawes Report, especially with regard to wages." It is, as I hold, an absolutely unsound argument, but nevertheless there it is. Germany can say: "Look at our taxation, look at our obligations, look at the destruction of old markets, look at the state of our mercantile marine, look at the tremendous problem of laying down capital, of organising capital, of co-ordinating capital. We must have protective conditions, so that we may become on economic and industrial equality with our competitors." Germany can apply to us, very much to our detriment, exactly the principles laid down in this Memorandum, and deprive us of many of the benefits which, I believe, will accrue to us by the recently arranged commercial treaty.

There is something more serious. I referred just now to an experience I had in Australia, and hon. Members opposite, forgetting for a moment that they had to appear as not being Protectionists, allowed themselves naturally to say that would please them. What is going to happen? Supposing that is encouraged, and supposing we put these conditions into operation, and our Dominions—with Preference or with Tariffs, because it does not matter very much except in relation to foreign competitors of ours; it does not matter in relation to the Dominion producers themselves—supposing our Dominions survey our cotton wages. I saw the other day, as a matter of fact, in an Australian paper sneering references—they were very objectionable references; perhaps I ought not to say sneering—to the condition of our cotton industry, and they argued about the cotton tariff. This is quite recent. The other case I gave was in 1906 or 1907, but this is quite recent. They argued that a tariff should be imposed upon British cotton goods because they were produced under conditions which in Australia would be sweated conditions, and the same regarding boots and shoes and leather goods, and I am certain that there are other industries, such as light castings, which could raise exactly the same point. Does not this House see that for an admittedly small benefit—because the whole strength of this, the sum and substance of this, is a benefit which can only be small, as the conditions rule out big industry after big industry. Leather cannot be touched on account of boots and shoes; iron cannot be touched on account of steel; steel cannot be touched on account of tin plate. The inter-relation of industry with industry, the relativity of the independence of each industry, is bound, if all these conditions are to be carried out, to reduce the benefits that can be got from this to a very small proportion indeed, and for those small proportions are we prepared to set up a new policy in Protection which will seriously affect our foreign market and which may still more seriously affect that promising semi-domestic market, the, market of the Dominions and Colonies I venture to say that this is a very serious argument.

I have one more point to make, if the House will be good enough to pardon me while I take time to make it. It is of the very greatest importance that those committees that are to' be appointed by the President of the Board of Trade should really be impartial committees. We cannot get that here. I wish it were possible for us to get this Clause, at any rate, before the House in Committee, so that we could get right at the various points which we want to raise in connection with this matter. There is no more serious damage done, either to the rights of this House or to the efficiency of this Committee, than the withdrawal from this House of a Committee discussion on this particular provision of the White Paper. They are not to exceed five. Will one be enough? Is there no limit the other way? Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint two or three? Will he put in the hands of two or three gentlemen a decision which is bound to affect the Board of Trade, even if it does not affect the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That is one of the risks of the situation. If it is going to be a mixture of the two, the right hon. Gentleman to my right (Mr. Churchill) is not quite satisfied with Protection, and the right hon. Gentleman to my left (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) does not feel satisfied altogether with Free Trade, and between the two it is supposed to be safe, because what passes through at the Board of Trade will be duly checked at the Exchequer, and the country will be saved the danger of putting this White Paper into operation to any serious extent, but, still, we would like to have a little bit more security then a difference of opinion that is alleged to exist between the two right hon. Gentlemen.

No one with any interest is going to be allowed to sit on the Committee. Has a shipper any interest? Has a banker any interest? Has a merchant any interest? Has a Tariff Reform theorist any interest? As I say, in Committee we can press these points home in detail, but I am certain that Protectionists and Free Traders will join in the statement that, after that examination and criticism, the business appearance of this would be far more respectable than it is at the present moment. Will the right hon. Gentleman use the old panel to any extent? There is a Circular which, I believe, has been sent, at any rate, to various Members of the House of Commons, and I would not have referred to it, because I presume we have all got it, but that there is a statement in that Circular which, as I am informed, was drafted by a very responsible person who did a great deal of good in connection with the inquiries that were held under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I quote what it says: It is very essential, if this House is going to give its imprimatur to this method of dealing with the subject, that we should be satisfied on such essential points as these. But the Government's action, apparently, will not enable them to do so. There is another thing I would like to know. What sort of evidence is going to be taken? I remember perfectly well, when we were taking the McKenna Duties off, the speeches made from these benches, then occupied by hon. Members opposite. I refreshed my memory about some of them this morning. There were grotesque statements. 2,000,000 men were going to be turned out. Imports were going up by leaps and bounds. The British car industry was going to be knocked hopelessly out. It was very likely going to be like the wanderer coming down to Jericho, and falling amongst the thieves of the Labour party, who was going to be succoured by the Good Samaritan opposite. What has happened? Everything they accepted as evidence, all the statements they received from their political supporters and took to be gospel and retailed oh their responsibility as ex-Ministers, have been blown, not by us, but by events and experience, into smithereens. They protected fabric gloves. With what result? They smashed the British trade in fabric gloves. They produced a scheme which was going to give protection, and in producing the scheme destroyed the trade. They are the same people who came to us with their errors and prophecies—and there is a good deal of prophesy provided for here. If it looks as if something is going to happen, they are going to act. The right hon. Members who gave us such ample evidence a few months ago and prophesied what a process of simple economic change would produce, having had their prophecies completely falsified now ask us to accept them again as prophets. The value of their statements will be fully appreciated if new Members will look up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates on the subject last year. They now ask us without adequate discussion, with no details, to give them more power to go on with their experimenting escapades with British industry, which will certainly be hampered rather than helped if the Government interfere in the way indicated in this Paper.

That was a capital suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman with which he concluded his speech, that the new Members of this House should be encouraged to plough into the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, to see what they can find against the lives and conduct of those who have been in the House for many years. I remember very well as a youth, when I first read it in "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde "—I think it is—the danger of asking questions. Asking questions is like starting a stone rolling down a hill. It gathers impetus as it rolls on its career, until at last it knocks down some bland old buffer in his back garden, and the family have to go abroad and change their name. Many Members of this House burrow into the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not encourage that, but I do feel that we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the West Indies for having returned the Leader of the Labour party in such excellent form. It is a great pleasure to the House to see him completely restored in health. I think that holiday and the sunshine in his blood may account for the vigour with which he defended a case that seemed to me to become weaker as he went on.

Somehow—I do not know whether it is his Scottish blood—but with him, as with others who rise in this House, they feel towards Safeguarding as the Protestant felt towards the Presbyter, which was "but priest writ large." He says this is but Protection writ large. I do not think he really believed it for a moment, and I am quite sure no one sitting behind him did. At the same time, an effective appeal can always be made on those lines, and I will confine myself to what I had originally intended to do in the Debate to-day, in describing, at no great length, the reason which has induced me, as the head of the Government, and the reason which has induced the Government, to adopt the form they have adopted to deal with the safeguarding of British industries which is the subject of criticism to-day. Members who were in this House at the time of the passage of the last Safeguarding of Industries Bill will remember that it dragged its length along for days—I think I may say for weeks. We hail an infinity of discussion, but, in the event, there proved to be no effective control of Parliament over the tax or duty itself which was put on. Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself have good cause to remember those Debates. I remember the length of them. I remember how my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, at that time, was unable to be regularly in his place in the House of Commons, deputed me as a kind of Moses to lead his children out of the bondage of foreign competition through the narrow gates of safeguarding, and when my strength showed signs of failing, he sent to my aid an Aaron in the shape of the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond). I hope we shall have the same help from the right hon. Gentleman now.

One thing more than another I remember during those Debates, and that was—as was said over and over again—the complaint that under the Safeguarding of Industries Act the control over taxation was taken away from the House of Commons, and placed in the hands of a Department. I do not wish to weary the House with quotations, but, for the purpose of greater accuracy, I have provided myself with some copies of extracts. From the Earl of Oxford, from the Lord Banbury, from Sir Ryland Adkins, from Sir William Barton, and from many others, chiefly on the Liberal benches—there were some voices on the benches which are behind me at the moment—the complaint was the same, that the House of Commons had really no voice in the taxation, that the procedure with regard to taxation which had matured in this country through the centuries was not being followed. Let me remind the House—because many are new to it, and are not familiar with it—what happened when that Act became law. The question of imposing a duty upon any particular class of goods did not come before the House of Commons until the inquiries into the case had been completed, the Board of Trade had decided in favour of the application, and an Order had been drafted imposing the duty. The draft Order had to be laid before the House of Commons, and, let me remind the House, that if the House were not sitting, the Order could come into force after a short limit of time, so that it was possible to become effective without any sanction from the House at all. Sir Ryland Adkins reminded the House, during the Debates, that the laying of an Order means that the discussion is only taken on it after 11 o'clock at night, unless the Government give precedence, and I must confess, as one who is always a believer in square-toe finance, that is a part of the Bill with which I never had much sympathy, and it was primarily—I may say chiefly—that we might restore this House to its constitutional position as a taxing authority that we have made the changes in procedure which we have made.

What was our position? The right hon. Gentleman says we have no mandate. I am not going to split hairs as to what a mandate may be. All I know is that in our programme we used specific words about Safeguarding, and we specifically said that we were not going to introduce Protection. We intend to carry our our pledge in the letter and in the spirit, and it is to effect that that we are adopting this procedure. The right hon. Gentleman said that we are in a dilemma—either we are going to introduce Protection or we are not. It is not a dilemma, but a trilemma, and we are going off on the third horn, and are going to keep our pledges and do nothing else. The right hon. Gentleman made some perfectly fair play about my own position. I adhere to every word I said at the 1923 Election. The country decided against me. The country preferred to go on as we were, as I maintain, employing the principle of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which was employed under the Coalition Government.

5.0 P.M.

I think the right hon. Gentleman asked me if I intended to use this as a means of bringing in Protection. My answer is, as I have said in public, emphatically No. I abide with absolute and perfect loyalty by the decision that the country gave rather over a year ago. Had I desired to introduce Protection by a back door, nothing would have been more easy than for me to have tried to do it in the Government before the last. Instead of that, we went to the country with the result that everyone knows. I am no more going to try to introduce Protection by the back door to-day, than I was willing to do it 18 months or two years ago. When Protection does come in this country—if it ever does come—it will not come by a back door, although it may come from behind the right hon. Gentleman! The right hon. Gentleman said that the procedure that we are instituting marks an important departure in the method of taxation. With all respect to him, it does nothing of the kind; it marks a return to the old paths which have been temporarily deserted. He was puzzled to know the reason why we had preferred this procedure to intro-clueing a Bill. He thought that I must have been reading Professor Hewins' new book. I much regret to say I have had no time to look at it yet, nor have I discussed the matter with him. I hope to be able to read the book in the Easter vacation. As, however, a very old friend and admirer of Professor Hewins, I would like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for giving the book a gratuitous advertisement. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the President of the Board of Trade, or myself, issuing decrees of taxation. Nothing of the kind. What, in effect, happens by our procedure? We do something palatable to the Government and unpalatable to the Opposition. We safeguard Parliamentary time, which, we think, is worthy of some consideration. What we really do is to re-establish the constitutional position of Parliament in matters of taxation. Inquiries would be held—my right hon. Friend will speak later in detail on this—and reports will come into the Board of Trade. These will go, if necessary, to the Cabinet. The Cabinet will have to make a decision——

—He is a Member of the Cabinet—whether or not a duty shall be imposed. If not, that duty goes.

Is it not implicitly laid down in the White Paper that the final veto rests with the Treasury?

I had no intention of misleading anyone in what I said. I was going very rapidly through the subject, and was anxious not to take up time. All I am implying—and that is perfectly true—is that the consent of the whole Government is necessary. The Government has to decide—of course the Treasury is part of the Government—and if the Government says "No," it is off. It does not affect my point at all that the ultimate decision rests with this House. When it is presented in the Finance Bill as a duty, then the whole subject, instead of being discussed with the aid of the Government granting time after 11 o'clock at night, will be discussed as one of the ordinary taxes in the Budget with the Ways and Means Resolution, and all the stages of the Budget where the matter may be debated.

Would a successful applicant, say, in the middle of summer, have to wait for the Budget of the ensuing year, or would it be necessary to have a supplementary Finance Bill?

That is a perfectly fair question. It is difficult to answer a hypothetical question. But I should say that, supposing any industry of any great importance were able to make a case, and the Government decided that a duty should be recommended to this House, that then, under our procedure, it would be necessary to bring in a Revenue Bill to impose that duty.

No, but that would meet the difficulty of my hon. Friend. It is so difficult to satisfy him. Perhaps the House may be interested, if they have forgotten, to hear the line of attack that was made against the procedure of the last Safeguarding of Industries Act. There was a very powerful letter written to the "Times" in June, 1921, and I would ask the indulgence of the House while I make one or two quotations from it:

"For 700 years Parliament has struggled to maintain its sole authority to define and impose taxation. First there was 34 Ed. I, de tallagio non concedendo, asserting the general principle that the goodwill and assent of Parliament was a necessary pre-current to the levying of tallage or aid."

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) recognises it? I pass on. He cites with a depth of historical learning and wealth of illustration the chief instances in our constitutional history of a Parliamentary stand in defence of this great principle, and he says:

"The most recent threat to these liberties is contained in. the Safeguarding of Industries Bill presently before Parliament, under which taxes are to be imposed by the order of a Government Department."

He makes some observations on that and finishes up by saying:

"It may be said that Parliament, as a Sovereign Assembly, has a right if it chooses to confer this power on any Government Department. That is true, but in so doing it would destroy the work of 250 years and reestablish a prerogative not essentially differing from that by which tonnage and poundage and ship money were once collected."

I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. That is why I am proposing this check. He asks:

"Has any House of Commons the moral authority to sell this birthright—foreshown and typified in the deliberate and stately procedure by which taxation alone is at present imposed?"

He says:

"I think not."

And I think not ! I ask the hon. and gallant Member when the Budget comes, that he will help to see that the process of these Debates is both deliberate and stately.

The Prime Minister has made a most interesting and an amusing speech. If I may say so, it is always entertaining to hear the Leader of the Conservative party endeavouring, at one and the same time, to satisfy his Protectionist supporters that this time he really does mean business, and to mollify the critics and doubters by suggesting to them that, after all, nothing of much importance is going to be accomplished under this scheme. That double role of a Conservative Prime Minister was played with consummate ability 20 years ago. We had that entertainment nightly from Mr. Arthur Balfour. Nobody will remember that with more pleasure than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, it was so brilliantly performed 20 years ago that, notwithstanding the size of the Conservative majority, in three or four years that majority melted away, and that Government lost its place on the Treasury Bench. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember it particularly well, because that was the last occasion when he left the Conservative party. I feel quite sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman, in his new office, will strain every nerve to prevent history repeating itself.

And, indeed, nervous Free Traders will find their principal consolation, when they examine the White Paper, in his presence on the Treasury Bench, and in the part which this ingenious scheme proposes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should play. It is very alarming for us to be told in the White Paper that in the first instance the Protectionist leanings of the President of the Board of Trade are to have unrestricted scope. Apparently he has to choose who are to be members of the committee—and a great deal will depend upon that. He will, I am sure, receive with an impartial and at the same time indulgent ear, the recommendation of the committee if they are in favour of imposing a tax. It is his business to decide how much the tax should be that is imposed, and how long it shall last—and all that seems to be very alarming. After all, however, there is going to be the correcting influence of the Treasury. I remind myself how in the Middle Ages the schoolmen used to debate the apparently insoluble problem as to what would happen if a body moving with irresistible force came sharply into contact with an absolutely immovable weight. The force could not very well be stopped because it was irresistible; the weight could not very well be shifted because it was immovable. When I reflect on the situation that will arise in the Cabinet between the President of the Board of Trade, with his pronounced Protectionist leanings, carrying through a scheme recommended by the committee he has chosen on lines which commend themselves to his judgment, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of whose Free Trade convictions we have no sort of doubt—I cannot help thinking that a very interesting spectacle will develop.

Twenty years ago the then Prime Minister (Mr. Balfour) succeeded in combining both parts in his single individuality. He was both Dr. Jekell and Mr. Hyde. Mc Prime Minister very characteristically has adopted a more modest role. He proposes apparently to set up a controversy between the head of the Board of Trade, with his fiscal opinions, and the head of the Treasury, the commander of that Cobdenite fortress which has hitherto never succumbed to Protectionist assaults. There ought to be between these two powerful champions a display well worthy of the legends of mediæval chivalry.

That is the situation which is thus created, and what I should have expected the Prime Minister to do was to point out when it was, as well as why it was, that they had adopted this entirely new scheme. He speaks as though he had been converted by an admirable letter written by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain Benn) in the year 1921. Nothing of the sort. It is only last December, in a Debate in this House, that two or three right hon. Members now sitting on the Treasury Bench got up and in turn told the House of Commons that a Bill was being prepared, that it was being most carefully considered, and it would be most rash and impolitic to anticipate provisions so carefully drafted. If it was true that the Prime Minister had really adopted this new method, because he was convicted of unconstitutional sin, as the result of the latter written by my hon. and gallant Friend in 1921, what do all these statements mean? Only on 17th December last the Prime Minister indeed said to my right hon. Friend here in the House—I have his words: specific provision than obtained under the old Safeguarding of Industries procedure, and so far, I think, the Prime Minister is quite justified in saying that the new scheme has some advantages.

But may I point out exactly what the contrast is? There are four points in which this scheme in the White Paper appears to differ from the old Safeguarding of Industries Act. The Safeguarding of Industries Act laid down as a matter of statutory definition the conditions which were to be fulfilled before there was any prospect of a given industry getting what was called "safeguarding." Under the new scheme all that you are given is this White Paper, and I would call the attention of the House to this, that while it is very pleasant to have this nicely printed document, it is one that has no finality whatever. There is nothing to prevent the Board of Trade from issuing a new White Paper next week, whether public or private. There is nothing to commit the Government or the House of Commons to keeping within the four corners of this scheme. There is no reason on earth why a Committee appointed under this scheme should not disregard entirely one or ether of the conditions here laid down, but recommend to the President of the Board of Trade that none the, less a duty would be very appropriate and proper, and we shall find ourselves with a duty thus proposed to the House of Commons, though those recommendations are not fulfilled at all. That is the first difference between the old scheme and the new.

Take the second. The Safeguarding of Industries Act, whatever else it did—and I do not profess to be an admirer of it—at any rate defined its terms. It defined what was meant by cost of production. It laid down what the conditions were under which, and under which alone, it could be held to have been proved that there was the operation of a depreciated exchange. It is worth while noting in passing that though those conditions were not very severe, as a matter of fact only two or three comparatively limited and unimportant trades—I mean unimportant as compared with the great industries of the country—ever succeeded in getting through the mesh. All that now goes, and you not only have no statutory conditions laid down which must be fulfilled, but you have got no statutory definition as to what is the meaning of the very vague words which are used in this White Paper.

I take the third point. The Safeguarding of Industries Act at any rate quite plainly gave notice in advance how long the duty was going to last and what was to be the size of the duty, and a general discussion in the House settled what was proper in the circumstances. All that now goes by the board. The President of the Board of Trade, if he thinks the committee present a particularly hard and telling case, can say "Sit down quickly and make the duty 50 per cent." He can suggest any duty he likes, such as occurs to his judgment and is recommended by his advisers. It is perfectly true it has got to go through the Cabinet afterwards; but there is a very great difference between Parliament being prepared to see a scheme worked on broad lines and conditions laid down in advance and the, present scheme. A particular trade, having prepared its material and its evidence for weeks and months in private, it may be, having carefully surveyed the ground and chosen exactly what is the best mode of attack, may then spring its demands upon the Board of Trade with, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, no effective means of its demands being checked or tested, and may rush the House of Commons into a proposal that this particular industry is to have for any length of time named any rate of duty which the Government think it fit to propose. Those are very great differences.

But the moist serious difference is the fourth, and with all respect to the Prime Minister, when I consider the fourth difference I do not understand what he means when he says that this is safeguarding and has not gat any protective element. There was undoubtedly this difference between the old Safeguarding of Industries Act and what is ordinarily called Protection or a tariff, that under the Safeguarding of Industries Act if the applicant proved his case, proved to the satisfaction of the committee that his trade suffers unfairly from the temporary competition of a particular foreign country under certain conditions then prevailing, with a certain rate of exchange then depreciated, the remedy was made to fit the disease, and the Safeguarding of Industries Act gave him protection against the product of that country. That is intelligible. You may think it right or wrong, but, at any rate, it is logical, it is reasonable. There is no point in proving that the unfair competition, as you call it, comes from a particular quarter that you define unless the remedy you are going to get is addressed to that quarter. But here is this White Paper apparently perpetrating a sort of illogical joke. You desire to get Protection. How are you to get it? Not by producing the stock argument of Tariff Reformers, but by proving a special case of hardship which is derived from a special foreign source and proving the relationship of exchanges to the conditions of wages or employment in such and such a foreign country. That being so proved, what is the remedy you are to get? The relief is to have no relation at all to the proof that you have given. The relief you are to get is to be world-wide, which is Protection, which is a tariff, which is a tax against the product of every foreign country.

The House may remember the history told of Bismarck, I think, who on one occasion is said to have pushed himself roughly and unfeelingly into the presence of the Pope when he was accompanying his august master the Emperor William. The Cardinal who was standing at the door checking the distinguished visitors going in barred the way to Bismarck, and explained that the audience was solely for the Emperor. Bismarck replied by saying, "But I am Bismarck." The Italian bowed low and said to Bismarck, "Sir, your explanation is complete, but your excuse is very far from sufficient." I would say here that the explanation which is given for this proposal is nothing more than the explanation that an industry wants all-round protection, but the excuse is ridiculous. It is perfectly foolish to pretend that these specific inquiries addressed to the conditions of some particular foreign competition can logically or reasonably be followed by general protection. Once that is appreciated, all this talk to the effect that this is not protection, that it is not meant to lead to a general tariff, is found to be all nonsense. What does the President of the Board of Trade suppose a general tariff to mean? If I may presume to do so, allow me to quote to him a high authority which he certainly will respect—Professor Hewins. Professor Hewins has explained that when you speak of a particular tax as being part of a general tariff you do not mean that you tax everything in Heaven and earth, but that the tax is applied to the article wherever the article comes from. Let me quote the words of Professor Hewins, which are in his manifesto on Conservative economic policy:

I take a second point. I cannot understand, from the point of view of the Prime Minister or the President of the Board of Trade, what answer he can give to this question, and I should be greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman if he finds it consistent with his duty to try to answer it when he comes to reply: "On your principles, why is it that you leave out agricultural products?" Apply your tests. You say "I cannot give the benefit of this scheme to an industry unless it is important." How many Conservative Members are prepared to deny that the agricultural industry is important? It is important not only because of the number of persons employed in it, but because of the nature of the product which it is engaged in producing. If the test is the importance of the industry, you would have thought that agriculture would be the first on the list. What is the other broad test? The other broad test is "This home industry must be an industry which finds itself in strenuous competition, in stern competition, in unfair competition, with products which come to us from overseas." Everybody thinks that competition is unfair, every lawyer hates the competition of every other lawyer. We all think things are unfair in our own trade, but if there is a single ease in which you might fairly say, comparing conditions under which the product is made, that there is competition that is unfair, it would be the agricultural case. I wish very much to know what Members for agricultural constituencies have got to say about that, because if you are going to establish a system of safeguarding the case for some such protection for agriculture is the, strongest of all imaginable cases. The truth is that the whole logic of this plan goes by the board the moment I read in this White Paper the simple sentence, which says: "Of course, no article of food or drink, nobody who produces anything to eat or drink, is concerned." We are told that "No farmer need apply." Why should no farmer apply? If the Government principles are right, why should the agricultural interests have nothing to do with these proposals? When one reflects upon the actual situation, it is perfectly plain that the Government. put into the forefront that the agricultural interest is left out, and the reason is because the mass of the people will not have protective taxes put upon articles of food. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because it makes those articles more expensive, and it is absurd to pretend and go on and say that this can be done except at the expense of the consumer and all those broader interests of trade which can never he represented by a litigant before one of these Committees. Those broad considerations are bound to suffer.

I wish to point out that the whole thing really depends upon the Committee that is appointed. As the Leader of the Labour party said, if Free Traders administer the Act I do not think many industries will get a recommendation. There are some Protectionists sitting below the Gangway who are very bold and straightforward gentlemen, and if they constituted the Committee there is not a single industry that could not make out a case. They were convinced that the motor trade was going to be smashed up by the abolition of the McKenna Duties, and they worked themselves up into great indignation as to the awful results that would follow. Nobody said more on that subject than the Minister of Health (Mr. N. Chamberlain), and I have one or two of his extracts on this point. He speaks naturally with great authority and knowledge. At Birmingham he said:

I am not saying for a moment that those manufacturers who come forward with this pitiful appeal are simply inventing lies. They are satisfied that ruin is impending because of foreign competition, and they support their opinion by the testimony of the book. They produce a case which, until you examine the other side, appears overwhelmingly in their favour, and in the nature of things a Committee or a Government Department that receives the Report of a Committee is quite unable in these circumstances to estimate the full strength of the arguments on the other side. If, for example, the steel or the iron industry makes an application, what is going to be done to prove that cheap steel is the essential condition on which the export trade of this country in tinplate, galvanised sheets, machinery, shipbuilding work and other things largely depends? You are not proposing to have any system of inquiry which will secure that adequate testimony, and you cannot get it because you have to go into every corner of trade to gather the proper testimony, and set it against the naked, single, forcible contention that Protection is the only remedy. The truth is that the Prime Minister, like many of his colleagues, is a convinced Protectionist, and he has told us so more than once. He said in 1923 that

Those of us on these benches join with our Friends above the Gangway in denouncing this latest scheme. Personally, I prefer the language of the Resolution we have put down. We object to the scheme because, in the first place, it opens the door to an endless series of taxes which, when gathered together, are a general tariff, and nothing more and nothing less. We object to the scheme because the whole thing depends upon who is appointed on the Committee, and it is in the hands of officials and a Departmental Chief, and the House of Commons has no control or power of approval whatever. We object to it because it excites the hopes of every trade except agriculture, and in the end instead of increasing prosperity it will only add uncertainty. We object to it most of all because it has in it the inherent vice of a Protection policy. It isolates one particular industry and strengthens its ambitions, whereas the real problem is a far wider one, as wide as the life of the whole country; and a system of this sort can never adequately secure protection for the consumer and the poor.

It is a good deal easier for a private Member of this House to approach this question than for the leader of a party, or the would-be leader of a party, because he can approach it from a simpler point of view. I suppose it was the complexity of the point of view from which the leader of a party is bound to approach it that explains the amazing inconsistencies in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. In the first few moments of his speech his complaint was that the proposals did not amount to what the Prime Minister was advocating in 1923. A few minutes later the right hon. gentleman's complaint was that they amounted to pure Protection, and a little later he said the scheme was so hedged about that there was no Protection in it at all.

To a private Member like myself, the first question that arises is this, do these proposals come within the policy that was laid down before the Election, the policy to which one pledged oneself to one's constituents' We are not so much concerned with party mandates as with the mandate which we individually received, and the mandate I received was one to support, but not to go beyond, the proposals laid down by the leader of our party.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) asks, what is the difference between these proposals and Protection? As I understand it, Free Trade could be roughly defined in this way: The extreme Free Trader believes that it is always right to buy in the cheapest market, even, I suppose, if that market were cheap because it was composed of receivers of stolen goods, or even if in buying you trample upon your country's industries and upon the bodies of a million unemployed. The Protectionist, on the other hand, advocates a duty against all competition, fair or unfair, without any regard to the question of the efficiency of the protected industry. There is, however, a middle view, which has come to be known as the safeguarding of industries, and I venture to think that among those who consider the subject it has a perfectly definite meaning, which, as I understand it, is this: It is Protection limited to unfair competition, provided always that the protected industry is unable to cope with it through no fault of its own, through no fault of inefficiency, and provided that in helping that industry you are not handicapping another. That is safeguarding. Of course, there is an element of Protection about it, but the broad distinction is that it is protection against something unfair, that it is not protecting the inefficient, and, in protecting, is not to injure another industry.

If one gets these three principles clearly in one's mind, one has only to consider these proposals for the purpose of answering the simple question, is this a Measure of safeguarding, or is it something more? It is perfectly true that this Measure does depart from the principle of the Safeguarding of industries Act. I quite agree that the vital and essential principle of that Act was this: Two instances were taken of unfair competition, and protection was given against that competition, but it was limited to the offending countries. I quite agree that, on the surface, these proposals involve a departure from that principle, because any duty imposed is to be general, and I admit that at first it gave me a shock. But the main object is to protect against unfair competition, and if this be the least Measure which will give the necessary protection, then it can be defended. We are told, and the explanation satisfies me, that it has been found impracticable to confine the protection to the offending country, because of our commercial treaties, which secure to various countries most-favoured-nation treatment and the like. If it be true, and I am prepared to believe that it is true, that, unless you make this protection general, you cannot afford any degree of protection worth having against unfair competition, that is to my mind a perfectly sufficient answer, and I am ready to accept it.

Where I fall foul of these proposals, however, is that I cannot for the life of me see how it can be said to be unfair competition to work harder than we are working here. I have tried to bring myself to do it because, above all things, one does want to support one's party at every turn; but I cannot bring myself to see how it can be truly said that it is unfair competition because people in other countries have not that obsession which we here have for less work and more pay. It is, in effect, giving what will, I suppose, at some time be statutory recognition to the principle that the standard of fair competition for the whole world is to be set by and is to depend upon the number of hours or the wages which trade unions permit in this country. That, to my mind, is not unfair competition; to my mind it is capable, if really applied, of leading to a far more general form of Protection than was contemplated by those who supported the Unionist party at the last election. For my part, I do not believe for one moment that it ever entered anybody's head that this kind of competition was going to be deemed unfair. This is the statement in the book entitled "Looking Ahead," that was published for our guidance:

As to that part, and that part only, of this scheme, I am unable to say that I agree with it, and for this simple reason. The Election in my constituency had been lost in 1923 because the Conservative Free Trade vote was lost. It was won this time. We got that vote back again, and, with it, a considerable part of the Liberal Free Trade vote. But to get that vote—they are more critical, perhaps, in the North than in the South—it was necessary to be explicit; it was necessary to take what had been laid down as the party's programme and analyse it carefully. I did that, and the one trouble that I had throughout the Election was as to what exactly was meant by the Safeguarding of Industries. It was necessary, I repeat, to analyse the words used, and to show how limited the proposals were, and how little inconsistent they were with Free Trade principles—principles which, rightly or wrongly, I myself hold and have always held, but not with that unreasoning bigotry with which so many Free. Traders are blessed. My own view is that each case ought to be taken upon its own merits. Rightly or wrongly, I feel personally bound by the pledge that I gave not to support anything which went beyond that limited programme.

There is only one other matter with which I want to deal. Complaint was made that there was no finality about the instructions to the Committee. Personally, I thank Heaven there is not, and I speak feelingly on this point. Under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, if a dispute arose as to whether any articles in the list published by the Board of Trade were inconsistent with the Schedule, and ought not to have been included, there was an arbitration. Some of those disputes were referred to my arbitration, and I know that the whole trouble was to endeavour to give a meaning to words which had no meaning. Take, for example, the expression, "Fine chemical." It has no precise scientific meaning. You might just as well say you will put a duty on small stones, and one spent days in trying to ascertain whether a stone was a small one or a big one. When one looks at these instructions, I repeat that, for my part, I thank Heaven they are not final. I suppose that if they had been contained in a Bill we could have got them altered, and perhaps have insisted upon definitions but there is nothing to prevent the issue of new instructions at any time, and, if any of the criticism which, perhaps, will be levelled against them this evening, is approved, there is, as far as I can see, nothing to prevent their being altered.

I should like to call attention to a few of these expressions. First of all, there is the question whether a particular industry is "of substantial importance." Why put in the word "substantial"? I would invite hon. members to put themselves in the position of a member of the Committee who is really trying to give effect, not to his own preconceived ideas, but to what he conceives to be the meaning of these instructions. How is any committee really to define what is meant by the words "substantial importance?" The steel industry, of course, is substantial, and I dare say the making of raspberry seeds is not; and there is a whole collection of industries coming in between, as to which one person may have one opinion and another another. Committees ought to deal with questions of fact, not of opinion. In the next clause the expression occurs "abnormal quantities," but there is no index as to what is normal. How on earth can a committee decide what is abnormal when there is no indication of what is normal? The next clause states that the Committee are to report facture at a profit, what happens to that Clause The goods can be profitably manufactured in this country if one man does it, and that industry passes out of this scheme. I am certain that that is not meant. There is no definition of the word "profitably." If you make 1 per cent., I suppose that that is a profit. It is not a reasonable profit, but there is no definition. Again, what does the word "can" mean? It does not say "are" being profitably manufactured, but "can be"—that is to say, can be, if this or that improvement were made, or if the hours worked were longer or the pay were less. One utterly fails to see how a Committee can really apply that Clause. I now come to the Clause:

6.0. P. M.

This unfortunate competition has to be abnormal, of some degree of severity, of some extent, and it is now to be exceptional, because the next Clause runs as follows. Is an industry efficient if 5 per cent. of the firms composing it are efficient, or if 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., or what proportion, are efficient? At what stage or at what point does the industry become efficient? There is a difficulty here which only those who have taken part in inquiries will appreciate. What happens in practice? Witnesses are brought along from two or three of the chief firms, and, of course, they say that everything in their concern is conducted with the utmost efficiency. They are asked, "But we want you to describe this, that or the other," and at once they curl up. "We cannot disclose secrets," they say; "we cannot say in the presence of our competitors how we conduct our industry." When that kind of evidence was being given before me I had to clear the room. Then the evidence is given to people who are quite unable to criticise it, because it will be observed that these committees have to consist of people who are not practically interested in the trade, and, therefore, are not, perhaps, of their own knowledge, able to criticise the evidence that is given. The witnesses will not give this evidence in the presence of anyone who is capable of criticising it. But it must be equally clear that it would be quite impossible, unless you were going to spend five years over every case to hear evidence relating to the industry as a whole. You could only hear it as to two or three firms. I repeat, at what point does an industry become efficient or inefficient?

You pass on to 7, and you get another expression

There is one other matter which I suggest the instructions ought to deal with, and that is the question of the right of audience. There is not a word in these instructions as to who shall have the right to appear at any one of these inquiries. Of course, the industry which is making the application will appear to present its case. Is anyone to have a right to present the other case? One thing I found in the arbitrations with which I had something to do was that the people who turned up to defend the taking out of an article from the Act, or to oppose the putting into the Act of an article were merchants. Are merchants to have a right to attend these inquiries? I do not think that question ought to be left to the Committees to decide. You may have one Committee deciding one thing and another deciding another. Personally, I do not think these proposals are being introduced in the interests of importers or of merchants, and I suggest that they should not have the right of audience. The people who ought to have the right of audience, and the freest right of audience, are those who wish to deal with Clause 7, that is the other industries affected. That to my mind goes to the root of these inquiries. Will the protection of one industry adversely affect another? Any industry which thinks it will be adversely affected ought to have the right of attending. How many people are going to have a right to attend and to be heard? If every industry which thinks it will be adversely affected has the right to attend and be separately represented, the inquiry is interminable. I think it is extremely important that those responsible for this scheme should give very careful attention to that question and lay down definite rules as to who shall have the right to attend and as to whether some system of representation cannot be thought out by which a number of industries must join together to be represented by one counsel, or one set of counsel. I myself found that that worked admirably in the arbitrations before me. Of course, they were on a much smaller scale, but there was no difficulty in inducing a number of opposing interests to join together and be represented by one counsel, so that less time was spent than if they had all been separately represented. With that criticism and with these suggestions, I have said what I have to say, and I really press, rather feelingly, because I speak with some little experience of it, those who are responsible for this scheme to drop these adjectives and to go in for definitions.

I ask the indulgence of the House in rising for the first time to take part in debate. I shall vote for this Resolution without hesitation, but also without enthusiasm. It is difficult for us on these benches to summon up much enthusiasm for what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) once called the mildewed straw of the last century. We do not believe Free Trade is any remedy for unemployment or poverty. We still remember the words of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, perhaps the last of the Radicals, when he said there was one-third of the population of this country living, under Free Trade, upon the verge of hunger, and that is still true. We differ from hon. Members on the Liberal Benches in two respects in our approach to this matter. In the first place, we are not, as they are, advocates of laissez faire and letting things alone and interfering as little as possible in the economic life of the country as it works itself out under private enterprise. That does not appeal to Socialists on these benches any more than to Protectionists on the benches opposite. Neither of us adopt that attitude towards the economic problem. Free. Trade to me is not a policy at all. It is the mere absence of a policy which, though better than the adoption of the bad policy recommended by bon. Members on the opposite benches, none the less is only a negative. We differ, therefore, from our friends on the Liberal Benches in that respect. We differ from them in another respect. We have not got to justify the first safeguarding arrangement of 1921, the Act brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when he was Prime Minister, and had as colleagues in the Cabinet a large number of other distinguished Liberals, not many of whom I see here this evening.

I should like to raise, in that connection, a point which arises naturally out of the most interesting and revealing speech to which we have just listened, the composition and the duties of these Committees which are to be set up under this new plan. As the hon. Member (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out from his experience, it vas not possible to have any effective light of cross-examination on behalf of the public before these Committees under the Liberal Safeguarding Act of 1921. I might bring that point out clearly by a quotation from a speech made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), who had no part in the safeguarding proposals of 1921 adopted by his present leaders at that time. He said:

It is claimed on behalf of these proposals that they will do something for unemployment. If we on these benches believed that was so, we should unhesitatingly support the plans which have been put forward, but we are not convinced—I, at any rate, am not convinced, and never have been—that by means of putting obstructions in the way of your import trade, or any section of it, you will do anything to increase employment. You may succeed here and there in putting some man into a job, but only at the expense of putting one man, or possibly more than one, out of a job somewhere else. I do not know how many hon. Members on the other side who represent shipping interests, who are interested in the docks, or in the shipbuilding industry, are going to support the plan which has been put forward by the Government. The whole object of the plan, and the effect of the plan, is bound to be to check our import trade in certain directions, to prevent certain imports coming in and thereby to diminish the amount of employment for our shipping, to diminish the demand for shipbuilding, and to diminish the amount of employment at the docks which would otherwise be called for. I give that as a simple illustration of the way in which these proposals are going to put as many men out of a job as they put into a job. Many others might he given.

To return to the very interesting speech of the hon. Member who preceded me, he made it quite clear that he would not support us in what has already been indicated by the Leader of the Opposition as our positive alternative to these proposals, that is to say, the development of International Labour Conventions. He sees no objection to imports coming into the country from countries which work longer hours and pay lower wages than this country. It is very interesting to us to find that our alternative proposals are evidently contrary to the attitude adopted by hon. Members on the other side. None the less, I think all of us on these benches who will vote for this Resolution will vote for it, not simply because we are opposed to these safeguarding proposals, but because we believe we have positive alternative plans which in the long run will be very much more effective in safeguarding the employment and the conditions and standard of life of our own people. In the development of the International Labour Conventions I see the brightest hope in the future for preventing what is really unfair competition from countries whose standards are lower than our own. That, to my mind, is a very much more hopeful line of advance, and, speaking for myself, at any rate, I would go further and say, you will have a much more effective sanction behind you once the International Labour Conventions are being applied by a majority of countries, because it will then be possible for that majority to bring into operation not merely these duties of indefinite amount, but, if necessary, complete prohibition of imports from any country which is refusing to abide by the International Labour Convention standards. That will be far more effective than duties of 10, 20 and 30 per cent. imposed under this plan upon imports of a particular character, even though they may come from countries where the standard, as in the United States, is very much in advance of our own.

This Parliament, it has been said, is likely to be known to history as the Zinovieff Parliament, having regard to its origin and manner of election, and I have no doubt that among the achievements of this Parliament—for, of course, we shall not carry our Motion this evening, but shall be defeated by the massed battalions on the other side—may he the erection, for a few short years, of a tariff wall, called by some sweeter name such as "Safeguarding." As a result of that, there may be a temporary enrichment of a few selected groups of capitalists who will get the ear of the committees who are to be set up to adjudicate upon their claims. But I venture to prophesy that before many years have passed another Labour Government will sweep away these tinpot tariffs which will be put into operation under these proposals, in the same way that the first Labour Government swept away the McKenna Duties. Having taken that step, as the first step, we shall then be able to go forward from this negative Free Trade position to a positive policy based upon the development of international labour standards which will safeguard, not the profits of selected groups of favoured persons, but the employment, the conditions of life, and the economic standards of our people of every section throughout the country.

I am sure the House has listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Dalton). We shall always be glad in future to hear speeches from him. With the substance of his speech we on this side entirely disagree, but, if I may respectfully say so, it was an admirable beginning for a now Member. The Resolution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition states that the provisions in the White Paper issued by the Government will not safeguard the interests of the workers as regards employment, wages or conditions. I would ask the right hon. Member whether he has taken the trouble to compare the wages and conditions which obtain in Germany to-day and in our own industries. I will submit to him certain figures derived from an examination of the rates of wages paid in Birmingham and in the larger industrial centres in Germany, and ask him to judge for himself whether he can expect British working men to compete against the position which their competitors in Germany occupy. Take, for example, the skilled workers in the metal trade of Westphalia, who are receiving in English money, working 55 hours a week, an equivalent of 7¼d. per hour, whereas the corresponding wage in Birmingham is 1s. 7d. How can the Birmingham worker compete against a competitor working 55 hours a week at 7¼d.?

I am glad that the late Minister of Labour (Mr. T. Shaw) has come into the House, because he has had an opportunity of examining these figures. Take the metal trade of Leipzig. There the wages per hour are 6½d., as against 1s. 7d. paid in the corresponding trade in Birmingham,

The figures were compiled last week, and were put into my hands this afternoon. Take the metal trade in Berlin. There you have the toolmaker receiving 10d. per hour, against the toolmaker in Birmingham receiving 1s. 8d. per hour. The Birmingham toolmaker is a most admirable person, but he cannot compete against a Berlin toolmaker receiving half the wage. A turner and fitter in Berlin receives 9d. an hour, against the 1s. 5d. an hour that we are paying in the Midland area. In the pottery trade in Berlin, the workers are paid 11d. an hour, as against 1s. 8d. an hour paid in this country, and so on with a whole series of trades. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously contends that the introduction of safeguarding is not to help the British workman, he must have come to that conclusion without reflecting upon the serious contrast between the conditions of labour and the rates of pay for a longer working week in Germany than in this country.

The safeguarding proposals of the Government now put before us are, as is well understood, a compromise between Protection and free imports. I very much deplore the circumstances under which the Prime Minister is obliged to submit these proposals to the House in this form. I should very much prefer, and a great many of my colleagues on these benches would prefer, that we had a full and adequate Measure giving that protection to the industries of this country which they so sorely require in these difficult times. While that is our strong feeling, and while I believe that the majority of the best thought in the country is behind us in that conviction, we are prepared to support these proposals and to make the best of them when they become operative.

I would like to put a few questions to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. What period of delay does he contemplate between the date of an application to the Board of Trade and the appointment of a Committee? What period of delay does he anticipate between the recommendations of the Committee and the concurrence of the Board of Trade, and what further period of delay does he anticipate be-between the concurrence of the Board of Trade and the approval of the Treasury? Finally, will therebe any minimum period between the giving of Treasury approval and the consent of Parliament being invited? I think the President of the Board of Trade will have to expedite by every means in his power this somewhat latent process of arriving at a decision to give some measure of safeguarding to an industry which makes application.

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) made an admirable suggestion with regard to the reconstruction of the text of the regulations laid down for the committee, and with him I agree. There ought not to be these vague forms of expression, with which a committee will find it exceedingly difficult to deal. I hope my right hon. Friend will explain a little more fully than did the Prime Minister what period will elapse in the case of substantial industries between the approval of Parliament and the embodiment in a Finance Bill of the financial provisions to protect that industry. A great many manufacturers in this country, who have studied the provisions of the White Paper, begin to fear that unless there is a vigorous policy of pushing forward the procedure, it will be a long time from the reception of an application until the actual safeguarding is introduced. Although I am sure the House was in full accord with the Prime Minister's views that there should not be taxation without the full authority of Parliament, many of us would have wished that the proceedings contemplated in these proposals would take place at a more rapid rate than I fear is possible under the provisions laid down.

In the inquiry which will take place, according to the text of the White Paper, the onus of proof of the conditions affecting any particular foreign industry rests upon the shoulders of the applicant. He has to prove, I understand, in what respect his competitor in a foreign country is more favourably circumstancecl, and he has not to have the advantage of the official information and statistics which are at the disposal of the Board of Trade. Will my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade take into account the means of assisting applicants who make application for the safeguarding of an efficient industry, by giving them such assistance as his Department can give with regard to the conditions of competing foreign countries?

The question of secrecy has been raised. In inquiries of this character there is the danger of exposing to our foreign rivals very important matters relating to the competitive power of British industries, and I do strongly impress upon my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that provision should be made so that in no circumstances will valuable secrets relating to British industry, which have contributed so much to their prosperity in the past, be allowed to become the property of our rivals abroad. Another very important point which I hope will be taken into account before these proposals become operative is the inadvisability of publishing to the world that an inquiry is about to be made into any particular industry. Immediately the fact is made known that inquiry is about to take place, we shall have an influx of foreign goods into this country in competition with the particular industry in reference to which the application is being made. I hope that the period of time which will elapse between the receipt of an application and the publication of it will be as brief as possible, so as to protect our own producers from unfair attack from abroad.

The importance of a more adequate definition of what is a substantial industry is worth the attention of my right hon. Friend. It is desirable to know whether a particular group of industries is to be regarded as such, or whether a single branch of an industry may be competent 1,, make application. For instance, can the engineering industry be taken as a whole or will one branch of the engineering industry be competent to make an application to the Board of Trade? We have no indication of the procedure in committee or what the committee is to do with regard to the examination of the applications which come before them. We ought to be told by the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he proposes to lay down for the conduct of the inquiry by committees, otherwise the result of the inquiry, instead of benefiting the particular industry concerned, may do it considerable harm, and we do not want to place any applicants in an unfortunate position of that kind.

One factor entering into cost of production in this country and in competing countries, apparently, has been left entirely out of account in these proposals. That is the question of taxation. I submit that the difference of taxation as affecting the productive industries in this country and the taxation which applies to industry in other countries ought to be taken into account by the Committee when examining any application for safeguards. We have, for example, in Birmingham a rate of 16s. in the £. In the large city of Düsseldorf the rates are 6s. in the £. Is it fair to Birmingham enterprise not to take such a difference of rates into account when it is a question of establishing a claim against an industry in Düsseldorf? On the other hand, you have a taxation in this country, roughly, of £16 or £17 per head, and directly or indirectly it all comes out of productive industry, with the exception of what we earn on shipping, foreign business and services abroad. Practically every farthing contributed to the maintenance of the State has to come out of productive industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "From the workers!"]

In Germany the taxation is about £6 per head, and in France it is probably about £4 per head. Is it not reasonable to suggest that when an applicant comes before the Committee appointed by the President of the Board of Trade there should be a definite instruction to take this question of taxation into account in deciding whether the safeguard should be applied? Unless that element of examining the extent to which we are overburdened by taxation in our competitive power against foreign rivals is taken into account, these proposals will have very little effect on a great many of our large industries. I hold very strongly that the persons interested who are to appear before the Committee of Inquiry should be the persons indicated by my hon. Friend whose long experience of that work was so valuable to the House to-night in the maiden speech which he delivered. It would be a misfortune if we allow every importer and every merchant, whose natural interest it is to maintain free imports and to make the largest possible profit out of the competing commodity, to appear before the Committee and to become what is described in the proposals as a person interested. I think that the only persons entitled to appear should be persons engaged in productive industry in this country who believe that their interests might be affected by the proposals.

With regard to some of the industries who should be heard, we ought not in these times, in spite of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), play fast and loose with British industry in this country. In spite of the statements made in relation to the motor trade, and the claims constantly made in the speeches inside and outside this House when what I may call the motor agitation was in progress, the condition of the British industry is precarious to a degree. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of America. Will the right hon. Gentleman in America to-day get one single labour organisation to pass a unanimous resolution condemning the American tariff, or one single trade union labour organisation in America to ask even for a reduction in the tariff of the United States? If he were in the position to tell us that he could do so he would have something of substantive value to lay before the House.

That may be so, but no trade union in America or elsewhere would support a resolution declaring that Protection had helped to-solve any of the social problems like unemployment or insufficient wages, which the Government tells us this White Paper is dealing with.

Let the right hon. Gentleman go to St. Louis, Kanzas City, or any of the great American centres of industry and make a speech at a labour congress, and get a resolution passed to remove or lower the American tariff. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman as a substantive question. It is not enough to say that no union would vote in favour of Free Trade. Not at all. The American labour movement is as solidly Protectionist as what hon. Members opposite would call the American capitalist. During the last quarter of a century, in spite of the tariff legislation in the United States, not one single State was able to present a case to Congress, even for a modification of the existing duties. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the whole tendency of tariffs everywhere has been upwards, and, in spite of what is said to-day with regard to France, ever since the War France has be-en carefully considering how to foster French industry so as to put us out of the market, and every time she thinks that she can put us out of the market, up go the French tariffs against us.

Those of us in this House who regard it as our main duty to fight for British industry are prepared to accept these proposals. We think that they do not go anything like the distance that they ought to go. We think that they are a poor but necessary substitute for what ought to be a great protective measure for British industry. We cannot in this country be for ever the sole possessors of the economic wisdom of the world. It cannot be that every other nation are fools, and that we are the only wise set of people. The conditions of industry to-day are not what they were 25 or 50 years ago. A complete change has come over the industrial life of this country. Every workman in this country to-day is fighting for his existence against workmen in worse circumstances in other parts of the world. We wish to protect our own men. We wish to extend their opportunities of livelihood for themselves and their children. I hope sincerely that the House will accept these proposals.

I shall support this Motion which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the ex-Prime Minister, because I believe that these proposals contain in themselves the germs of vicious principles that will lead not to efficiency in this country, but will inevitably lead to corruption, both in commercial and political life. We had an example of what a protective tax means last year when we saw every influence that it was possible to bring to bear in the Lobby in order to retain the McKenna Duties, and when we heard those extraordinary statements that were made about from 2,000,000 to 4,000,000 people being thrown out of employment in the motor trade, although the fact was that that number of men were not employed in that trade. These statements were made to Members of Parliament who probably were not well aware of the figures, and if these proposals go through there is danger that rigging are lobbying would be carried on, on behalf of very large numbers of trades in this country. What was the result of the abolition of those duties? There was an increase in the number of workers, a very large decrease of the price to the consumer, no harm to anybody, and apparently great benefit to everybody.

Those are the facts applied to the actual working of Protection as against Free Trade. Like my hon. Friend who made such an excellent maiden speech a moment ago I do not believe that Free Trade will abolish unemployment, but I do think that it will make for a cleaner business life and give greater employment than any system of protection can do. We are told in one breath that Protection means shorter hours of work, more employment and more wages. Then in the next breath we are told, "Look at the competition from Germany where the wages are terribly low and the hours are long." Germany is a protected country, and if Protection really means short hours of labour and high wages, why do we need to protect ourselves against the low wages and long hours in the industries that are protected? Surely if the wages are lower than ours, and the hours are longer than ours, there can be no claim made that Protection in itself means either high wages or short hours. You cannot have it both ways. Against whom are you going to protect yourself, against Free Trade countries or protected countries?

Then what are the protected countries doing, with their low wages and long hours of labour? We have heard that the effect of these proposals will be to reduce unemployment and give every chance of high wages and shorter hours, and yet where there is Protection there are longer hours and lower wages. My hon. Friend has quoted Germany and he will pardon me for saying that I accept his figures with some reserve. I had the opportunity not long ago of speaking to one of the best authorities in Germany as to the conditions of hours and wages, and certainly the information which I got on that occasion did not coincide in any respect with the information which has been given by the hon. Gentleman. But, be that as it may, everybody knows that Germany is not, in a normal condition. Everybody knows that the fall of the mark led to the extraordinary result that the trade unions had their funds reduced to nothing, that they were incapable of fighting, and that they were at the mercy of the employers, and while it might be perfectly true that a number of the trades in Germany are working longer hours than the workers in this country, every day, every week, brings an improvement, and Germany, from the point of view of its working population, is steadily moving upwards, not by either Free Trade or Protection, but because of the fact that the stability of money has given to the unions the opportunity of getting in funds again and recommencing their activity.

Only six months ago the German Minister of Labour agreed to a common declaration, made by four Ministers of Labour, that so far as he was concerned he saw no objection in present circumstances to Germany herself ratifying the Washington Convention as to hours of labour and coming under its regulation's as to a 48 hours week. So after all, when one talks of Germany, one had better know exactly what the conditions are. If we had to contrast other countries where things have been stable, then a reasonable comparison would hold, but it is not a reasonable comparison to take Germany at this moment, and put her in contradistinction to England as if she were living in normal times.

We have heard a great deal about the burden of taxation. We were told that in Dusseldorf the rates are only 6s. in the £. How is that figure reached? Is it based on the same method of calculation as, say, the rates of Birmingham? My hon. Friend had better tell the whole of the story, and tell this in addition—that Dusseldorf possesses the forests around the town, runs them on Socialist lines, and makes a huge profit which very nearly wipes out any necessity for payment of rates at all in Dusseldorf. My hon. Friend had better tell the same story about Leipzic in order that an accurate picture may be put before the House. It is extremely unwise to state only half the facts and to leave the other half out of consideration altogether. My point with regard to Protection generally is that there is no guarantee under it either of reasonable hours or of high wages. High wages and low hours come, not from Protection, but from efficiency, and the efficient nation can stand a system of Protection and survive, but the inefficient nation cannot stand a system of Protection and attempt to give a living to its working population. Take the, trade of which I know most, and where, so far as the organised workers and employers are concerned, there is no question at all as to where they stand on the question of Free Trade and Protection.

The huge majority of them. The organised employers speaking through their committee and the organised workers are Free Trade bodies, and nobody knows it better than the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Greenwood), who finds himself very often in a minority of one.

Exactly. It may be a case of the jury when a decision could not be arrived at because 11 were fools and the other was a wise man. It may be a case of that kind, or it may be another kind of case. I am not going to enter into the merits of that for a moment. But here is a trade that has to face the fiercest competition from all over the world, a trade for which it is absolutely necessary that it should have at as reasonable prices as possible everything which it needs for its production. If it were a very selfish trade it might go to the President of the Board of Trade, and say, "Here is a case that it unanswerable. Japan, with its wages of 9d., 10d. and 1s. 1d. a day, is competing against us. Give us Protection." It is perfectly true that Japan has Protection, and she pays wages of 1s. 1d. a day. But we might be illogical enough to claim that Protection in itself would give us wages and hours of labour satisfactory to us. We could make a case. But we have never made that case, because we have always believed that the remedy does not lie in Protection, that Protection encourages slackness and incapacity rather than efficiency and good work. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about America?"]

Wherever you find competition with this country you will find it, not from the poorest countries, but from countries that either have a natural advantage or countries that are very highly developed and competent. The motor cars that came from the Ford works to this country did not come because of the virtue of Protection. Everybody in the world knows that they came because of a system of production that was infinitely more efficient than anything we had in this country.

We have started an industry in this country, without Protection, and it is going ahead by leaps and bounds. I refer to the Morris Motor Works at Oxford, where the taking away of Protection has increased the number of workmen employed. If it could be demonstrated to the House that Protection really did bring short hours and high wages, is there a Member on the Labour Benches who would not vote for it with both hands? We have seen too much of Protection at work. We saw artificial Protection during the War. We saw then industries which, owing to the War itself, enjoyed Protection because competing goods could not be imported. And we saw the public mercilessly fleeced and robbed. We do not want to make that permanent. War time is bad enough without having the same thing in peace time. Take fabric gloves. The making of such gloves is just as much a speciality in Saxony, in Chemnitz and the district, as the making of fine yarn is in Bolton. Bolton made the yarn, Saxony dealt with the fabric. Both of them were unapproachable in their own speciality. We tried to interfere with a perfectly natural trade, a trade of specialists, each helping the other and each making what it was best fitted to make, and the result was what was proclaimed from these benches, namely, that what was done would not help the fabric glove trade in this country, but would drive people from the purchase of fabric gloves to the purchase of cheap kid gloves. You did put a number of people out of employment in Bolton. That is a case that can be proved over and over again.

Take the White Paper before us. You have to go into the question of whether the rates of pay, the hours of work and the conditions cause an article to compete unfairly with our own. What does that mean? Twenty-five years ago I heard the same things from the manufacturers in Lancashire, who complained bitterly about the rates of wages paid for certain articles on the Continent. Inquiries were made on the Continent, and it was found that the actual sum paid for the work done was higher there than in Lancashire. The workers were earning less and were working longer hours, 'Out the cost of production was higher than it was in Lancashire. Upon what are the committees to base their estimates? Is it on a mere bald statement, such as has been made in this House, that certain wages are paid for certain hours, without the committee going into full details and without knowing whether the wage actually paid for a given piece of work is higher or lower than that paid here? Look at the extraordinary difficulty of the task of getting ix) know really what are the wages paid for a certain amount of work done. It has been my lot to visit textile factories in many countries, and I assert unhesitatingly from my experience, speaking of a trade that I know well, that one thing, and one thing alone, will make a country successful, and that is the efficiency of its production and the capacity of its workers. Free Trade and Protection singly or together can never take the place of an efficient production. Given efficient production, you need no Protection whatever; you can go ahead with your work. Then take the extraordinary difficulty of determining whether a certain rate of exchange is really equivalent to a bounty. The time was in Germany when the rate of exchange tumbled to such an extent as to make it impossible practically for the Germans to do any business at all. You may at a given time have the paradox that a certain amount of money in a country is worth much more internally than externally. For the moment that might be a bounty. But a further crash may mean the crash of all possibility of doing business from that country, and for the moment you have a country stagnate. The position of affairs in Europe at present is this: that stabilisation is taking place rapidly. With the exception of the swing in France quite recently, I think it may be safely said that every principal European country has been stabilised for many months past. There is no principal country I know in which the swing of exchange has operated to any considerable extent during the last five or six months. We are rapidly getting to a state of stabilisation.

My appeal to the House is not to accept this method, not only because I believe that Free Trade is infinitely to be preferred to Protection, but because of the greater danger that occurs of having every trade in the country, through one or more of its representatives, coming and demanding, like the daughters of the horse leech, "More, more, more." You can make profits certain by Protection, absolutely certain, but you cannot make employment and good wages certain. I have given the example of Japan. It has been said that Protection gives good wages and low hours. It does not do so in Japan or in Germany. [HON. MEMBERS "America."] America is a country quite different from our own. America is a continent almost in herself. She consists of as many States as we have parts of our Empire, and between those States, absolutely self-supporting in case of necessity, there is unqualified Free Trade. The argument I want to put is this: We have nothing to hope for, so far as efficiency is concerned, from the application of the principles of Protection. Rather will they tend to keep prices high, profits high, and wages and the amount of employment low, as was proved in the Morris case. Certainly they will bring lobbying, corruption and unemployment in their train. Holding that view, obviously there is nothing for me to do but to vote for the Motion of my right bon. Friend, and I do so knowing something of the trade that faces the keenest competition all over the world, and having behind me the huge majority of both workers and employers in that trade.

7.0 P.M.

Both Protectionists and Free Traders have taken part in this Debate, but I have not heard a word expressing satisfaction with the proposals embodied in the White Paper, not from any quarter. Judging from the speech of the Prime Minister, I should say he is the man who is least satisfied, because, with all respect to him, I never heard a more inadequate and disappointing speech explaining a serious departure from any system in this country. A good many of the questions which were addressed to him by the Leader of the Opposition went to the very root of the merits of these proposals. Upon the answers which he gave to them depends very largely the success or failure of his project. He never made any effort to answer them. Not a single question did he answer. Other questions have been put since. I think he ought to have anticipated them, because no one can quite see what these proposals exactly mean. What is the meaning of the word "substantial"? That is very vital? Another word which is of the very essence of these proposals is the word "abnormal." The proposals are only to apply under "abnormal" conditions. What are abnormal conditions? What is the test of normality? Is it 1913? All these questions I would have expected the Prime Minister to explain to the House so that it would really know what his proposals meant. He preferred to make some quite good jests—one or two at my expense. I was sorry I did not hear them. I came as soon as I could. I understood he compared himself to Moses and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) to Aaron, a more appropriate taunt. He allocated a very sublime part to me. I would just remind him that I am creditably informed that Moses never reached the promised land. The Prime Minister has made two efforts, this is the second. The first lamentably failed. I will not say a word for Aaron. He is not present to defend himself, but I believe that he is in that land at this moment. I have no doubt he will be able to give a good account of himself.

The Prime Minister bases his proposals on the Safeguarding of Industries Act, which he piloted through the House of Commons with great skill and good humour but without much conviction. There is nothing in common between the two proposals, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) pointed out with very great accuracy. The conditions are different. I am not concerned to defend that Act. There is no more common obsession among politicians than to imagine that it is necessary for their reputation to prove that they were always right; that they were right 20 years ago; that they were right 10 years ago; that they were right five years ago; that they are right at the present moment although on all these occasions they took a different view of exactly the same question. It is a fatal obsession. It is a form of conceit, and it is really amongst the smallest men that you get the biggest hump of that kind. I am not concerned in the least to defend it. There is no doubt at all that at that moment there was a real genuine apprehension, which was not confined to Members of the Government, that the very exceptional state of the exchanges would reflect itself in the dumping of goods on a very considerable scale and at prices with which it would be impossible for anyone in this country to compete. That was the feeling of our advisers as well as of ourselves. I admit that after three years of experience it has been proved that that was a wrong conclusion. It did not have that effect.

The same thing applies to the Paris Resolutions. Having admitted my own mistake, let me go on to confess the mistakes of others, which I do with very much greater alacrity and satisfaction. There is no doubt at all that at the time there was very serious apprehension. Looking at that now—I will not say in this period of peace, but in this period of sulkiness which takes the place of peace in Europe for the moment—they look perfectly grotesque and foolish. At the moment, there was a real apprehension that there was a peril that we had to meet. What is the apprehension now? What is the peril at the present moment? What is the justification for taking up the time of the House when time might be taken up not merely in discussing Clauses which would he added to the Budget, but, as the Prime Minister said in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) in carrying and discussing separate Bills to deal with separate industries after the Budget has gone through. What is the justification? Trade is recovering slowly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I am willing to take any estimates which my hon. Friends care to make. The estimate depends entirely what you are arguing at the moment. When you are arguing on Protection, trade is doing very badly. On the other hand, if you want to show what a good Government you have, I have no doubt my Friends will say look at the way trade is recovering. At any rate, there is a certain movement.

Trade has suffered, not merely from the impoverishment of the world, but from elements of uncertainty which have been introduced—uncertainty with regard to international relations, uncertainty with regard to industrial unrest, uncertainty of the currencies. Gradually those are calming down and quietening, and just at this moment the Government are creating wantonly a fresh element of uncertainty. It is bound to be an element of uncertainty. I hear that there are a good many applications which have come in to the President of the Board of Trade from various industries. How long will it take before that trade knows the conditions under which it is going to carry on its business? There will be inquiries. If all the interests which are concerned are to be represented, not merely for but against, it must take time. If the investigation is to be a thorough, sincere and honest one, and I believe the Government intend it shall, it will take time. Then it is to be incorporated in the Budget of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I remember a time when my hon. Friends sitting around me always used to choose him as a model. I was a very doubtful Free Trader. I was not like the right hon. Gentleman a real Free Trader. He will then have to put these Protectionist proposals through in his Budget. I hope he will have more satisfactory provisions in his Budget than that, but at any rate they will take time.

Meanwhile no one in that industry knows what is going to happen. Industries have not an independent existence. There are other industries depending on the goods they produce. There are the secondary and subsidiary industries which depend on their products. They will not know what the prices will be. This uncertainty will go on. There will be an agitation in other industries wanting to come in. You will get a majority in order to present a petition one way or another. In addition to that, when you have fixed finally what your tariff is going to be, which industries you are going to select—as soon as you do that, if it is true that there are goods available which you can buy cheaply abroad, you may depend upon it there will be a very great rush to get those goods into this country before the tariff begins to operate. So you will have all those elements of uncertainty operating for months and months at a time when trade is thirsting for stability and certainty.

Why have the Government done it? Is there really any reason in the outlook? If they can point out anything that is happening at the present moment, something which is more important, about housing, agriculture, making peace in Europe, international debts and development at home and abroad: if they can think of anything that is happening which makes it more urgent, then I agree it is right that we should pass all these temporary disadvantages. It is the permanent advantage that counts. If there be a real case, where is it? In the old fights before the War it was Germany. It was German competition. It was the danger of German goods. At the present moment Germany is sending to this country between one-third and one-quarter of what it sent before the War. Before the War they sent us twice as much as we bought from them. It is almost the other way round at the present moment. German exports are not 40 per cent. of what they were before the War. That danger is eliminated. Where is the danger?

I apologise to the House for giving statistics, but, after all, statistics are important. People always say that statistics will prove anything. At the same time, whether you have a bank balance or an overdraft is a question of statistics. Therefore, statistics, after all, prove something which may be very vital to a trader. I will only give three or four figures by way of showing that there is no case at the present moment. I am not arguing the general question of Free Trade and Protection; I am arguing the desirability of introducing those disturbing elements into trade at this present moment. Let us look at the figures. I am going to take the figures of values. I am not going to reduce the 1924 figures into 1913 values. There is no point in it, because I shall use the same values for imports and exports. Take the, imports in 1913 and compare them with the imports in 1924. The increase in value is £98,000,000. It does not really represent, as everyone knows, anything but a decrease in the actual imports, but there is an increase in value of £98,000,000 in imports, comparing 1913 with 1924. The increase in the exports comparing 1913 and 1924 is £201,000,000. Thus the increase in the exports is more than twice the increase in the imports.

Take the industries which are supposed to constitute the most serious case. Take iron and steel and the manufactures thereof. This only applies to angles, bolts, steel rails and rather primary things. It does not refer to machinery, but it is the industry which is always quoted as the classic case. The increase in the imports, comparing these two periods, is £6,500,000. The increase in the exports in the same commodities is £19,000,000, or three times as much. Take vehicles, motor cars, lorries, waggons and so on, in regard to which in the course of the discussion, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) made a very good point. Vehicles increased £3,000,000 in imports and £8,000,000 in exports. Take machinery, which after all means very skilled employment. The increase in the imports of machinery is £3,000,000; the increase in the exports is £11,000,000 or almost four times as much. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the tonnage"] I do not take it in tons, because it is very difficult to work it out in that way, and tonnage does not always represent labour. The amount of labour depends far more upon the value than upon tonnage. I will give textiles. In the woollen trade imports are up by £5,000,000 and exports are up by £32,000,000, more than six times as much. Cotton imports are up by £100,000 and exports are up by £73,000,000 or 730 times. What is the ease? Take the working out of trade; examine those official books issued by the Board of Trade in and out, and there is no case for taking up the time of Parliament, for disturbing industry, for introducing a new element of uncertainty into business at the present moment.

I know perfectly well what it means, but may I point out to the House that the industries that are suffering most at the present moment would be helped the least, even assuming that these proposals are likely to operate for the protection of any industry. Let us take that, assumption for the moment. The industries most hardly hit will not receive the slightest protection. On the contrary they will be hit all the harder. How does it help coal? There is no protection there. On the contrary it increases the cost of all things necessary for the purpose of operating the coal mines. Take shipbuilding, which is, I suppose, about the hardest hit of all the industries. So far from helping shipbuilders it will make more expensive plates and bolts and whatever they require in the way of steel for the construction of ships. How does it help cotton? Take the entrepôt trade upon which our docks depend and our dock labourers. It would hit them. You cannot think of any trade which is hard hit at the present moment which would not be hit harder by these proposals. The fact of the matter is, the motive for these proposals is not industrial and not commercial, but political. The right hon. Gentleman has a trick of bolting whenever he hears the crack of the Protectionist whip. He acquired the habit in 1923 and smashed his cart then. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer got hold of his head this time before he completely overturned the lorry. Now comes this proposal, not the third, I may remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley, but the fourth and the most amazing proposal of the four.

What is this proposal? That you should set up a Committee of the Board of Trade to find out a country where there is an industry which pays lower wages, gives longer hours of labour and worse conditions, and the moment you discover it you should instantly have an Order of the Board of Trade to apply the same conditions to the same industry in this country. It is the most amazing proposition ever put forward by any Government, but I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the most serious objection to these proposals rests in the fact that it has taken the mind of the country away from its real difficulties. What is the position? I was challenged a moment ago when I said trade was slowly recovering. I did not mean by saying so that trade was in anything but a serious position. Hon. Members who were in the last two Parliaments know perfectly well I have always taken a very serious view of trade prospects in this country, and I have not changed that view. But in what respect does this proposal help us to cope with that particular situation? What is responsible for our bad trade? The first thing is the impoverishment of the world: our customers are poor; they cannot buy. How are you going to make them buy by applying the lash of a tariff? Will that make them buy more? It will make them buy less.

Why has trade improved in other countries—in Germany, in America?

Would my hon. and gallant Friend be satisfied with seeing German conditions in this country?

Let me take the hon. And gallant Gentleman's first point. Would he be satisfied at seeing in this country the conditions of Germany, where workmen and half starved, where the middle class have almost completely disappeared, where they are living by charity, begging for money from other countries in order to be able to carry on? Surely that is not the condition in which the hon. Member would like to see people here. What I want to point out, however, is, that if you put tariffs on these countries, so far from buying more, they will only be in a position to buy less. Why? Because they cannot sell, or if they sell they will sell at lower prices and, therefore, they will have less purchasing capital with which to buy from us. What is the other cause—the exchanges. What is the third cause? It is the diminution in the surplus for investment which is available throughout the world, a diminution which is attributable to the expenditure of the War, and, as everybody who has followed the ramifications of trade knows, that has crippled our power for development abroad. Therefore, we are not getting the same orders as we used to get before 1914 because we have less money for investment and enterprise in all these countries. But what is the other and the most serious cause? It is misunderstanding between labour and direction. I will not say labour and capital; it is rather a question of misunderstanding between labour and the direction of enterprise which has the effect of undoubtedly depressing production. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in the inquiries which he is going to institute in respect of any particular industry, he is going to inquire what are the conditions of labour in other countries not merely in respect of wages and hours, but in respect of the relations between capital and labour in those countries. Is there, for instance, anything in the nature of better equipment there and better labour-saving appliances, and what is the attitude of labour in regard to that matter? If the attitude of labour is better there, what is the reason? If the right hon. Gentleman makes inquiries into that kind of thing, he will go far more to the root of our difficulty than by means of the inquiries he is instituting under the White Paper.

The Leader of the Opposition also referred to the International Bureau of Labour. I was very glad to hear him do so and to note the importance he attached to that Bureau. I had a great responsibility with my right hon. Friend Mr. Barnes for seeing that the Bureau was established. It was worked here by the Board of Trade and the Labour Department; it was very largely a British proposal, and it has achieved very great and useful things, as M. Albert Thomas told me as lately as last week. A good deal more could be done, and these are directions in which improvements could be effected. Another direction is the development of our resources at home and throughout the Empire—agricultural resources, power, the resources of our soil. [ Interruption. ] Whatever the method, at any rate let us discuss it among ourselves. Hon Gentlemen above the Gangway have their proposals. We have our ideas—I cannot develop them now, but am quite willing to do so on due occasion—and, I have no doubt, hon. Gentlemen opposite have their ideas. But that is what Parliament should be discussing—these proposals and counter-proposals for the purpose of dealing with a perfectly abnormal situation. The Leader of the Opposition ventured to predict that there was a great collapse coming in Protectionist countries. I do not know whether he suggested there was a change in opinion. I cannot see it myself—I say so quite frankly. The last election in the United States certainly did not indicate any change. But may I point out the reason of that? Once you adopt one system, whether it is Protectionist or Free Trade, industry adapts itself to that particular system. If it is a Protectionist system and it has been in a country for fifty years, you cannot change it without a complete dislocation of the whole of the industry in. that particular country. The industries that fit into tariffs, the industries that build on tariffs, they are the industries that prosper. It is equally the case with Free Trade. For 75 years the industries have adapted themselves to Free Trade conditions. How many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have seen men who, having built a great business upon certain lines, upon certain principles, have got it into their heads to change their principles, hoping to keep their old custom and to secure fresh—how many cases are there of that kind where men have come to grief? That is the danger, without any dogmatic assertion of the superiority of Free Trade. The country has got to realise that for 75 years its business has fitted into a Free Trade system. The industries that thrive best under Free Trade are our great industries, shipping, ship-building, the entrepôt trade, cotton, machinery, banking. The industries of this country are Free Trade industries. If you change that, this is no time to do it. I ask the Government: Let them get on with their tasks—they are not getting on too rapidly with them—let them attend to the business that the country really asks and expects them to attend to, and do not let them waste the time of Parliament, waste the attention of this nation and of its people, waste the energies of its great industries upon piffling proposals that satisfy no one, protectionist or free trader, and that will accomplish nothing, except mischief.

In rising to address the House for the first time, I hope I may claim that generous indulgence which is always accorded on such an occasion. I cannot help thinking, after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that the real gravamen of the charge that he has brought against the Government is not that these proposals go too far, but a disappointment that they do not go a great deal further, and he gave the secret of it away in his last words, when he said that they satisfy neither Protectionist nor Free Trader. In order to realise the reason for this apparent anomaly, I think we must go back to that celebrated day, on the 31st January, when the Liberal party held their great meeting at the Albert, Hall, when all the leaders, of whom unkind rumour reported as being somewhat divided, swore lifelong friendship to one another, and united in a common desire to get 600 sacrificial victims for the next General Election, and no less a sum than £1,000,000 in order that these sacrifices might be fittingly consummated. But in order to get 600 candidates and £1,000,000 sterling, it was very necessary to have a cause, and the party were very bereft of causes at that particular moment, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs then sprang into the breach and made this statement: he said that never was Free Trade in such danger for the last 70 years as it, was at the present time. What does he find now? He is like those who are engaged on this controversy over St. Paul's Cathedral.

He has not in these proposals got sufficient foundation on which to rally his party with a real cry that Free Trade is in danger, to reconstruct this Liberal edifice with the gilded Dome.

I think it is only fair that every hon. Member speaking from these benches should label himself right away, and I am one of those unrepenting, unrelenting Protectionists who have never deviated a single hair's breadth from the true religion as laid down by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain 20 years ago. But we have to accommodate ourselves to the times, and if hon. Gentlemen are disappointed with the meagreness of these proposals, it is only natural that some of the old-time Protectionists on these benches should be a little disappointed too. Although I am a newcomer to this House, I may say I was sacrificed three times on that bloodstained altar of Free Trade before ever passing these portals, and therefore it is particularly gratifying to see the high priest who presided at those expensive functions now sitting on the Front Treasury Bench as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had hoped that his conversion would have taken a slightly more fanatical form than appears to have been the case. Whatever the parentage of this Bill may be—it almost seems to have fallen under the malign influence of that society which is interested in birth control—it. certainly has arrived in a somewhat anæmic and emasculated condition, so that it can hardly be recognised as the lineal descendant of the policy of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. It is very easy for a Private Member who has never given any pledge to his constituents to advocate proposals of Protection, but it is a very different position for the Prime Minister and the responsible head of the Government who has given an undertaking. Therefore, I think the only latitude that any Private Member who is an ardent Tariff Reformer should allow himself in this Debate is to explore every possible avenue for the protection of our industries, for their increase and improvement—I do not altogether like the word "safeguarding"—that leads up to the actual line of demarcation which separates the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister from the possibility of any accusation that he has exceeded the mandate given him by the people.

When I compare these actual proposals with his pledge—and the only pledge with which we are concerned is that given in his Election address—I find that there is still an enormous unexplored field for further development; that is to say, that we have not really covered one-third, or one-half the distance that we can eventually go, so that while I heartily welcome this proposal, this weakling, as a step in the right direction, I believe that, if it is handled properly, and well fed, it may yet grow to strong manhood and not be an unworthy descendant of its great ancestor, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. I think there is some slight difficulty owing to the fact that the Government have adopted rather too complicated means of carrying their proposals into effect, and if we apply the Prime Minister's test, which he gave to the people, we find that it is not incompatible in the least with the introduction of a general tariff at the present time. He never stated that he would not introduce a general tariff. He said that a general tariff would not be introduced unless it was necessary, and it is part and parcel now of every Tariff Reformer's views that the state of our industries is such, with over 1,000,000 unemployed, with free imports coming into the country in the way they are, with a general decline in the prosperity of this country, that we shall never restore that prosperity unless we have a tariff on all foreign imports coming in. We might call it an experimental tariff. We might even wait and see how it works. No one can say exactly what the effect would be, but it would be a much wiser and a much more simple method if we protected all industries at once by a Resolution passed by this House, and only took them off particular industries if we found that the protection given was being abused by the manufacturers in raising prices to the general consumer.

If we proceed with this Measure as it is, although it is a step in the right direction. I think it may lead us into some considerable difficulties, and I do not see why, in common fairness, we should discriminate between industries of primary importance to the country and industries of secondary importance. The real test is that we are out to help the workers, and you cannot discriminate between the workers in the small industries and the workers in the big industries. Further, I do not see why employers should be compelled to produce this immense amount of statistics for the information of the Board of Trade. In that very excellent document which has been drawn up by the Union of Manufacturers, where they state very fairly and precisely all the difficulties under which they were labouring in presenting their case under the last Safeguarding of Industries Act of 1921, it appears that if the Measure is actually continued in its present form, almost exactly similar difficulties will arise. For instance, it appears that these Committees of the Board of Trade develop very rapidly into academical discussions between the two parties on the respective merits of Free Trade and Protection; but surely these Boards are only set up to report on specific questions of fact, and the question of the advantages of Free Trade or Protection does not really belong to them at all, and is out of their purview

There is one other point which I think is going to create a good deal of difficulty, if these measures are carried out in the partial form now proposed rather than by imposing a general all-round tariff, with equal incidence and equal protection, without discrimination between one class of worker and another, and that is this: There has been a, great agitation taking place for some time past, both inside the House and outside, that the Budget should be framed with the greatest possible accuracy, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not' suddenly produce a big surplus, which is, after all, taken out of the pockets of the long-suffering taxpayer. How is any Chancellor of the Exchequer, if we have only a partial tariff, to be put on at various periods in the year, ever going to estimate accurately exactly what the yield of these taxes will be? That is going to make for extravagance in the spending Departments, and will give rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction indeed. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon.) hinted that there would be a chronic warfare taking place between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, but I cannot see any reason for this, although one is an ardent Protectionist and the other is an ardent Free Trader, or was formerly, because they will be absolutely essential to one another if this scheme were carried through in its present form. There would always be a temptation for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to rely on these duties not altogether for safeguarding industry, but to enable him to fall back on a certain source of revenue, should the estimate of his Budget fall short of expectation.

Half way through the fiscal year, if he were informed that there was a deficit, he would only have to ring up the President of the Board of Trade and say to him: "What necessitous industries have you on your list to-day" The President of the Board of Trade would reply: "We have almost all our industries in need of protection." Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would merely reply to him: "Please protect sufficient of them to bring me in enough revenue to cover the deficit on my Budget for the ensuing year." That, case might very easily arise if the Measure is carried through in its present form, whereas, if we have a moderate tariff all round, the Exchequer officials would be able to calculate, with that accuracy which they always display, within a very short space of time, the exact sum of money, the exact revenue, which might be expected to accrue each year from this source.

While welcoming these proposals as a start in the right direction, I sincerely hope the Government will not rest content with what they have accomplished. I think, whatever pledges have been given, that could we get an independent vote at the present time, the enormous majority of the electorate would be found in favour of a change in our fiscal system. They clearly showed it at the last General Election, because a very great number voted for the Conservative Party, still thinking we reserved full liberty of action to carry through our Tariff Reform programme, and I think the Election of 1923 was not really a vote against Protection at all. There were so many extraneous circumstances which entered into it, that we never got a clear issue. I shall support wholeheartedly these proposals which the Government have introduced, but I trust they are only the beginning of a larger policy, which would not only extend Protection to certain industries, but extend it to the whole lot, so that all will be put on an equal footing, which, I firmly believe, is the only way in which our commercial prosperity can be built up in the future, and, if built up, it will he the solution of nearly all the social evils from which we are suffering at the present time.

I am sure the House has enjoyed the vigorous speech with which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has entered these Debates. The name which he has reintroduced into this House was noted for vigour and strength of Protectionist conviction in a previous generation, and I am sure that the same qualities are going to be repeated. In the speech of the Prime Minister there was one part of his explanation with which I am bound to say I was very disappointed. I gather now from the explanation he has given us, that when these proposals are brought before the House in future they are not in a normal year to be brought before the House in the form of a separate Bill which the House can discuss, but are to be included in the general Finance Bill, which would he discussed in any circumstances. I think that this procedure is going to be disadvantageous to all sides of the House, and will make it impossible to have a fair and full discussion, either of the new proposals or the Finance Bill in general. Members who have been in this House in previous years know well enough the conditions under which the Finance Bill is passed. That Bill is always limited by a time-table. A certain stage of its passage has to be passed within a certain period. The result is that many of the most important discussion on the Finance Bill take place in the early hours of the morning. We always sit up late on the Finance Bill, and the result of this system is going to be that these new proposals will mostly be discussed in the early hours of the morning. We shall have no fair chance of discussing them, and no fair chance of discussing the other features of the Finance Bill.

I have been listening to the speeches from the opposite side of the House, and one fact that has impressed me is that there has not been a single speech which has given any whole-hearted support to these proposals, but the argument that has been used in a good many speeches, extend it to the whole lot, so that all will be put on an equal footing, which, I firmly system has been adopted in the United States, Germany and France, why should it be so foolish to adopt it, here? I think the answer to that argument is that the conditions of this country are altogether different from those of the United States, or Germany, or France. These conditions the White Paper has not taken into account. The position of unemployment in this country at this moment is very peculiar. It is not the same as it used to be before the War. A large proportion of the people of this country—I believe not far from one-half—are engaged in producing goods to be sold abroad. They are engaged in export trade, and the chief fact about the present unemployment, which this White Paper does not take into account, is that it is in this unfortunate section of trade making for export that the greater proportion of the unemployment is at present to be found. The Ministry of Labour published, a week or two ago, a statement showing the industries in which there were the greatest number of persons on the Unemployment Registers at the employment exchanges. That statement showed that about three-quarters of those who are at present unemployed are engaged either in industries in which there is no foreign competition, or in industries which are making for the foreign market.

That is my main objection to this White Paper. If these proposals are put forward in order to help the unemployed, we are entitled to ask how they are going to assist these export industries which are in the worst plight of all, and where the unemployment is particularly acute. There is no answer. They do not assist them, and that is why these proposals appear to me to be a mockery. They consist of a proposal for the safeguarding of industries, and, in reality, omit the very industries which are most feeling the depression of trade at the present moment. But the position is worse. So far as these proposals have any effect at all, the effect must be to raise the cost of manufacture and production in these industries, and to put them in still greater difficulties than they are plunged in already. During the last few years, whenever there has been a conference between employers and workers, the advice that the employers have given the workers has always been, if they want to get more employment, if they want to hold their own in competition with foreign countries, with rival nations, who were competing with us in prices, they must keep down the cost of production. Why is not that advice transferred to the Government now?

I say it will be impossible to apply a tariff to any industries of substantial importance without including within those tariffs goods which, at some stage or another, are used for the production of those manufactured articles on which the bulk of our exports depend. I know the White Paper has an answer. It says that the Board of Trade Committees may, if they wish, take into account the fact that the articles on which the tariffs are imposed may be utilised in other industries, and refuse the tariff on that account. But where does that lead us? If they are going to do that, then I say the proposals in this White Paper are dead already. A little time ago the Board of Trade published the annual figures showing that goods coming into this country for home consumption amounted to about £1,100,000,000. Those figures are always very carefully analysed, and I think impartially, every year in "The Economist." They made their usual analysis, and it showed that of the goods coming into this country, almost 9 per cent consist of goods which, at some stage or another, are utilised for the production of other goods, and that the remaining 5 per cent. consists of goods in industries where the unemployment is not acute.

Therefore, I say that our position is that these proposals will add to the difficulties of unemployment. Our contention is that the Board of Trade cannot exercise at all the power that is given in this White Paper unless it includes within its scope some industries which enter into the cost of production of our export trade, and will, therefore, plunge these trades into greater difficulties than they have already got to meet. The special point we wish to make from these benches is that we have alternative methods of dealing with this difficulty. One of the greatest objections to the proposals in this White Paper is that our debates in this House, and the minds of our followers in the country, will be diverted from the more far-reaching and fundamental methods of meeting this problem, in order to go back to the old discussion of the fiscal issue. I say our proposals would be more effective. The hon. Member for Moseley spoke of the wages and the hours of labour in Germany. Well, take that question. I say the Government's proposal will be ineffective. Their proposal is that if in some foreign country, say, Germany or Czechoslovakia, goods are being produced and sent here, and their wages are lower than here, or the hours of labour are longer, then we should impose a tariff, not against that country in particular, but against every country in the world, including America, where the wages are better than here. So that the result of these proposals is that the country at which you are aiming will not be in any way specially penalised, but will be left in exactly the same relative position in comparison with other countries as it is at the present moment.

8.0 P.M.

That scheme is bound to defeat itself. You cannot level up the conditions of labour in foreign countries by those means. We must insist on our alternative proposals. Take the reference of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) in regard to the hours of labour in Germany. He said that in Westphalia the hours at present being worked were 55 per week. That may be so. If, however, you want to deal with that difficulty, the way to do it is to ratify the Convention for an international 48 hours week that was passed at Washington. As a matter of fact, we came to an agreement with Germany. The Minister of Labour in the late Government, and representatives of Germany, France and Belgium, came to an agreement by which they agreed to sign the ratification of the 48 hours week, which they thought was possible in the four countries. We know the late Government's intentions. Is the present Government going to introduce a Bill? When I was fighting the last Election all around me Conservative candidates were pledging themselves to a 48 hours week by law. No such Bill was mentioned in the King's Speech. They have put forward these proposals instead. I say that such a Bill would do more to level up the conditions and hours of labour in foreign countries in a year than the proposals of this White Paper would do in a century.

There is one other alternative proposal which has not been mentioned, which I know I could not develop very far now, but which, I think, I am entitled to say something about. There is always a certain amount of unemployment in the present system of society, but the reason for the excessive and abnormal unemployment at the present moment is, as the House thoroughly acknowledges, due to the confusion and dislocation in foreign countries, this affecting the trade in our export industries. The only way to bring that confusion and dislocation to an end is to bring Europe back to full production once again. That is to follow the policy of peace and conciliation in our direction of foreign affairs. I think the Labour party are entitled to claim that on the whole the late Government did make a genuine and serious attempt to introduce an atmosphere of peace into our foreign policy. That attempt has been responded to in Europe. M. Herriot was making a series of conciliatory speeches towards Germany in a very different tone to the speeches which he has made since the present Government came into office—a very different tone indeed. The whole of Europe was responding to the spirit in our Foreign Office. I venture to say that was a better line than that of the White Paper. The best line to pursue would be to allow the proposals of this White Paper quietly to sink into disuse and oblivion and to return to that international outlook found in our Foreign Office until three months ago.

I listened to a maiden speech delivered by an hon. Member on the Labour Benches earlier in the Debate this afternoon, a very able and eloquent speech which commenced with a somewhat Pharisaic hymn of praise thanking Heaven that the Labour party was not as the other parties were. I agree with the hon. Member that his party is not responsible in any way for the proposals adopted by a section of the Opposition. Therefore the majority of my strictures will apply more to the Liberal Benches than to the Labour Benches. I observe for the moment that the Liberal Benches are rather more empty than is usually the case. That, however, will not prevent me from ad- dressing myself to the Liberal party in connection with my speech which will apply to both sections of the Opposition.

Every hon. Member on this side of the House fully appreciates how embarrassing is the predicament in which both sections of the Opposition must find themselves during a discussion of this sort. It is obvious to us that their present condition of discontent is not to be attributed to any action of the Government, but rather to its refusal to embark upon a policy which has been so adroitly misrepresented in their constituencies by hon. Members opposite. Being deprived of a more legitimate occasion for their purpose they are delivering themselves of utterances which might conceivably have produced some effect outside this House had the Prime Minister betrayed the electors. Unfortunately for themselves, just as they were taking aim, the Prime Minister removed the target. I myself should have thought that if there was any occasion for dissatisfaction: that if there was any complaint to be lodged from any quarter of the House it should emanate, not from the Free Trade stalwarts on the opposite side of the House, but front the more ardent Tariff Reform supporters of the Prime Minister on these benches. In view of the Prime Minister's recent announcements at the General Election, in the country, and in Parliament, I think it is a little ungracious on the part of hon. Members opposite to stigmatise us as Protectionists, and I am bound to confess that I think it is correspondingly forbearing of Tariff Reformers on this side of the House not to resent more than they do the complete emasculation of our original fiscal programme.

It was very intriguing earlier in the Session to watch the consternation depicted on the countenances of hon. Members opposite when the Prime Minister announced that he was going to adopt the plain man's interpretation of the category "foodstuffs." I do not know what is the Prime Minister's definition of a plain man, but the effect of his words upon hon. Members opposite indicated that that the cap had fitted in that quarter of the House.

Liberal Members had hoped when the Prime Minister opened the cupboard they would have been provided with the meal they had looked forward to with such eager and sanguine anticipation. But that the Tariff Reform larder was empty, the shelves were bare, and that there was no bone of contention left for the poor Free Trade dog. The absence of any meat to get their teeth into is not the only difficulty which besets hon. Members opposite in a discussion of this nature. It is a noteworthy circumstance that neither of the two Measures which are before Parliament can be remotely traced to any connection with Tariff Reform or can be said to be derived from our exclusive, authorship. If we are to decide who is the sire of the Safeguarding of Industries scheme, if affiliation order is to be made out, it should not attach to these benches, but rather to the benches opposite. True, we have adopted the poor discarded foundling, but now that we come to investigate its antecedents, we find that it even has some of the blue blood of the De Veres circulating in its veins.

It seems to have become more and more the practice of Governments to adopt the policy of their predecessors. Continuity of policy seems to be the prevalent fashion. We have had the Minister of Health adopting the housing policy of his predecessor. I understand the Minister of Education is going to pursue a corresponding course in his Department. And now, of all things in the world, we are going to have continuity of fiscal policy. As far as our Debates are concerned, I observe that that policy operates very much to the advantage of the Government of the day and very much to the detriment of the Opposition, for this very simple reason. It is the duty of an Opposition to oppose, and that when an hon. Member opposite finds that it is his duty to oppose a Measure in opposition which it was his duty to promote in office, it requires all the legal acumen of such an able advocate as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to render such a proceeding in the very slightest degree convincing. If I might be allowed to offer a suggestion to any hon. Member who does find himself in this pathetic predicament, I should advise him, if there comes a change of Government, instead of changing his views, as right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the Labour Benches seem to have done, to follow a distinguished precedent when there is a change of Government and cross the Floor of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as I know, is one of the few late Liberal leaders who is absolutely consistent in this matter of the safeguarding of industries. Several other hon. and right bon. Gentlemen are highly inconsistent—the Earl of Oxford, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs—in this discussion on the safeguarding of industries, and if they want to avoid a charge of inconsistency they ought on this occasion to at least vote in our Lobby.

What is really the gravamen of the charge which appears in both the Motions on the Paper to-day? Though they are worded differently, the charge is really the same in both. There is the same, fallacy apparent in both. The Labour Motion protests that this scheme is likely to prejudice the working classes while the Liberal Motion is apprehensive that it will be detrimental to the poor. I do not know whether the use of these two expressions, "working classes" and "poor" are meant to be synonymous. I am not sure that the expression "poor" is not a rather more comprehensive term. In any case it is alleged that this scheme will be against the interests of the working classes. Since when has the Manchester school been solicitous for the interests of the working classes? Is any Liberal or Labour Member going to tell this House that Cobden's advocacy of Free Trade was in the interest of the working classes? Of course it was not. It was due entirely to misguided solicitude for the industrial middle classes. Anybody who has studied the question seriously knows that perfectly well, and I think it would be sublime and lefty and preposterous for any Labour Member to get up and protest that he was a disciple of Cobden. It would he a flimsy disguise which would not deceive anybody who had given the matter a moment's consideration if they on those benches were to try to prove that Communism and Cobdenism are compatible. Ingenuity could go no further.

When we come to generalisations—and I think this is an academic Debate—the second general charge against this scheme is that not only might it be to the detriment of the employed but it might increase the profits of the employers. Supposing it did increase them. Supposing it 'had the effect of swelling the pockets of the profiteer—what a disturbing reflection !—how would that be detrimental to the interests of the working classes? Let us put all cant aside in this matter of profits. There is no doubt about it, on a question of profits the interests of the employers and the employed are absolutely identical.

The scheme in principle, and largely in substance, is identical with the scheme brought forward in 1921, which in those days received the blessing of Free Traders. Any argument you can level at the scheme in the White Paper could be levelled with greater force and greater cogency against the scheme of 1921. There is no difference in principle, although I am prepared to concede that there is considerable difference in quality, and I have no doubt that the present scheme is a much more efficient instrument for the fulfilment of its purpose. Hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, instead of being captious, should be grateful, for imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has admitted in years gone by that there was nothing in this scheme of the Safeguarding of Industries inconsistent with the principles of Free Trade. I have yet to learn that there is anything in Heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth which is incompatible with the principles of Free Trade. I suppose it was not inconsistent with the principles of Free Trade that in the last Parliament Liberal Members voted resolutely for the maintenance of food taxes. How is it that in all the years they were in office they did not abolish food taxes altogether, in accordance with their perpetually-recurring pledge to the electorate?

Do we live in a Free Trade country, or do we live in a country with high protective duties, which are not inconsistent with the principles of Free Trade? Ask the travel-stained foreigner when he arrives at a London terminus, and comes out of the great engagement with the Customs, ask him if we live in a Free Trade country? Or is he to console himself with the reflection that the rifling of his luggage is not inconsistent with the principles of Free Trade? I wish I could profess the Free Trade faith. I wish I could reconcile my conscience to that very elastic view. I think almost anything can be briefly comprehended in the same Free Trade, but not even the fact of having passed through three elections in two years has rendered my conscience sufficiently servile to allow me to be a convert. I will be converted when that question is answered which was put to the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, when he was asked why it was, if all the fulminations we have heard against the Protective doctrine were true, that America had not got rid of it? As soon as that question is answered to my satisfaction I shall be converted. I say that Members of the Opposition, of all sections, are committing a great and suicidal blunder in protesting against a Measure which, far from being detrimental to the interests of the working classes, is calculated to save them from the fate they so much dread. It was, indeed, incredible on the part of the Opposition to ask the Prime Minister to give them one helping of this discussion, and then to ask for more in order to renew what is only an academic debate, a mere squandering and wasting of the valuable time of this House.

The hon. Member who has just sat down said we had listened to several academic speeches this afternoon, and I believe I am correct in saying that he followed in the same strain.

I want to show as briefly as I can what is the effect of this scheme in the White Paper on the important and staple industry of South Wales, the tinplate, steel and sheet industry. The last speaker pointed out that on the Liberal Benches the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had been very inconsistent in so far as his Free Trade policy was concerned, and that the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) had also been inconsistent in so far as his Paris resolutions were concerned, and I believe he also mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may point out to the hon. Member that the Labour party have always been consistent on this question. We have always maintained that neither Free Trade nor Protection is going to solve our social problems, but taking Free Trade and Protection as they affect us at present, and also the policy under which the country is governed, we think that Free Trade is better than Protection.

Some time ago the President of the Board of Trade, who I am sorry to see is not here, came to Swansea and delivered a speech to the members of the Swansea Chamber of Commerce. Although the speech was not a political one he gave our people in South Wales some very good advice, and it was to the effect that if you wanted to succeed in industry, the best thing to do was to advertise, and he said, "Advertise, advertise, advertise." In this White Paper you are repudiating even the advice that the right hon. Gentleman gave to the people of Wales. If I understand international trade and economics, according to this White Paper you are going to prevent foreigners from sending goods into this country. As I understand international trade, unless you buy from other people you cannot expect to sell to them, because the basis of international trade is an exchange of goods for goods.

Take the tinplate trade in South Wales. We had a very great struggle in trying to establish the tinplate trade in South Wales, especially after the severe blow we received as a result of the American McKinley Tariff in 1891, when, I believe, out of 91 firms 47 of them went into liquidation. Therefore, in South Wales we had to take off our coats and roll up our sleeves and work for the purpose of opening new markets in other countries. I think we have done that exceedingly well, because if you take the exports of tinplates in 1923 you will discover that we exported to foreign countries 551,124 tons, whereas in 1891, before the McKinley Tariff was put into operation, the exports to America, which was practically our only market, were something like 230,000 tons.

I have listened to several of the speeches in the House to-day, and they all seem to be working round the steel industry of the country. They say, let us prevent Germany, Belgium, France, America and other countries importing their steel into this country. There are' two kinds of steel being manufactured in this country. I have been connected with the steel trade, tin plate, and sheet trade for the last 40 years. We have in the steel trade what we call the finished article. There are steel rails, girders, fish plates, wire rods and various other finished articles in the steel trade. There is also steel produced which is a raw material to another industry, and it is to that aspect of the question I will direct my attention as far as South Wales is concerned.

In Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire you have half the population of Wales, and they are mainly dependent upon the tin plate trade. You also have subsidiary industries, or, if you like to call them by another name, they are dependent industries in so far as the tin plate trade is concerned. These are the industries dependent upon the export of tin plate. You have the steel industry itself, and that is dependent upon the tin plate trade; you have also a part of the coal industry that is supplying them with gas, bituminous and steam coal. You have the engineering works and foundries, box makers, the railways and also the dockers in connection with the shipping of the tin plates. These are the industries which are really dependent as far as the tin plate trade is concerned.

According to the White Paper inquiries are to be made by a Committee set up by the Board of Trade to find out whether cheap foreign goods imported into this country are going to be injurious to some particular trades. What I should like to know from the President of the Board of Trade is this: Let us for a moment take for an example the Prime Minister's works at Baldwin's, Port Talbot. He has a modern works producing perhaps an output more than any other steel works in South Wales. If they are able to show a profit of 3,000 tons per week output of tin plate bars, and another works in the same trade with dilapidated machinery which has not moved with the times is unable to show a profit because cheap steel is being imported into South Wales, is the works with the dilapidated machinery to be allowed to come before the Committee of the Board of Trade and put up a case, and if they succeed in showing that the foreigners are able to import their steel cheaper because they pay lower wages and have worse conditions, is the steel trade in South Wales because that case has been made out to have a tariff? Are you going to impose the tariff on the foreign goods imported into this country because that particular works has made out its case?

I will not answer that question now, but I will put it to my right hon. Friend when he comes in.

In South Wales today practically every steel manufacturer is a Tory and a Protectionist. If they met together and decided that they were going before this Committee in order to ask the Government to impose a tariff on steel imported into South Wales, I want to ask this question: Are the Labour leaders in connection with that industry, and the workmen employed in that industry who are Free Traders, going to be allowed to come up and give evidence as well as the employers?

So far as the industries in South Wales are concerned, I will give the figures, because we may as well get them on record. We consume in the tinplate industry 3,683,000 tons of coal. We consume of iron ore, for conversion into pig iron, 3,465,000 tons. Of limestone Nye consume 594,000 tons; of coke we consume 1,278,000 tons; of pig iron we consume 990,000 tons; of steel we consume 900,000 tons and of tinplates we produce 750,000 tons. The hon. Gentleman will realise, therefore, how dependent even the mining industry is on the tinplate industry in South Wales. If a tariff is imposed on steel imported into this country, and if that is going to affect the mining industry in South Wales, will the President of the Board of Trade receive a deputation of the miners' representatives and the mineowners?

Perhaps I might answer the hon. Member's question right away. Surely, the whole basis of the scheme is that evidence shall be heard from all sides of industry—both from the industry applying for assistance and from those industries which may be affected by that—

Dependent or affected—surely, that is the whole basis of the scheme. The whole idea of the Government in putting forward this scheme is that they are prepared to give a hearing to everyone concerned.

That, of course, satisfies me, because I know that, so far as South Wales is concerned, we shall never have a tariff there. I think it is full time we should speak out on these matters. As it was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), everything is topsy-turvy so far as the industries of this country are concerned. I think you are commencing at the wrong end. I think that, if the Government commenced making an investigation as to the profits paid on capital, as to the wages paid to the workers, and as to the effect of that on the consumers in the country, they would do far more good to the country than by trying to lead the country astray by the submission of this White Paper.

I should like to put to the President of the Board of Trade a suggestion which I think is worth considering. In industry to-day the first consideration is always given to capital: the second consideration is always given to the consumers; the third consideration is given to the wages paid to the workers. I think that that ought to be reversed altogether, and that the first consideration in industry ought to be given to the wages of the workmen. If the workmen were given sufficient wages to enable them to buy back what they produce, we should not require to be discussing this question of tariffs in accordance with the proposals of the Government in this White Paper. I submit to the President of the Board of Trade that a proposal of this kind is not going to help industry in any way. The last speaker pointed out that the policy of the late Prime Minister (Mr. MacDonald), in trying to get foreign countries to do away with their tariffs, is a far better policy than the policy now being adopted by this Government. We have been taught, through our economics, that, unless we are prepared to take the goods of other countries, we cannot expect other countries to take the goods that we produce here. Therefore, in my opinion, the proposal in this White Paper is simply the thin end of Protection.

If we adopt the policy of insular Protection in this country we can have no external trade whatever. Why? Because, as I think everyone who understands economics knows, trade is an exchange of goods for goods. For every pound's worth of foreign goods imported into this country, British goods to the same value must be consumed abroad. That explodes the Protectionist fallacy that an importation of foreign goods into this country destroys home trade. We ought to try to encourage other countries to take off their tariffs, instead of trying to encourage them to put those tariffs up. With the growth and integration of cosmopolitan trade, with the riches of the Eastern world and all the wealth that human ingenuity can create, goods will be brought to the doors of rich and poor alike. It is the poor only who will have to suffer under tariffs; the rich will never have to suffer. Therefore, with this policy of Free Trade and its encouragement in other countries, commercial and military quarrels will be abolished.

I am just speaking of our Labour policy. We do not think that Free Trade is going to solve these problems. In view of the hon. Gentleman's announcement that dependent industries will be permitted to tender evidence as well as others, I am not afraid that these tariffs will be imposed in South Wales. I, therefore, shall go into the Lobby in support of the Resolution.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Griffiths) into the Lobby, and I wish to give the reasons why I do not follow that course. First I shoo" like to say that the Debate has resulted in the intervention of several Members who have made their maiden speeches, and I think the Rouse must have been more than gratified to know that we have men here who are a credit to their constituencies, and I feel sure they will be listened to with respect. I welcome the procedure which the Government have intimated they propose to adopt in connection with the safeguarding of industries, but I should like to remind them that this procedure will be judged solely by the results obtained, and the earnestness with which it is followed. If its operation is going to prove as cumber- some and unwieldy as the Safeguarding of Industries Act, many industries to which it might properly apply will have ceased to exist before it can operate. In other words, while the physicians are consulting as to the method of treatment the patient will have died. Consequently I am not wildly enthusiastic about the proposal, but on the principle that half a loaf is better than none, I shall be very pleased to support the Government. In the meantime I accept it at its face value, on the presumption that the right hon. Gentleman who will be responsible for administering the Act will ensure that the procedure is expeditious and is applied without fear or favour, and with the single-minded purpose of dealing with the grave situation for which if was devised, namely, the conservation of our industries of national importance and the consequent relief to the burden of un employment and taxation under which the country is still staggering, and a continuation of which must be an admission of the bankruptcy of our political and industrial statesmanship which does not do credit to the Government or any of the other parties, because when all is said and done, we ore all responsible for doing our best to relieve the present situation.

I have quite recently had an opportunity of making myself acquainted with one of the industries with which I propose to deal, and with which my hon. Friend has just dealt at some length, though he has been more particularly concerned with the conversion of semi-finished products. I have been both in the Ruhr and in Westphalia, and compared the activity there with the activity we have in this country at present, and during the last few weeks I have visited some of the great steel works of America. It is very distressing indeed to find on my return, in the first paper I pick up, that Messrs. Baird are closing down seven of their blast furnaces in Scotland. Scotland is only operating about 25 per cent. of her total blast furnace capacity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Let us endeavour to find out why, and bring our best brains to the solution. This, in my opinion, is not a party question at all. I should be quite satisfied to submit it to a Tariff Committee, the same as they do in America and in Australia. What we have to arrive at is the best we can do for a particular industry. In the old days in the industrial districts in the Midlands, the whole country used to be lit up by the blast furnaces. You see now total blackness, deserted villages, and unemployment. Surely it is incumbent on all of us to do our best to find a solution. I was surprised to see that a noble Lord who is temporarily leading the Liberal party in the House of Lords said he was very thankful that the Conservative party had mentioned the question of the safeguarding of industries because it gave them a good war cry. If that be the spirit in which we are to deal with this making a party question of a thing like this, heaven help us I Let us alter or amend or bring in a counter-propositon, but do not be satisfied to go on as we are doing at present.

There are many industries which it must be patent to the most prejudiced are most important, and completely fulfil the conditions set forth in the White Paper under which safeguarding shall be applied. I have some knowledge of the iron and steel trade, though I am not interested in any concern in this country, and I think it will be recognised that it is a basic industry of national importance of which it is not too extravagant to say all other producing industries ultimately depend directly or indirectly. Yet what is its position to-day I read an interview with one of the steel masters of this country, Mr. Benjamin Talbot, whose experience has not been confined to this country but who has made himself acquainted with the industry in the United States, and whose process is well known both here and in America. He says his conviction is that the iron and steel trade should be included in the scope of the Government's plan for the extension of safeguarding of industry. He views the present position of the industries with serious apprehension. In 1913 our exports of steel were 4,969,295 tons and our imports 2,330,000 tons. In 1924 our exports were 3,853,000 tons, a loss of 1,100,000 tons. He says no country can hope to be a leading steel maker, as now understood, unless it produces pig iron and steel ingots. If it relies on the importation of pig iron and semi-finished steel its days are numbered as a steel producer. The great question for the country is to find useful employment for its population. Labour is protected and the cost of coal, transport and heavy local and national taxation is placing the steel trade in an impossible condition as regards competing at the same price with Continental production.

I just gave you the figures as given by Mr. Talbot. You can correct them if you think they are wrong. The Board of Trade index figure of selling prices shows that this particular industry—and some people criticise it in regard to its inefficiency—has reduced the selling price of its products to 35 per cent. above the prices ruling in 1913. I doubt if any other staple commodity has effected a reduction approaching this figure. I think that is a fair argument. This with coal used in the industry at approximately 80 per cent. above prewar—four tons of it go to the making of a ton of steel—general commodities 71 per cent. and with transport upwards of 50 per cent. In addition to these, the charges due to local and national taxation amount, on the average throughout the country, to ten shillings a ton, being approximately three times what they were in pre-war days. In every direction the scales are weighted against us, and in a manner quite beyond the control of those engaged in the industry. The state of the British iron and steel industry is a matter of grave national concern, and throws upon those responsible for the Government the duty of formulating a policy which will secure for British industries the elementary conditions for continued existence. The remarkable results achieved in selling prices—

I was quoting from a recognised authority, and I want to make my own statement in my own way. The remarkable results achieved in selling prices refutes any criticism that may be made by those ignorant of the facts of the industry, that its difficulties are clue to inefficiency. In spite of the efforts of the employers and the employed in this industry—and there is a measure of co-operation in the industry which reflects credit on all concerned—it cannot be said that this industry at the present, time is successful. The imports of iron and steel are 11 per cent. greater than they were in 1913, and our exports, on which we depend for over 60 per cent. of our markets, are 22½ per cent. less. This, with a volume of production, measured in steel, of only 9 per cent. more, and with an increased productive capacity of 50 per cent. over 1913. I am alarmed at the progress which has been made in other countries, and it is incumbent upon us to see what can be done to improve matters. I have had an opportunity quite recently of visiting Rotterdam, which is the receiving port for all the ore used in the Ruhr and Westphalia. In 1920, something like 1,200,000 tons a year were imported there. The figures went up until 1922, but as a result of the Ruhr occupation the importations went down in 1923 to about 1,500,000 tons. Since then they have increased, and last year the imports of ore to Germany through Rotterdam amounted to 6,100,000 tons. That is a startling contrast to what is going on in this country.

I am making no complaint, but I am pointing out that she is making this wonderful progress in the steel trade, and I want to know how it is that, on the other hand, our production is decreasing to such a startling extent. Germany has many opportunities of providing for her reparations. The whole of her internal indebtedness has been wiped out. The 40,000,000 a year which she had to spend for her navy has been wiped out, and instead of having to provide for an army of 1,500,000 men she has now only to provide for an army of 100,000. There is no question about it that she could pay her reparations

The iron and steel industry is the basic weapon upon which the war was fought and won, and it has deserved every encouragement so far as this Parliament is concerned. I am speaking as an unsophisticated Australian, who realises that England's greatness has been built up on its iron, steel and coal industries. We want to know how best we can help these industries, and we are endeavouring to-night to ascertain by means of this discussion. I listened with great interest to the speech of the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, with characteristic eloquence, pointed out how he considers we are wrong. I listened to the reasons given by him three or four years ago why we should adopt a similar course for the safeguarding of industry. The conditions to-day are the same as then. We have the depreciated currencies which are the same so far as France and Belgium are concerned. What is the position of our wages? It must be realised that Germany is paying to her skilled workers for a 60-hour week 70 gold pfennig, the equivalent of 42s. per week against an average payment in this country to a corresponding class of workers in the iron and steel industry of 3s. for a 48-hour week. That means that the German employee is working 25 per cent. longer and receiving 50 per cent. less in wages. That gives some idea of the competitive conditions against which we have to contend.

9.0 P. M.

We have been told that as a result of over-capitalisation there is a certain amount of difficulty in the iron and steel trades. That over-capitalisation of the steel industry occurred during the War, when they were encouraged to double their capacity The position to-day is that the capacity of the steel industry is 50 per cent, greater than in 1915, but the production is not nearly enough. So far as France and Belgium are concerned, not only do they get an advantage in regard to' wages as a result of depreciated currency, but also in regard to railway rates. Something like seven tons of materials have to be carried over the railways for the production of one ton of steel. The export rates for the carriage on the Continent for comparable distances are one-half to one-third less than the British rates. As showing the importance of the iron and steel industry in this country and its effect on the other industries, I might say that the revenue obtained from the iron and steel industry by the railway companies of this country represents 15 per cent. of their total freight revenue, while of the total tonnage carried no less than 18 per cent. is carried as the result of the steel trade.

I suppose I am neither a Free Trader nor a Protectionist, but I do say that we must safeguard our industries, and particularly the iron and steel industry on which England's greatness has been built up. My Labour friends are Free Traders. I have stood four square with Labour men in Australia who have been out and out Protectionists. The late Prime Minister gave an instance of some of the Protective measures adopted by Australia when he was there in 1906, on which occasion I had an opportunity of meeting him in a more responsible position. He asked, Why did Australia take that stand, having regard to the starvation that existed in Bradford? They were justified in putting on that measure of Protection. So to-day we are justified in adopting safeguarding measures for our industries against foreign competition. So far as Australia is concerned, we have got a very substantial Preference, but the Australians have realised that they are giving that Preference under false pretences and that much of the steel that is imported into this country is simply re-rolled here and sent out there and is, therefore, not a genuine British product. Therefore, they will insist, before the Preference is extended by New Zealand or Australia, that 75 per cent. of the money expended on the production of the article, either on labour or raw material, must be expended in this country. Hon. Members who are supporting this Motion would lose that Preference and that market In conclusion I wish to express appreciation of the attention with which hon. Members have listened to my remarks.

I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down, but in one respect he does Members on this side an injustice. It has been said frequently to-night that Members here repose no particular confidence in Free Trade. I do not think that Members are particularly likely to be described as Free Traders but on the other hand the majority do not wish to be described as Protectionists. We believe and hope that there is a more excellent way which will help to build the industries of this country without incurring the difficulties which would be brought into existence by any full Protectionist tariff. But the House is not this evening discussing a Protectionist tariff. The House is discussing a Motion by the leader of the party to which I belong and by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with the safe- guarding of industries suggestions of the Government and saying that the policy of the Government and the methods by which it is proposed to carry out that policy must lead to a system of general tariffs, which will not enlarge the volume of trade and safeguard the conditions of the workers as regards wages and conditions of labour. I confess that I am very disappointed at the terms of that particular Motion, for while the proposal of the Government has at least the merit of being positive, the Motion put down by the right hon. Gentleman is a purely negative proposition and a negative proposition is not exactly the kind of thing to become enthusiastic about. I would much rather have seen an alternative constructive proposal put down as a policy in opposition to that proposed by the Government.

We want something definite that we can work on, something which we can begin to do. We do not want to be always continually marking time as we have been up to the present. These discussions, to which I have listened since I had the honour of becoming a Member of the House of Commons, dealing with Protection and Free Trade have always seemed to me to be like the introduction to a book which you never reach. There is always a discussion about something which is going to happen and nothing actually has happened up to the present until the proposal of the Government for safeguarding industries has come forward, which at least has the merit of being a positive proposal. For, if you take this Motion in its literal sense, does it mean that there is no choice between the alternative of the safeguarding of industries according to the Government proposal and the old policy of laissez faire ? Has the old policy of Free Trade pursued in this country for so long brought such incalculable benefits? [HON. MEMBERS: "No" and "Yes."] I notice that even that mild rhetorical question of mine provokes a certain amount of dissent.

A curious feature about these Debates is that they always in one way or another drag in the question of the immorality of those who profess Protection. It is a very interesting subject for psychological investigation into the mind of man, but I have never yet been able to understand why Free Trade should be so exceedingly moral and Protection should lead men to abuses which are darkly hinted at in this House. There is a curious suggestion which occasionally comes forward in the course of this Debate. We have had hon. and right hon. Gentlemen driven to somewhat excessive statements in order to justify their position. The right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who, I am sorry, is not in his place, dealt with the procedure of the Committee which it is proposed to set up under the Safeguarding of Industry proposals set out, in the White Paper. He spoke of the Committee first considering in secret and then springing its attacks and rushing the House of Commons. I have been a member of many committees, and I have never found any committees energetic enough to do anything so vigorous, and I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman really meant that any committee could do anything 60 much like the procedure of Guy Fawkes as to attempt to rush the House of Commons. But does not the unreality of this Debate force us to try to discover whether there is not some better means of dealing with the subject than these bare alternatives?

I am convinced because of the balance of parties in this House that the House will not accept the Motion on the Paper this evening. I am equally convinced that it would he very improper to accept it, and I am emphatically convinced that the great body of labour opinion in the country would be opposed to this if this were the beginning and end of the statement of the problem. Is the new slogan of the Labour party to be "back to Liberalism, tinged with pink"? I remember one of the Bab ballads, in which somebody prescribed lavender water tinged with pink. I do not think that this is ever likely to become a popular drink in this country, certainly not in Labour circles. I would suggest that there should be no place in modern political discussions for these negative programmes, and that you must have positive suggestions on one side or the other. I would even suggest that political parties in future will more and more divide themselves along the lines of cleavage of practical considerations and not on those of abstract theoretical considerations.

The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) put a rhetorical question to the President of the Board of Trade. He asked, "What is the case for the safeguarding of industries?" and he proceeded to demolish any hypothetical case which there might be. As the right hon. Gentleman was speaking there flowed into my mind what must be in the minds of a great many hon. and right hon. Members—the figures as to the number of unemployed in this country. I do not want to go in for what is called in this House "sob-stuff," but that picture of the unemployed unable to get work, and. the under-employed, constitutes a very strong and very serious case for a thorough investigation of the conditions of our industries at the present time, and it is a very urgent matter indeed that the state of our industries should be investigated. How is that to be done? You cannot feed the army of the unemployed on Free Trade pamphlets; you cannot feed them on the hopes of a revival of world trade. Whether that revival is coining or is not coming, it is certainly not a matter of the next few months, and the unemployed are men who live, not from year to year or from month to month, but from day to day, and require clay by day the money to buy the food which feeds them. Nor, with all respect, can you feed the unemployed on the achievements of foreign policy, excellent as those things may be.

Is the alternative the Safeguarding of Industry or nothing at all? Then I say emphatically that this House ought to decide for the Safeguarding of Industries without any hesitation. Is that the only possibility? What other possibilities are there? Free Trade has been tried. Free Trade to a certain and limited extent exists now. Fret Trade has not made living cheap. Free Trade has not caused bread to remain at a low price. Bread is going up and meat is up. Foodstuffs generally, clothing, furniture and boots are all expensive now, while we enjoy the blessings of Free Trade. I believe that we ought to do very much more to try to cope with the difficulties of the present situation and get a real policy. I cannot refer in detail, except by way of illustration, to what our policy ought to be. I believe, however, that we want a very vigorous policy of development of the resources of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and that that is a very important and first step. Would it not be possible to enlarge the operation of the Committee set up under the Board of Trade by the Labour Government, make it into a kind of National Economy Committee, make a systematic inquiry into and survey of industry and trade in this country, and see whether organisation is deficient and to help and create new industries where they are required?

I do not mean that you want to control or interfere with industries unnecessarily, because I do not believe that that is practical politics at the present time, but I do think that a complete survey of the field of trade would help us a great deal to see whether we are really making an adequate use of our resources in this country. For instance, take the question of building materials. Are building materials being manufactured in adequate quantities in this country? Are there any rings or combines holding up that manufacture? Is there any restriction of output in any manufacture, which is prejudicial both to the country and to those employed in the country? All of these questions want very close looking into indeed. The leader of the Labour party spoke of using the machinery of the International Labour Office, and I am very glad that he did so, for, if I may say so with all respect, it was the only constructive proposal that came out of his speech. But the machinery of the International Labour Office is very complicated machinery and very cumbrous machinery at the best, and, taking the most optimistic view of how that machinery can act, I think it is perfectly plain that we cannot expect very much levelling up of the conditions of employment in the different parts of the country through the action of the International Labour Office. At the best, action through that Office will be effective only after a comparatively long period of years.

We shall, of course, to-night fail to pass this Motion, and the proposal of the Government for the Safeguarding of Industries will go through. Ls it not possible for the Government to give us an assurance that they will strengthen what I might call for a moment the Labour side of the White Paper, or if, perhaps, not to alter the White Paper, give us an assurance that they will pay more attention than, on the face of it, is intended by the White Paper, to actual conditions of the workers and their standard of life? For instance, on page 3, Section 2, paragraph (5), you have these words: I believe in organisation as against laissez faire, and that is why I deplore the form of the Motion. I believe that the problems of the future are the problems of constructive statesmanship, and not the problem of conflicting theoretical ideas. My modest suggestions are purely practical ones, and I assure the Government that they have no machiavellian motive behind them. They mean exactly what they say. I hope it will be possible for the Government to go some way to accept them. Safeguarding of industries at the present time may be necessary and may be useful. At any rate, it is a positive step. If that is the only alternative to doing nothing at all, I, for my part, shall support safeguarding of industries and so oppose the merely negative policy To-night, in the regretted absence of any constructive alternative to the proposal put forward by the Government, I propose to give my vote to support the Government and the safeguarding of industries.

In asking the House's indulgence, which is usually given to Members who speak for the first time, I would ask for it in an especial measure, in so far as the subject which we are considering is a matter of acute controversy. It can only be argued in terms of controversy. If the view which we on these benches hold of the subject-matter of this Motion he correct, there is no subject about which there should be such deep and acute controversy as this. I was personally delighted to hear from the mouth of the Mover of this Motion the words that both sections of the Opposition took this matter seriously. I am bound to say my satisfaction has been rather qualified by the speech to which we have just listened. We who know that it was not until the advent of Free Trade in this country that the standard of living of the ordinary people really advanced, we who believe that that standard of living will be permanently kept back if the principle of Free Trade is violated on a large scale, regard this as a very serious matter indeed. I am perfectly in agreement with the words of the Mover of the Motion who said that Free Trade is not by itself capable of solving the social problem. Every one of those who think and act with me will agree to that. But we also assert that without Free Trade the social problem can never be solved.

May I bring the House back, I will not say from the imaginative height, but from the somewhat irrelevant digression of the speech we have just heard, to the Motion on the Paper, which says that the policy of the Government must lead to a system of general tariffs. Personally I prefer the wording of the other Motion on the Paper, indicating that this policy would in all probability lead to a system of general tariffs, and with the permission of the House I would like to direct the minds of hon. Members back to the Debate which took place before Christmas. I see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in his place. The House will no doubt remember that the right hon. Gentleman was a little scornful of some of the arguments advanced from these benches. He even went so far as to suggest that my right hon Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) failed to understand the distinction between what he called a general tax and general tariff, and to add point to his criticism, he added that this really was after all an elementary distinction. To our minds this question of a general tariff is a very real danger, and I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he still persists in the belief that there is such a great difference between a general tax and a general tariff. Possibly the distinction is even more elementary than the right hon. Gentleman himself thought. I would suggest to him to carry his mind hack to the text-books which, no doubt, like the rest of us, he studied in his youth when he was laying the foundation of that greater understanding of these questions, and ask him to try to recall the chapters that dealt with the processes known as simple addition and simple multiplication. If the text-book is comparatively up-to-date, he will find in it that simple addition and simple multiplication are really two methods of arriving at the same result, and that to add four ones together brings you the same result as to multiply one by four in one operation. The difference between adding four ones together and multiplying one by four is precisely the difference between what the right hon. Gentleman calls a general tax and what we call a general tariff.

I know that the Prime Minister not only before, but in his speech to-day, has asserted that there is no intention of attempting to introduce Protection by the back door. He has said that in the spirit and the letter he intends to carry out the pledge he has given. I am perfectly sure no Member of this House, least of all a new Member, would doubt the right hon. Gentleman's intention for a moment. But is it in his power to stop it? After all, the right hon. Gentleman himself has changed before. We have heard quotations read to-day of the attitude which he took before the General Election two years ago. At that time the right hon. Gentleman issued his address to his constituents. He said no Government with any sense of responsibility could continue to sit with tied hands. The right hon. Gentleman has changed. Nowadays we find that the Government, presumably with a sense of responsibility, can continue to sit with tied hands and wait the struggle coming off. Then we have the change that took place in the last few weeks. We know that the present plan of the Government was not their original intention. They were going to bring in a Bill, but since then some pressure has been exerted, some wind has blown, I do not know from what quarter of the compass, whether it is from the North with a touch of West in it, where Lancashire is, but at any rate something has happened which has caused the right hon. Gentleman to change his plans. It may happen again, because the right hon. Gentleman may be perfectly sure that pressure will be applied. We have heard this afternoon already from the hon. Member who sits for, I think, one of the divisions of Birmingham—it sounded like Birmingham anyhow—who was saying that this was not enough, that what he really wanted was the full blown measure of Protection. I was more than interested to hear the demand that was made by that hon. Member on the Government. If I am not misquoting him, he demanded that before the Committee or Committees to be set up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite nobody should be heard except those who believed that their industries were threatened and demanded the protection of this Measure. I turn to the White Paper itself, and I find that in Section I paragraph (4) it states that the Board of Trade will reserve the right to refuse an inquiry if the duty on the goods in question will exert a seriously adverse effect on employment in any other industry. That is to say, in considering the question of a duty on steel, for instance, industries like shipbuilding and machinery, may be represented, if there is a prospect that a duty on steel will damage those industries, and injure employment. I should like to ask another question however. That statement may satisfy hon. Members who represent constituencies where there are industries of this kind, but I happen to represent a constituency not of this kind, but entirely inhabited by people who are described as general consumers. What about their position? What about the clerks, the typists, the postal workers, the transport workers, the railway men and all the people who have not an interest in what are called the productive industries. Nothing but harm can be done to them by the proposals of the Government.

The Government propose to put on what they call a general tax, rather than a tax against an individual country where a duty is put on because of the depreciated exchange, and the reason given by the Prime Minister was that such a course did away with the difficulty of certificates of origin. Certificates of origin are not the only harassing things brought into being by the previous Safeguarding of Industries Act. All sorts of uncertainties and difficulties were created for traders and for trade, and we believe that this proposal will not even achieve the limited end which it is said to be meant to bring about. We believe it will be ineffective, and that it may lead to wider and bigger disaster. There is something else. The hon. Member who spoke last threw out a reference to the attitude of those who speak for Free Trade in regard to moral matters. Far be it from me to take up a high moral attitude, but I do say that there seems to me to be a very definite connection between the frame of mind which believes in Protection and the frame of mind exhibited in this House on the opposite side when we were discussing the question of aliens. The type of mind which believes that the alien is a person not to cultivate but to exterminate the type of mind which believes that you can make the foreigner pay and that it is a good thing to keep foreign goods out; the type of mind which believes that because you give an alien a job you are therefore doing an Englishman out of a job—is the same type of mind which falls readily into the fallacy that you will give additional employment in this country by keeping goods out. It is not only because we believe that this policy will be ineffective; it is not only because we believe it may lead to worse evils than appear in the actual proposals that we resisted. We believe it to be unpractical and also unworthy. For those reasons we who sit on these benches will, at every stage, oppose it with all our energy.

May I in the first place congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his seat on his maiden effort. It is never easy to make a maiden speech in this House, and it is more than difficult to make a concise and brief maiden speech on a very wide and general subject. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that he will be heard the more readily again for the concise manner in which he has put his arguments, even though some of us on this side may not find ourselves in complete agreement with all the deductions which he drew from them. I cannot help thinking that anyone who has heard this debate must have been struck by a certain unreality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am not quite sure whether we all mean the same thing, but the Motions which stand on the Order Paper lead us to believe that the object of this Debate, in theory, is to discuss whether the procedure which the Government have adopted is the most convenient, the most practical and the most constitutional method of carrying out a policy upon which the country and the House have already pronounced—the country at the General Election and the House in the Debate which we had upon the Address. In fact, a very large part of this Debate has been more in the nature of a continuation of the Debate on the Address. I do not complain of that fact, because I venture to suggest it shows—particularly as those who have taken part include the ablest debators that this House can produce—that there must be a considerable paucity of argument to be urged against the procedure. Of course, there are certain people in this House—not very many—who have consistently maintained that no duty is ever right. That is not the view held by a large number of Members of the Opposition; it is not a view which can be maintained in its essential purity by anybody who has supported either the McKenna Duties or Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, or Part II of that Act. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that even he did not repeal Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, nor did he repeal the dumping provisions of Part II.

We start therefore with a position in which we have a definite mandate to impose duties in special proved cases, where the industries are of importance, and competition is unfair, and there is a serious threat to employment. I am not sure whether the leader of the Opposition would carry his debating point about a mandate very far. I should have thought the one test of a mandate was whether you got a majority for a policy which you had plainly announced. I would ask the leader of the Opposition whether, if and when, he finds himself on this side of the House again, sooner or later, with a majority independent of either of the other two parties, he will feel he is precluded from carrying out any piece of Socialist legislation, if it should so happen that he has not polled a clear majority of the votes of the people. If that is really his view as to the limitation of these mandates——

So marvellous that I am quite sure if he were Prime Minister he would not dream of carrying it out. What, therefore, we on this side have got to show surely is this, that we are executing the mandate we have received and that we are not going outside it. There was a challenge thrown out, that in respect of one of the provisions of our policy, namely, that relating to lower wages, the Prime Minister was exceeding his mandate and acting contrary to his pledge. That really cannot be maintained for a moment. Not only at the Election, but long before the Election the Prime Minister, in his speech at the Albert Hall, which was designed to be a complete pronouncement on policy, and was indeed published in the party manifesto, "Looking Ahead," said this:

Let me now deal with some of the arguments which have been advanced to prove that we are exceeding our mandate. The first argument was that because the duties which it is proposed to impose are general duties, that is the same thing as imposing a general tariff. It is nothing of the kind. A general duty is a general duty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I hope the hon. Members will agree with the next proposition, that a general tariff is a general tariff—[ Interruption ]. Will hon. Members accept the completion of the syllogism, that the difference between the two is exactly the difference between the exception and the rule? Can anybody who supported either the McKenna Duties, which were general duties and were supported year after year by large numbers of Liberals, can anybody who supported the duties on key industries, which are still in force to-day and which are general duties, pretend that by supporting the McKenna Duties and the Key Industry Duties they were supporting a general tariff? If so, then every single Member on that side of the House is guilty of having supported and sustained a general tariff. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly. I will exclude those who have only got into the House for the first time, but every other Member has been living in mortal sin all the years he has been in this House by supporting a general tariff, because he supported the McKenna Duties and duties on key industries.

On the last occasion when we debated this, the argument was stated at length, but I only propose to summarise it, that if you are to have duties at all, it is necessary that your safeguarding duties should be general duties and not discriminating duties, because if you use discriminating duties it is impossible to carry out to the full a most-favoured-nation treaty policy. A discriminating duty is a breach of a most-favoured-nation treaty. A general duty is no breach of such a treaty. By imposing general duties, we are able to carry out to the full the most-favoured-nation treatment and to extend that, as was done in the German Treaty, and we are able to carry that out, and indeed to extend it, as is done in that German Treaty, in ways and to an extent in which the most-favoured-nation provisions have never been carried out before, and to do that while maintaining the full right to safeguard our industry by general duties. In no other way can we combine the great., broad basis of our foreign commercial policy, most - favoured - nation treaties, with the right to safeguard our industries. I may add that I think there are a good many traders who would say at once that they would infinitely rather have general duties than discriminating duties, because a general duty is a simple thing in its operation, whereas if you have discriminating duties, you necessarily have certificates of origin, coming, not only from the country against which you impose the duties, but from a very large number of other countries, too. Therefore, there certainly can be no truth in the contention that because the duties which we are going to put on are general duties, we are guilty of putting on a general tariff.

There are others who say that, although a general duty is not a general tariff, if you once embark upon a policy of putting on a general duty in an approved ease, you will inevitably arrive at a system of general tariffs. Might I, in the first place, say that the Prime Minister has given a, very definite pledge that he is not going to impose a general tariff. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] When the hon. Member has been longer in the House—

Then the hon. and gallant Member has been quite long enough in this House to know that the Prime Minister is the most conscientious and honourable man who has ever sat in this House, and he has proved it up to the hilt in the action which he took over the taxes on food and the Preference duties.

Nobody makes any other suggestion, and I should be the first to subscribe to it, but suppose every industry comes forward and makes an equally good case?

I will come to that, but if the hon. and gallant Member believes that the Prime Minister is going to keep his pledge and not introduce a general tariff, he has no business to go about outside saying that the Prime Minister is going to break his pledge. There is no ground for alleging the second of his propositions, which is that you must arrive at a general tariff, because the conditions which are laid down preclude it. [ interruption. ] The more I am interrupted the less time the right hon. Gentleman opposite will have to reply.

I know the case is thrown out that any industry, or most industries, might be able to say that in some countries the wages paid in the corresponding industry are lower than the wages paid in this country. But that is not all that has got to be proved. Before the industry can obtain an inquiry it has got to show, not only that in some countries wages are lower, but that the competition is exceptional and the rate of imports abnormal. Therefore it is idle to take one particu- lar item in these conditions which have to be fulfilled, and to say that any industry could fulfil them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that the large proportion of industries could not possibly fulfil the first condition, which is the abnormality of imports. If he believes in his argument, does he really contemplate an industrial situation in which all the great industries of this country are going to be subjected to a devastating, an overwhelming, and a destructive competition? If he does, he is singularly complacent in his outlook on industry. If he does not, then the whole of his argument on that line falls to the ground. In practice, what has happened? Have the imposition of a certain number of general duties necessarily led to a general tariff? When the McKenna duties were put on, they were continued year after year without leading to further duties. Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act did not necessarily lead to the imposition of a general tariff, and there is no more reason to suppose that the imposition of a certain number of duties in this Parliament is going necessarily to involve a general tariff.

Finally, the complete answer to this is that every single duty which is proposed will be under the direct control of the House of Commons from start to finish, by the full procedure of a Finance Bill. The next argument was that we were setting up committees, over the composition and procedure of which the House of Commons would have no control. In this we are treading in the very strictest path of Liberal rectitude. It was Lord Oxford who set up the famous Balfour of Burleigh Committee without any reference to the House of Commons. The terms of reference were:

The difference between my right hon. Friend and myself and the Government with which I was associated is this: we never took the slightest notice of their recommendations.

10.0 P.M.

The right hon. Gentleman was out of office before the Committee reported. He had been succeeded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He was much more respectful to the findings of this Committee. The Committee recommended that a general duty should be placed on a number of key industries, and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs placed those duties on the key industries. I maintain, therefore, that we are treading in the strictest path of Liberal rectitude, both in regard to the setting up of a Committee and in following it up with action, and I cannot suppose that this Committee was really appointed by Lord Oxford in order to do nothing. I have gone further. He did not publish any details, whereas I have published a great many. But, seriously, can this procedure be challenged on that ground? Is it not the duty of any Government which is responsible for putting forward any item of policy to make the necessary inquiries? When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister, he established a trade committee under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Balfour to make inquiries and recommendations. Then, I think, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer established the Colwyn Committee on Taxation. Then there was established at one time, I remember, a land inquiry which preceded the "People's Budget." That was the first there has been a second one. Would not any practical man dealing with this matter say, "Do not deal with it in the abstract. Do not ask me to decide about a particular duty, until I know the facts. Produce the facts by inquiry, and then produce your proposals, and I will vote upon them." That is exactly what we are proposing to do—to have the inquiry to ascertain the facts, produce those facts to the House of Commons, and then give the House of Commons, through a Finance Bill, full control, assisted by information in the report.

Really, to say that is taking away from the authority of the House of Commons is a terminological inexactitude. The authority of the House of Commons is retained in the fullest way. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said one of the things you ought to do is to avoid uncertainty and waste of time. I absolutely agree with him. How are we most likely to avoid uncertainty and waste of time? By finding out the facts in this limited number of cases, and presenting our proposals, or by bringing in a general Bill, to have 16 days of hare-hunting, none of these hares being real hares at all? That was exactly what was done by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith on the last occasion. I have never seen such animals as were produced by his imagination. That is exactly what would have happened if we had produced such a Bill as is suggested for hon. Gentlemen opposite. Day after day would have been spent in creating uncertainty and in wasting time, in trying to raise the hopes of foes and the fears of friends. The whole proceedings would have been a waste of time, and would have created uncertainty.

It has been said that some of the definitions are not sufficiently precise—"substantial importance" and "competition coming largely from unfair sources." There was a phrase of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition which suggested the way he would deal with this matter—"building up by the progress of evolutionary forces." If we are entering into a kind of cross-word puzzle to define principles or practice, I would, I think, find it easier to define what was of "substantial importance" and "competition coming from unfair sources." than I would be able to define what is precisely meant by "building up by the progress of evolutionary forces." But these difficulties can be greatly overrated. It is very easy to raise dialectical discussions of an abstract character. But, in fact, every argument can be dealt with in a practical way. May I give the House what was the practical experience of a very practical body? Many years ago it was decided to set up a Commercial Court. Under the chairmanship of the Master of the Rolls a Committee was appointed to decide what cases should go to that Court. That 'Committee spent some hours trying to define what was a commercial cause. This they found rather difficult to do. The Master of the Rolls, I think it was Lord Esher, said it might be difficult to define but would they all know a commercial cause if they saw one. The Judges concerned agreed with that, and the Commercial Court has been working quite admirably ever since. They were in the same position as a less learned man who said that be found it difficult to define an elephant, but he was sure he would always recognise one. The Committees set up under the old Act, consisting of practical men, were in fact able to apply the definitions on the facts brought before them. I rather regret that there has been a charge put forward of anything in the nature of partiality or unfair treatment in this Debate. I never heard that charge levied at these Committees before. Those Committees included some distinguished members of the party opposite and some distinguished co-operators.

In view of the susceptibilities of the hon. Gentleman on this matter, I will substitute, for "distinguished members," "well-known and honest men." I really think it is unnecessary to make charges against Committees which have discharged their work so thoroughly, so conscientiously, and, I am quite sure, quite impartially. I think the Committee ought to have the assistance of counsel with the right to cross-examine, and I do not think there will be any difficulty in the Chairman of the Committee exercising discretion in arranging with opposing industries to combine to appear by counsel before the Committee. I concur in the suggestion put forward by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, which, I think, is a thoroughly practical suggestion, and I halve not the least doubt that it will be adopted by the Committees. After a case has been reported on by a Committee, the House is then to be asked to decide upon specific proposals. Surely that is what any reasonable man wants? He might hesitate to accept in advance a definition or the interpretation of a definition. He would say, "Let the Committee report on the particular facts of the particular case, and then I can see whether the industry is of substantial importance, whether a duty ought to be imposed, what rate of duty, and for' how long." That is precisely the practical course which we propose to take. Let me in a few words deal with what has been referred to as "exceptional competition." My right hon. Friend opposite seemed to suggest that in an ordinary case it was impossible.

I did not say it was impossible. What I wanted to know was what is the definition of the Government of "abnormality." Is it abnormality of the pre-War or post-War period?

In the ordinary case the standard of comparison would be the ratio of retained imports to the production. I think that would be the fair ratio to take. That shows exactly whether the volume of imports which are coming in is greater in relation to the aggregate production of the industry than it was on a normal basis before the War. You may, however, have an exceptional case, where the industry has developed to a great extent since the War. In that case you have to review the ratio of imports to production during the years in which the industry has attained post-War proportions, because you have no fair pre-War basis with which to compare it. In the ordinary case you have the pre-War industry and the pre-War basis to compare with. There is one other point: That we should define the rate of duty in advance as was done in the old Safeguarding of Industries Act. Here the suggestion is to consider the Report to be presented upon the facts of the particular case, and on that Report to decide what rate of duty you are going to impose; otherwise you may put on in advance duties which are unnecessarily high or in another case those which are too low. The right way is to decide on the facts in each particular case.

There are only two other points of a detailed character which were raised. It was suggested in some speeches, and indeed in the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J Simon), that the consumer had not adequate representation. This really is, if I may say so, a debating point. In a constitutional and democratic country policies are decided by General Elections fought upon political issues, and this country has returned a majorit pledged to carry out a particular policy. That is the time when policy is decided. It would be quite impossible to have a general fiscal debate going on in every Committee. A more impracticable suggestion could not be made. Finally, when the Finance Bill is introduced, the House of Commons itself is the final arbiter of whether or not any duty is in the general national interest. The other point of detail which was raised by my right hon. Friend was that what we had to consider was our exports and that, therefore, this was a useless procedure. No one who has ever been at the Board of Trade is likely to underrate the importance of our export trade, but our home trade is at least two-thirds of the total trade of this country, and you cannot he sure of maintaining your foreign trade unless you have a home trade as well. May I give one quotation?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, who, I am extremely sorry to observe, has had to leave the House through illness, twitted me as to differences which were likely to take place between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. I must not obtain any sympathy under false pretences. When I put forward these proposals he was in complete agreement with them; we have been in completeagreement throughout on the policy. We both are agreed to keep the pledges which the Prime Minister has given and which bind us both, to keep them, and to carry them out; and if I may say so without being considered impertinent, when I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley twitting the Chancellor and myself with possible lack of unity within the party I could not help thinking of the saying about Satan rebuking sin.

We propose to confine these duties to efficient industries of substantial importance where after inquiry a case of unfair competition is proved. We have no intention, directly or indirectly, of extending that, but we do mean where cases are proved that we should act, and act effectively. We have been asked why we should be prepared, but the answer was supplied by the speech of the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Haden Guest). The answer to that question lies in the fact that we have 1,250,000 unemployed. An answer could very well he found also in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), for I well remember a speech which he delivered on a famous Motion upon the Capital Levy on the 16th of July, 1903. He was looking not to a time when exchanges were all in a slate of collapse, but when exchanges had become more or less of a stable nature, when we had settled reparations tomorrow and had real peace in Europe, what then? He said:

The right hon. Gentleman continued: In the face of such a warning as that, ought we not to be prepared to take action in proved cases. He gave figures, but I was unable to follow what I think was an unfair application of the comparison of two periods, of 1913 and 1924. If you are to take a fair standard of comparison between these two years, you have to take it on a common basis of value or the figures are meaningless. In 1924 the export of manufactures was 25 per cent. short of what we were doing in 1913, and our imported manufactures were 4 per cent. greater than in 1913. Those are the figures. They have been published in the "Board of Trade Journal," and I am quite prepared to publish them again. The right hon. Gentleman quoted figures about iron and steel, showing how the position was improving, but I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) will probably bear me out in saying that the imports of iron and steel in 1924 were 68 per cent. greater than in 1923, and the exports slightly less, while our exports of iron and steel in 1924 were 1,100,000 tons less than in 1913. That does not give quite such a happy picture as I gather the right hon. Gentleman wished to give to the House. For all these reasons, for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend, for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Burghs gave in 1923, we not only have the justification, but we have the obligation, to be prepared to deal with exceptional eases in this way. We are following constitutional precedent in the way in which we do it, and, indeed, the precedent set by successive Liberal administrations. In every case Parliament will pronounce with a full knowledge of the facts and through the regular and recognised method of a Finance Bill. In that case, and in face of these figures, can anyone sincerely contend that we are exceeding the mandate which we have received from the country, or that the method which we propose is not at once the most honest, the most practical and the most constitutional course possible? That question of procedure is the issue before the House to-night, and I leave it with confidence to the judgment of the House.

I think all old Members of the House will agree that in all their Parliamentary experience they have never witnessed a spectacle so pitiable as has been exhibited by the Government in the Debate to-day. The only grain of comfort which they have received—and they may regard it as sufficient compensation for the fact that practically every speech which has been made from their own side of the House has been a condemnation of their proposals—the only grain of comfort which they have received is the announcement that one of the hon. Members sitting behind me is going into the Division Lobby in support of the Government this evening. My Friend, apparently, has decided to do that because he suspected that in defending Free Trade there was an intention on the part of some of us to lead the Labour party back to Liberalism; but my Friend, later in his speech, betrayed the fact that before he began that speech he had decided to go back to Toryism. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began by saying that all who had heard the Debate this afternoon must have been impressed by its unreality. My right hon. Friend who introduced this Motion was in doubt as to whether he ought to regard the proposal of the Government as serious or not. If he had been speaking at the close of the Debate instead of at the beginning, he would have had less doubt in coming to a conclusion upon that matter, because the speech of the Prime Minister and, perhaps not, to the same extent, the speech to which we have just listened undoubtedly exposed the fact that the Government have no confidence whatever that these proposals are likely to have the slightest practical effect.

There has been a great deal said in the course of the Debate about the Government's mandate to introduce these proposals. I do not want to attach much importance to that. The best mandate the Government have is the serried ranks behind them. But if by mandate the Prime Minister means that at the recent General Election a majority of the electors gave an instruction to the Government to introduce these proposals, then the Prime Minister has no justification whatever for such a contention. That is a matter upon which there can be no dispute. Owing to the anomalies of our electoral system, the Conservatives have a large majority here but they are a minority among the electors of the country. Is there any hon. Member sitting on the other side of the House who would honestly say that they obtained a majority in this House on the Prime Minister's proposal? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes !"] Were the hundreds of thousands of terrified old women who were dragged to the polls for the first time voting to give the right hon. Gentleman a mandate to introduce a scheme for the safeguarding of industries? I am not concerned to proceed with this question of a mandate. The Government have their majority. They will use that majority. They will use the power during this Parlaiment, and they will pay the penalty at the next election.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down more than once said that the Motion challenges only the procedure proposed by the Government in this matter. He has curiously misread the Motion. The main point of that Motion is against the policy which the Government propose to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman said the crux of the whole question is this. We have a million unemployed. Will the proposals of the Government do something to lessen the number of unemployed? That is really the inwardness of our Resolution. That is our objection to the proposals of the Government. If the Government were sincere in trying to make the proposed Committee an effective body, and if Parliament ratified the recommendations of the Committee, what we state in our Resolution is that the effect would be not to increase the volume of trade, not to increase employment and not to safeguard the conditions of labour in this country.

I endorse everything that is said about the sterling honesty of the Prime Minister, but the greatest blunders in the world are made by honest people. The honesty of the Prime Minister is becoming rather an expensive national asset. The Government have been landed in this mess because of certain pledges which the Prime Minister gave at the Election. He evidently made those pledges very impulsively, and without thinking what the consequences would be. At the time the King's Speech was drafted, more than a month after the Election, the right hon. Gentleman had not then discovered the implication of the pledges he had made, because when the King's Speech was drafted he promised a Bill. He altered his mind in regard to Imperial Preference, because when the King's Speech was drafted, the Resolutions of the Imperial Economic Conference were to be adopted by the Government. But even before the King's Speech received the assent of this House, the Prime Minister altered his mind with regard to both these matters. We were promised a Bill. We have not got a Bill. That, in regard to this matter, is the gravamen of our charge. Why have not the Government introduced a Bill? The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down told his constituents the reason, a day or two ago, and it, was this—because if a Bill was introduced it would provide opportunities for discussion and criticism by the Opposition.

That is his euphemism for the criticism of which I spoke. We have had no explanation at all from the Government. We have had no explanation from the Government or from the President of the Board of Trade as to why the Government have abandoned the promise given in the King's Speech that a Bill would be introduced. I have no criticism to make of the new method of procedure, as contrasted with the method of procedure under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I think it is a great improvement. It gives a greater measure of control by the House of Commons. I imagine that this is not likely to be a convenient, method of procedure for the Government itself. The President of the Board of Trade will then not be able to avoid what he calls the waste of time when these Bills come forward if ever they do. But the Prime Minister was altogether beside the mark, and his observations had no relevancy when he was claiming that this method of procedure was superior to that adopted under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, because we never approved of the method of procedure under the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It might be a fair criticism of those who did, but certainly it was no answer to those who did not.

Now I cannot in the few moments at my disposal deal with many of the points which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I might take them seriatim, but I have not the time. I must therefore confine myself to a few general observations. I will for the moment assume that the Government is serious in regard to this matter, that it will set up the Committees on the application of the industries, that, if these Committees recommend the imposition of a tariff, that proposal may be submitted to the House of Commons I ventured to interrupt the Prime Minister in his speech this afternoon by pointing out that under the Regulations the final voice in this matter rests with the Treasury. It requires no great amount of imagination to know why that has been formulated in these Regulations. It represents the victory of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the President of the Board of Trade.

I do not think that to-morrow the President of the Board of Trade, when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT, will thank his deputy, who was in charge for a few moments during the right hon. Gentleman's unavoidable absence, for the answer which he gave to an hon. Friend of mine who was speaking, who asked if everybody who had any objection to the proposed imposition of the tariff would be called before the Committee if he asked for permission to attend. "Yes," said the hon. Gentleman. I do not envy the task of the Committee if everybody who thinks that he is likely to be affected by the proposed tariff is to give his evidence before the Committee. Suppose all that is done—the Board of Trade agree, and goes to the Treasury; then, if the Treasury puts down its veto, the thing gets no further. I cannot imagine any Chancellor of the Exchequer who would allow his office to be degraded by taking away his authority to propose taxation, and handing it over to a Committee set up by the President of the Board of Trade. Why if anything at all came out of the proposal the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be intolerable and impossible. He would never know what kind of Budget he was going to have. He introduces certain proposals for the imposition of tariffs. Next month a recommendation comes from the President of the Board of Trade for a tariff which, if imposed, would upset the arrangement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must introduce a Revenue Bill. Next month he must introduce another Revenue Bill, and we shall be having a Revenue Bill for additional taxation every month or six weeks.

I can well understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head, but that is really what is likely to happen under this Bill. It only shows the absurdity, the impossibility, the futility, the ridiculousness of all these proposals. Suppose you get your tariff. Is it going to increase the volume of your trade? Is it going to do good? We have argued that question over and over again tens of thousands of times during 'the last twenty years since Mr. Chamberlain first raised this tariff issue. May I say this to my hon. Friends behind me? Long before many of them were declaring that a merely negative Free Trade policy was no solution of our industrial and social problems, I advocated that from a thousand platforms in this country, and I hold that position still. I agree that Free Trade is no solution of the industrial problems, yet Free Trade is an essential condition in a country like this. We are now faced by a choice between the abandonment of Free Trade and the adoption of a system of Protection. Why do we oppose the imposition of tariffs It is the answer that has been given ten thousand times; it is the answer that has never been refuted; it is still a complete answer.

We have heard a great deal of a tariff on steel. Suppose you put a tariff on steel. We were told by one hon. Member that steel entered into practically every manufactured commodity that the people bought. What is to be the effect of such a tariff? There can be no purpose in putting on a tariff unless it is going to-protect the home market and enable the British manufacturer to sell at a higher price. "Aaron," to whom so many references have been made, has been responsible, in collaboration with the Prime Minister, for the safeguarding of industries. The purpose of that Act was to raise prices. It would be no use if we could not raise prices. Suppose you get your tariff on steel. It raises the price in the home market of practically every manufactured commodity used by the people of this country. What does that mean? You have protected one industry; you have left every other industry unprotected. They cannot raise their prices. Therefore, the imposition of that tariff means that you have reduced the purchasing power of every consumer in the country. That is equivalent to a reduction of wages. Therefore, the more tariffs you impose the more you are going to increase the cost of living and reduce purchasing power, and, therefore, to reduce wages. If you reduce the wages of the working classes you are reducing employment. Therefore, why we are opposed to these provisions is this, that instead of increasing employment they will decrease employment. They must inevitably depress wages.

A great deal has been said this after noon about the difference between a general duty and a general tariff. When I spoke upon this question in December I said I believed the difference was the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I am still of the same opinion. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in December last he said this—these are not his words—to impose upon one particular class of commodity may not be a general tariff, it may not be, and is not, complete Protection, but it is part of the general tariff, it is part of Protection, it is the same thing as a general tariff, and as I pointed out a moment ago when dealing with the steel trade, the effect of a partial tariff is the same, not in degree, but in principle, as the effect of a general tariff. It affects every other industry and all the consumers in the country. This is what the right hon. Gentleman said, and this is the best answer that can be given, as those of us have maintained that there is very grave danger in the Prime Minister's proposals. If it can protect it will be the thin end of the wedge of Protection. I do not suppose he intends that. It is not what he intends, it is what the effect of his proposals is going to he. "It is quite evident," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "that if more than a limited number of industries are combined within the practical operation of this Bill the pledge of my right hon. Friend will be effected." How are you going to limit the operation of this to a small number? If it can be proved that wages and conditions of work are depressed, then the trade has established a claim to Protection, and there is only one foreign country in the world where wages are better and labour conditions generally better. Therefore, the logical conclusion of those proposals is that you will have to impose a tariff upon all the imports that come into this country from every foreign country in the world except the United States. To get back to the Chancellor's statement. What is the limited number? One, five, ten? "If we get beyond the limited number, the Prime Minister's pledge is broken," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How many are there to be? The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not know: therefore, our contention that this is the top of the slippery slope of Protection is absolutely proved.

A word or two about our alternatives. We say this is not the way in which you are going to safeguard industries and increase employment, but we have our alternatives. There is the alternative of better organisation. Let British employers of labour spend less time on the golf course and attend to their own business. Let them organise their businesses in a better way. Let us have one other form of protection which we can all heartily support—the protection of industry against the extortions which idleness is levying upon industry. If you want to lighten the burden upon British industry, utilise the hundreds of millions a year which is the social value of the land. If you want to do something to lessen the burden upon industry, do something to lessen the colossal and wasteful expenditure upon drink. If you want to do something to safeguard industry, carry out some of the schemes which we had in hand to develop our own natural resources. Those are schemes that we can all heartily endorse. But the proposals of the Government, even if they are a reality, even if by a miracle they are put into actual operation, will have the certain effect of aggravating the present state of things, and they will put back indefinitely that recovery of trade which is desired. The Government are proceeding on wrong lines. I know it is no use appealing to them, they can only be taught by experience, if indeed experience will teach them. But I am glad, as I have said before, that these proposals are being put forward so early in the life of this Parliament because the country will have an opportunity, if anything comes from them between now and the next Election, of showing what they are and I can look forward with complete confidence to what their actual operations will be and I am confident of this, that the Government in the next Parliament will not have the opportunity of repeating such a futile and ridiculous expedient.

rose in his Mace, and claimed to move , "That the Question be now put."

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Question put accordingly,

"That the policy of the Government with regard to the Safeguarding of Industries as disclosed in Command Paper No. 2327, and the methods by which it is proposed to carry-this policy into effect, must lead to a system of general tariffs which will not enlarge the volume of trade and safeguard the interests of the workers as regards employment, wages, and conditions."

The House divided: Ayes, 146: Noes, 335.

Division No. 14.]

AYES

[11.0 p.m.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Hardie, George D.

Sexton, James

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Harney, E. A.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Ammon, Charles George

Harris, Percy A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Hastings, Sir Patrick

Sinclalr, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Hayes, John Henry

Sitch, Charles H.

Barnes, A.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Batey, Joseph

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield)

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Snell, Harry

Broad, F. A.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Bromley, J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Buchanan, G.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Stamford, T. W.

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Stephen, Campbell

Charleton, H. C.

Kelly, W. T.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Clowes, S.

Kennedy, T.

Sutton, J. E.

Cluse, W. S.

Kenyon, Barnet

Taylor, R. A.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Kirkwood, D.

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

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Lansbury, George

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey).

Compton, Joseph

Lawson, John James

Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)

Connolly, M.

Lee, F.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)

Cove, W. G.

Livingstone, A. M.

Thurtle, E.

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Lowth, T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Crawfurd, H. E.

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

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Dalton, Hugh

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Varley, Frank B.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Mackinder, W.

Viant, S. P.

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

MacLaren, Andrew

Wallhead, Richard C.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Day, Colonel Harry

March, S.

Warne, G. H.

Duckworth, John

Maxton, James

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Duncan, C.

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Montague, Frederick

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

England, Colonel A.

Morris, R. H.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Welsh, J. C.

Fenby, T. D.

Naylor, T. E.

Westwood, J.

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Oliver, George Harold

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

Forrest, W.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wignall, James

George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

Ponsonby, Arthur

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Gibbins, Joseph

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

Gillett, George M.

Riley, Ben

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Ritson, J.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Roberta. Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Greenall, T.

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Windsor, Walter

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)

Wright, W.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Groves, T.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES. ——

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Scrymgeour, E.

Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Allen Parkinson.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Scurr, John

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Albery, Irving James

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

Berry, Sir George

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Bethell, A.

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Betterton, Henry B.

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

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Banks, Reginald Mitchell

Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

Apsley, Lord

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Blundell, F. N.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Lougher, L.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Fraser, Captain Ian

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Frece, Sir Walter de

Lumley, L. R.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Briggs, J. Harold

Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

Briscoe, Richard George

Ganzoni, Sir John

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Brittain, Sir Harry

Gates, Percy

MacIntyre, Ian

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Gee, Captain R.

McLean, Major A.

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

Macmillan, Captain H.

Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Macquisten, F. A.

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

Goff, Sir Park

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Gower, Sir Robert

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Buckingham, Sir H.

Grace, John

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Grant, J. A.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Bullock, Captain M.

Greene, W. P. Crawford.

Margesson, Captain D.

Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Burman, J. B.

Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

Meller, R. J.

Burney, Lieut.-Col. Charles D.

Gretton, Colonel John

Merriman, F. B.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Meyer, Sir Frank

Butt, Sir Alfred

Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Campbell, E. T.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Cassels, J. D.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hammersley, S. S.

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

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hanbury, C.

Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Harland, A.

Murchison, C. K.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Hartington, Marquess of

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Chapman, Sir S.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Nelson, Sir Frank

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

Neville, R. J.

Christie, J. A.

Haslam, Henry C.

Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hawke, John Anthony

Newton. Sir D. G. C. [Cambridge)

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Clarry, Reginald George

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Clayton, G. C.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Nuttall, Ellis

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Oakley, T.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Cooper, A. Duff

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Cope, Major William

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

Pease, William Edwin

Couper, J. B.

Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)

Pennefather, Sir John

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Penny, Frederick George

Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)

Holt, Capt. H. P.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Homan, C. W. J.

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Crook, C. W.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Philipson, Mabel

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

Pielou, D. P.

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Price, Major C. W. M.

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

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

Raine, W.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Hume, Sir G. H.

Ramsden, E.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Rawlinson, Rt. Hon, John Fredk. Peel

Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Huntingfield, Lord

Rawson, Alfred Cooper

Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

Hurd, Percy A.

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Hurst, Gerald B.

Reid, D. D. (County Down)

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

Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

Remnant, Sir James

Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

Rentoul, G. S.

Dawson, Sir Phillip

Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Rice, Sir Frederick

Dixey, A. C.

Jacob, A. E.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. H.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Jephcott, A. R.

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Drewe, C.

Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

Ropner, Major L.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemoth)

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

Kidd, J. (Linllthgow)

Salmon, Major I.

Ellis, R. G.

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Elvedon, Viscount

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Samuel, Samuel (W'drworth, Putney)

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Lamb, J. Q.

Sandon, Lord

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

Sassoon, Sir Phillip Albert Gustave D.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

Savery, S. S.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Lister, Cunliffe- Rt. Hon. Sir Phillip

Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

Falls, Sir Charles F.

Little, Dr. E. Graham

Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W.R. Sowerby)

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Fermoy, Lord

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Fielden, E. B.

Loder, J. de V.

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Fleming, D. P.

Looker, Herbert William

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

Ford, P. J.

Lord, Walter Greaves-

Skelton, A. N.

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

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

Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Smithers, Waldron

Tinne, J. A.

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Wise, Sir Fredric

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Wolmer, Viscount

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Waddington, R.

Womersley, W. J.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Walker, Forestier-, L.

Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Storry Deans, R.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Strickland, Sir Gerald

Warrender, Sir Victor

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Styles, Captain H. Walter

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Wragg, Herbert

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Watts, Dr. T.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Wells, S. R.

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Wheler, Major Granville C. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. ——

Templeton, W. P.

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

Commander B. Eyres Monsell and

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Colonel Gibbs.

Gas Regulation Act, 1920

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Deal and Walmer Gas and Electricity Company, which was presented on the 9th December And published, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Art, 1920, on the application of the Skegness urban district council, which was presented on the 18th December and published, he approved."

Resolved,

"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the urban district council of Scunthorpe and Frodlingham, which was presented on the 10th February and published, be approved."—[ Sir Burton Chadwick ]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Commander Eyres Monsell .]

Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.