House Of Commons
Wednesday, 30th April, 1930.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Newport Corporation (No. 2) Bill (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill,
Manchester Extension Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Great Western Railway (Docks) Bill (Certified Bill),
Read a Second time (pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December), and committed.
Malvern Hills Bill [ Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [ Lords] (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
London County Council (Money) Bill
"to regulate the expenditure on capital account and lending of money by the London County Council during the financial period from the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and thirty, to the thirtieth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Oral Answers To Questions
China
1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the present position in China and the date of the last communication he has received from the British representative in China?
3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the position of affairs in China?
As the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) was informed on the 14th of April, I am daily in receipt of reports from His Majesty's representative in China. But as the situation in that country is developing slowly, and neither of the contending parties appears anxious to take the initiative, I have at present nothing of importance to add to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich West (Sir K. Wood) on the 16th of April.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any recent meeting between Sir Miles Lampson and the Chinese Foreign Minister?
There was one at the beginning of the Recess.
Can the right hon. Gentleman now make a statement concerning the safety of the British missionaries out there?
I must have notice of that question.
Russia
British Relations
2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the matters he has now discussed with the Soviet Ambassador other than those arising out of the proposed treaty?
I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to a practically identical question by him on the 24th of March.
Has the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of religious persecution in Russia with the Ambassador?
That was the exact question that was put to me on the previous occasion.
Has the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the renewal of permits to those citizens who have been ordered to return to Russia?
I am afraid that that has nothing to do with this question.
15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has negotiated with the Soviet representative the draft terms of a trade treaty with Russia; what is the present position of the matter; when it is expected that the treaty will be placed before Parliament for consideration; and if he can now indicate to what extent it deals with the question of the recognition of the loans to Russia which have been repudiated by the present Russian Government and the restitution of the property of British nationals which has been confiscated?
For answers to the first three points of his question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply returned yesterday to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power) by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. As I informed the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) yesterday, negotiations for a commercial treaty with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are in progress. I cannot yet indicate any date for their submission to this House. Negotiations for a settlement of debts, claims and counter-claims are proceeding concurrently.
May we take it that these negotiations will not be completed until this House has had an opportunity of seeing the proposed trade treaty?
No, the hon. and gallant Member must not conclude anything of the kind. A commercial treaty as a modus vivendi is already in operation, and we are continuing the negotiations for a commercial treaty. That treaty will, when set up, be laid as a Command Paper, and will be subject to debate before ratification.
In the special circumstances of the case, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable, in the interests of all parties, that the matter should be discussed before any agreement is absolutely concluded? What is the objection to doing that?
It is the responsibility of the Government, having regard to a decision which the House has already given, to get into trade relations as expeditiously and, I hope, as effectively as possible, and, if we are to have two or three Debates, we shall not get on with the business as the country would expect us to do.
Was the House consulted, or was there any discussion, at the time of the Arcos raid?
In view of the declared policy of the Government that negotiations for the treaty and negotiations for debt settlement should run concurrently, is it the policy of the Government that the signing of the commercial treaty and the signing of the debt settlement should be simultaneous?
The negotiations, as I told the House yesterday, are going on concurrently, and we will do everything to conclude them concurrently. Whether we can hold up the signing and ratification of the commercial treaty until the whole business has been completed is a matter which the Government will have to take the responsibility of deciding.
Religious Situation
6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a full statement to the House regarding the religious persecution in Russia?
On a point of Order. On 27th March I put a question relating to religious persecution in other countries, but it was sent back to me as being out of order. May I ask why this question is in order?
I cannot call to mind the particular question to which the hon. Member refers and therefore cannot give him an answer on the spur of the moment, but I will look into the matter again.
Further to that point of Order. May we assume, in view of the fact that this question is considered to be in order, that it is in order for hon. Members to put down questions relating to alleged religious persecution which may be taking place in countries other than Russia?
I could not give an answer to that without seeing the question.
May I read the question to you, Sir?
Not during Question Time.
No, Sir. I do not think I can usefully add anything to the various statements in which I have already indicated the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this question.
Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of the annual meeting of Protestant ministers held yesterday, where a resolution was unanimously passed with regard to this religious persecution in Russia, and asking what the Government were doing in the matter; and does he not think, especially as Baptists and Congregationalists were included in that meeting, that he ought to take some active steps to deal with the question?
I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Is it true that there was increased persecution in Russia about Eastertime?
I cannot say.
Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in the "Morning Post" that on Easter Sunday the churches in Moscow were filled to overflowing?
Trade Delegation
7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects the Russian trade delegation to be established in London?
The Soviet Government became entitled to establish a trade delegation in London as from the 16th of April, the date of signature of the Temporay Commercial Agreement. I understand that the delegation is likely to be established shortly.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the building is to be, and when it will be occupied?
I do not think it is finally settled, but I think it will be in Aldwych.
In view of the experience of the Arcos trade delegation, what guarantee—
That does not arise on this question.
9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inquire as to whether the Soviet Government have in Germany or France trade delegations consisting of trade representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with two deputies forming part of the Soviet Embassies in those countries; whether the head of the delegation and two deputies receive in those countries diplomatic privileges; and whether immunity also attaches to specific offices occupied by the delegation?
Under Articles 4 and 5 of the Commercial Treaty of the 12th of October, 1925, between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Director of the Commercial Representation, his deputies, and also the members of the Council of the Commercial Representation residing in Berlin, enjoy all the privileges and advantages of extra-territorial persons, and the offices used by the Commercial Representation in Berlin are extra-territorial. I understand that the total number of persons who enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities at Berlin under these Articles is, at present, 10.
There is no commercial treaty or trade agreement between France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The question of the privileges and immunities to be enjoyed by the Soviet trade delegates in Paris has not formed the subject of any formal agreement. I should like to take this opportunity of correcting an answer which I gave yesterday to a supplementary question by the hon. Member. The diplomatic privileges accorded to the Soviet Trade Delegation, including immunity of premises, are a feature of all commercial treaties and all agreements dealing exclusively with trade concluded by the Soviet Government, including those with Germany and Italy. Yesterday I made a slip in saying "France," when I should have said "Germany."
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would facilitate the resumption of trade relationships if he could make some statement which would explain to a greater extent the actual need which there is for this diplomatic privilege?
I think I did that in reply to the question yesterday. I stated very clearly that in this particular instance the Soviet Government is a great trading concern, and that is where the need arises.
If only trade matters are being dealt with on these trade premises, why is diplomatic immunity required? It is not required for other traders.
Oh, yes; it has only been granted in conformity with international usage.
Is it not a fact that this extraterritorial privilege is an entirely new privilege, and that under the trade delegation of 1921 it did not exist?
I do not think it is entirely new. I think there was some form of immunity even at the time of the Arcos raid.
Will the diplomatic privileges include the remission of rates as applied to Embassies and Legations?
I do not think so, but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question, I will give him an answer.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence which he can offer of international usage to justify the granting of this privilege?
I have already given it.
No, you have not.
Yes, I have.
Is it not a fact that our trading community have extra-territorial rights in China?
Dead Sea Salts (Concessions)
5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further communications from the French Government with regard to the Dead Sea Concessions; and what is the present position?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I hope shortly to be in a position to make a further statement on the matter.
Poland (British Bondholders)
10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the interest on the issue of Vilna bonds held in this country has been in default since 1915; that an amount of about a quarter of a million pounds of this issue is held mainly by small investors; and whether he will approach the Polish Government with a view to effecting a just settlement of British bondholders' claims on Vilna?
Yes, Sir. I am aware of the default in the payment of the interest on these bonds. Negotiations for a settlement of the bondholders' claims are, however, proceeding, and, pending their outcome, I do not consider that His Majesty's Government can usefully take any action in the matter.
Egypt
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of the abolition of the mixed courts is one of the matters discussed with the Egyptian delegation; whether, prior to the commencement of the present negotiations, it was agreed that this subject should be open to discussion; and if he will arrange for the Reports which were obtained by the late Lord High Commissioner as to the methods and procedure of the Egyptian native, civil and criminal courts to be circulated to the House as a White Paper?
The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) on the 9th April.
London Naval Treaty (Cruisers)
16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many cruisers belonging to the British Empire, the United States of America, and Japan, respectively, are 10 years old or more?
The answer is 34, 4, and 10 respectively. The number for the British Commonwealth of Nations includes one belonging to the Royal Australian Navy. The number for Japan is exclusive of five ships used for training purposes which are no longer classed as cruisers.
Are these five Japanese ships armed?
They have some armaments for training purposes, but they are not fully armed.
Is it effective armament?
21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what allowable increase there will be in cruiser strength in the navies of Great Britain, Japan, and the United States of America in the terms of the proposed naval agreement?
The effect of the London Naval Treaty in regard to cruiser strengths is as follows:
As regards ourselves we will not construct the two 8-tinch 10,000-ton cruisers of the 1928 programme, or the one 8-inch 10,000-ton cruiser of the 1929 programme and a figure of 15 8-inch gun cruisers will constitute the total number allowed for the British Commonwealth of Nations. The United States of America which entered the Conference with a projected programme of 23 8-inch 10,000-ton cruisers will actually not complete more than 15 of this type before 1936, retaining only the option to have three more under construction and not to be completed before the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 respectively. Japan will remain at her present figure of 12 8-inch gun cruisers and will not embark on fresh construction as previously anticipated. As regards 6-inch gun cruisers, the London Naval Treaty allows, generally speaking, only for replacement, except that in the case of the United States of America special provision is made for the carrying out of long postponed cruiser construction.Is it the Government's intention to distribute this work between private and Government dockyards?
I am not sure that that arises out of the question, but, as I have already stated, the Government are giving attention to what programme will be necessary, and the question where the work will be allocated will be considered then.
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by American replacement? Surely, that is a very large addition to their programme.
I do not think that that is what I said. Perhaps I had better quote my answer again. I said,
"Except that in the case of the United States of America special provision is made for the carrying out of long postponed cruiser construction."
With regard to the six-inch cruisers, is the final number to be the same for the United States as for this country?
No, certainly not. There is a slight advantage in numbers in eight-inch cruisers for the United States, as between the United States and ourselves, but there will be an advantage to us in total tonnage.
Am I right in understanding that the Americans will build 15 eight-inch cruisers, and that we will build none?
This country already has 15 eight-inch cruisers.
Royal Navy
Construction
18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state what new warship tonnage is to be commenced during the present financial year; and whether a supplementary Estimate will be required?
A decision has not yet been taken as to the new programme of naval shipbuilding to be commenced in the current financial year.
When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to come to a decision on this matter?
As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Conference concluded only about a week ago. The Government are giving immediate consideration to the matter, and will inform the House as soon as they have come to a decision.
20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement regarding alterations in the Government's policy of naval construction?
I am not at present in a position to make any statement.
Singapore Base
19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether work is proceeding on the battleship docking and repair plant and facilities at the new Singapore naval base?
In accordance with the terms of the answer which I gave in this House on 13th November last (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 1986–7), work is proceeding on the main works contract, which includes the provision of a graving dock, pending the further consideration of the matter to which I referred in my answer of the 17th of this month to my hon. and gallant Friend (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 3104).
Does that mean that we are going on with the facilities for battleship repairs at Singapore with no alteration, in spite of the Conference which has just been concluded?
The main contract, which was entered into in September, 1928, is going on, and we have stopped all other additional work for the time being: but we felt that it would not he economical, in view of the work already done, to make any changes at the moment. We intend, however, as already announced, to give immediate considera- tion to the whole position, but that must be done in consultation with the Dominions.
Unemployment
Electricity Schemes, Palpstine
22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the present unemployment in the country, he will take steps to see that in all future orders for hydroelectric plant in Palestine opportunities will be given to this country to put in tenders for future requirements?
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the question asked by him yesterday.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the plant in the power station at Haifa was ordered in Germany, without any tender being given to this country; and cannot he make representations to the Zionist Executive occasionally to give some orders to this country?
As I pointed out in the answer which I gave yesterday, these firms are private firms, and the Government have no power to influence them.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Privy Seal, when he held the hon. Gentleman's office, stated that he had taken many steps to ensure orders to this country, and that he intended to carry out that policy? Will not the hon. Gentleman also carry out that policy?
The hon. and gallant Member must be aware that Palestine is a mandated territory, and we are not allowed to make discrimination in these matters in the direction of benefiting our own country.
We all recognise that we must not make discrimination, but cannot the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, make suggestions?
Is it not right that we should ask the Minister to use his good offices in the position he occupies to see that work of this description is brought to this country, seeing that so many of our engineers are idle?
Naturally, I am as much in sympathy with that supplementary question as hon. Members on the other side of the House, but it will be realised that it is a little difficult to distinguish between using official influence and unofficial influence. We certainly are anxious to see all these contracts placed in this country, but, as I have said, we cannot by Government intervention influence private firms.
Is it not the case that the bulk of these orders have been placed in this country?
I think that a large number have been.
Are not the engineers employed, German?
Woollen Textile Industries
42.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the woollen textile industries in Great Britain at Easter this year and the corresponding figure for 1929?
The latest available statistics relate to 24th March, 1930, when the number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the wool textile industry, recorded as unemployed in Great Britain, was 52,171, as compared with 27,081 at 25th March, 1929. These figures do not include hosiery and carpet manufacture.
In view of the enormous increase in the number of the unemployed in the West Riding, will the hon. Member undertake to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of considering the recommendations of the inquiry into the woollen textile trades of the West Riding which presented a Report before this Government came into office? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] May I ask for an answer?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite familiar with these figures, and I am sure he is well able to answer for himself.
Engineering Industries
43.
asked the Minister of Labour the figures of unemployment in the engineering industries of Great Britain, as shown in the latest returns, and the corresponding numbers in 1929?
At 24th March, 1930, the number of insured persons, aged 18 to 64, classified as belonging to the engineering industries recorded as unemployed in Great Britain was 118,975 as compared with 77,995 at 25th March, 1929.
Are the Government taking any steps whatever to improve the unemployment position, which is getting worse?
Yes, Sir; the White Paper which has been circulated shows that some steps are being taken.
In spite of White Papers, it gets worse and worse.
Iron And Steel Industries
44.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures representing the volume of unemployment in the iron and steel industries as compared with the corresponding date in 1929?
At 24th March, 1930, the number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the iron and steel industries (including pig iron manufacture, steel melting, iron and steel rolling and forging, etc.) recorded as unemployed in Great Britain was 49,739, as compared with 34,148 at 25th March, 1929.
In view of the gravity of this figure, will the hon. Gentleman recommend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include iron and steel as a subject of Safeguarding in the Finance Bill?
It may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman and to the House generally to know that in the two comparable industrial countries the conditions in these industries were definitely worse during the same period than they were a year earlier, namely, Germany and America.
Is not that because we did not take steps to protect our industries in this country?
What satisfaction is it to the unemployed in this country to be told that there are unemployed in other countries?
Does that not clearly show that it is a case of "a plague on both your houses" and that neither Free Trade nor Protection is any use to the working-classes of this country.
Cocoa And Chocolate Industry
47.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women registered as unemployed from the cocoa and chocolate industry during each of the last three months; and the number registered as employed in that industry?
As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement:
The estimated number of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the cocoa, chocolate and sugar confectionery industry in Great Britain at July, 1929, was 72,310, of whom 24,490 were males and 47,820 females. The following table shows the numbers of insured persons recorded as unemployed in each of the last three months:
| Date. | Males. | Females. | Total. | |
| 1930. | ||||
| 27th January | … | 2,766 | 6,171 | 8,937 |
| 24th February | … | 2,854 | 6,072 | 8,926 |
| 24th March | … | 3,196 | 7,422 | 10,618 |
Miners, Cornwall
48.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will state the number of tin miners registered as unemployed in Cornwall during each of the last three months?
Separate statistics are not available in respect of tin miners, but the numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, classified as belonging to the lead, tin and copper mining industry recorded as unemployed in Cornwall were 1,060 at 27th January, 1930, 1,061 at 24th February, and 1,085 at 24th March.
East Africa
23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has yet decided upon their policy in connection with East Africa; and When it is expected that a statement will be made to this House on this subject?
I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on the 16th April, which was that a statement on this subject will be made at the earliest possible date, but that I am not yet able to say when that will be.
Ceylon (Adopted Children)
24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that a draft Bill has been introduced into the Ceylon Legislature designed to protect adopted children from cruelty, he will ask the Governor of the Colony to forward a copy of this Bill coupled with any suggested amendments to it?
The Governor will be asked to forward a copy of the Bill, on the understanding that its introduction into the Legislative Council is not thereby delayed. The Bill when passed by the Council will, of course, he submitted for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure in the ordinary course.
Aviation
London Terminal Aerodrome
26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can give the House any further information concerning the Government's decision to construct a new air station in the heart of London?
The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. No such decision has been taken and the position remains as stated in the reply to a somewhat similar question given on the 5th March to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Ward-law-Milne).
Civil Aviation
46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has considered the desirability of making civil aviation entirely independent of military control; and whether he can state the future policy of the Government on this matter?
Civil aviation in this country is not under military control, the Air Ministry being a Department which has a number of civil, in addition to its military, functions. His Majesty's Government do not contemplate any alteration in the existing system.
In view of the fact that no confidential details are involved, will the Government consider the advisability of holding a public inquiry into the whole matter of placing civil aviation on the same footing as the mercantile marine, and independent of the Air Ministry?
That is a totally different question, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will put his question on the Paper, I will give him a reply.
Aerial Warfare
27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken to ratify the rules for restricting aerial operations in war to military objectives, as agreed to by the International Commission of Jurists at The Hague in 1923, especially in regard to prohibitions against inflicting injuries to non-combatants and civilian property?
It was not found possible to obtain the agreement of all the Powers concerned in the draft rules to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, and no steps have consequently been taken to raitfy them.
Electricity Distributing Companies
28.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the number of electricity distributing companies that have capitalised their undistributed profits during the last two years; will he give particulars; and have any reductions in the maximum charges of electricity been made by any of these companies during this period?
I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which the Minister gave on the 14th April to a similar question by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Hunter), of which I am sending him a copy.
Transport
Bursledon Toll Bridge
29.
asked the Minister of Transport whether there is any likelihood of the toll-bridge at Bursledon, Hampshire, being taken over by the local authorities in the near future; and, if not, will he, in the interests of the general public, endeavour to have the charges reduced in view of the steadily increasing traffic using the bridge at present?
I have been asked to reply. The Southampton County Council are proposing to acquire the Bursledon Toll Bridge with a view to freeing it from tolls and subsequently reconstructing it. The council are now seeking the necessary Parliamentary powers to purchase the bridge.
Railway Level Crossing, Hoghton
31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement regarding the proposal to abolish the level crossing over the railway at Hoghton Station, near Preston?
This proposal was the subject of correspondence between the Ministry of Transport and the Lancashire County Council last year. The Minister is prepared to consider the making of a grant from the Road Fund upon receipt of a formal application from the county council.
Has no formal application yet been received by the county council?
Evidently not.
Government Departments (Consular Service)
32.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can state the number of consular officers on the active list who at present represent Great Britain abroad; the number of these officers who are paid and the number unpaid; and whether he will state the number of consular officers representing Great Britain unpaid who are not British subjects, and have any recent new regulations been issued with reference to the Consular Service?
The figures are as follow:
| Total number of British consular officers | 897 |
| Salaried | 376 |
| Unsalaried | 521 |
Is it not a fact that many of the unpaid consular officers occupy positions with commercial companies whose interests are in direct opposition to those of Great Britain?
I am afraid I could not make any statement about that.
Will my hon. Friend look into the matter?
Is it the intention of the Government wherever possible to replace foreign consular officers by British subjects?
I understand it has been the custom since the War, when new appointments have had to be made, to appoint non-British subjects only when the Government were satisfied that no suitable British subject was available.
Empire Settlement (Army Reservists)
33.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can take steps to affiliate British regiments to Canadian regiments, so that reservists of Class B drawing 1s. a day may be enabled to go to Canada and not lose their is a day owing to their regiment being affiliated to a Canadian regiment, and such reservists would be available for service with Canadian regiments if need arise?
The Army Reserve is de- signed to meet the requirements of the Regular Army on mobilisation, and I regret, therefore, I am unable to adopt the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was done before the War in Australia—that this Government paid out a certain amount to the Australian Government and thus enabled reservists to migrate? At present, a large number of reservists are unemployed, and, if the right hon. Gentleman would only make some arrangements such as is suggested in the case of Canada, it would be possible for these men to go there?
I am not aware of those facts, and have nothing to add to the answer that I have given.
Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?
Mr Kurt Sauerland
39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the grounds on which refusal was given to Mr. Saulander Kurtz, a member of the Communist International, to land in this country; and whether the facts have been communicated to the Foreign Office?
I presume the hon. and gallant Member refers to one Kurt Sauerland. My right hon. Friend is not aware that this man has been refused leave to land.
India
Assam (Immigrants)
34.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give information showing the extent of the immigration into Assam during the last 10 years of labourers recruited elsewhere in India for employment by the Assam tea planters?
I am circulating a statement containing the information asked for.
Following is the statement:
| IMMIGRANTS INTO ASSAM, 1919–20 TO 1928–29. | |||||||||
| Division. | Men. | Women. | Children. | Total. | Men. | Women. | Children. | Total. | |
| 1919–20. | 1920–21. | ||||||||
| Assam Valley | … | 29,724 | 21,521 | 29,127 | 80,372 | 8,027 | 5,730 | 7,425 | 21,182 |
| Surma Valley | … | 7,984 | 6,234 | 7,499 | 21,717 | 1,726 | 1,367 | 1,197 | 4,290 |
| Total | … | 37,708 | 27,755 | 36,626 | 102,089 | 9,753 | 7,097 | 8,622 | 25,472 |
| 1921–22. | 1922–23. | ||||||||
| Assam Valley | … | 7,731 | 4,928 | 5,507 | 18,166 | 9,686 | 4,391 | 3,679 | 17,756 |
| Surma Valley | … | 1,147 | 838 | 810 | 2,795 | 2,204 | 957 | 737 | 3,898 |
| Total | … | 8,878 | 5,766 | 6,317 | 20,961 | 11,890 | 5,348 | 4,416 | 21,654 |
| 1923–24. | 1924–25. | ||||||||
| Assam Valley | … | 20,869 | 6,997 | 6,063 | 33,929 | 15,468 | 6,280 | 5,603 | 27,351 |
| Surma Valley | … | 5,033 | 1,708 | 1,192 | 7,933 | 3,638 | 1,562 | 1,176 | 6,376 |
| Total | … | 25,902 | 8,705 | 7,255 | 41,862 | 19,106 | 7,842 | 6,779 | 33,727 |
| 1925–26. | 1926–27. | ||||||||
| Assam Valley | … | 17,175 | 6,374 | 5,003 | 28,552 | 24,411 | 9,304 | 6,922 | 40,637 |
| Surma Valley | … | 2,545 | 1,078 | 834 | 4,457 | 2,884 | 1,262 | 911 | 5,057 |
| Total | … | 19,720 | 7,452 | 5,837 | 33,009 | 27,295 | 10,566 | 7,833 | 45,694 |
| 1927–28. | 1928–29. | ||||||||
| Assam Valley | … | 20,794 | 8,436 | 7,387 | 36,617 | 31,198 | 13,279 | 11,996 | 56,473 |
| Surma Valley | … | 3,330 | 1,591 | 1,307 | 6,228 | 5,963 | 3,269 | 3,195 | 12,427 |
| Total | … | 24,124 | 10,027 | 8,694 | 42,845 | 37,161 | 16,548 | 15,191 | 68,900 |
Road Maintenance (Railway Contributions)
35.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to take an early opportunity of amending the Indian Railways Act and the Devolution Rules, as recommended by a special committee of both houses of the Indian legislature in 1928, so as to enable the railway administration to contribute towards the construction and maintenance of feeder roads?
I have no information, but will inquire.
Chemical Industry (Tariff Board's Report)
36.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the statement of the commerce member in the Indian legislative assembly on the 11th February that the Government of India would endeavour to publish the report of the tariff board on the chemical industry in India before the end of March, he can say whether the report of the board has now been made public; and, if so, whether he will inform the House of the terms of the board's recommendations?
The report has not yet been published. The reason for the delay is, I understand, the complicated nature of the subject.
Trade And Commerce
Sweated Goods (Imports)
37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what negotiations are taking place, or have taken place, since the Government came into office for the purpose of keeping sweated goods from coming into this country?
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply returned to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) on the 21st January, of which I am sending him a copy.
Can the hon. Gentleman point to any instance in which sweated goods have been kept out of this country by the Labour Government?
Can the hon. Member indicate any steps whatever which have been taken by his Government since they came into office?
Oh, yes, I think an attempt has been made to get some regular understanding in regard to miners' hours.
Is the hon. Member aware that a large number of British working men are kept out of employment by the foreign sweated goods which come in?
Empire Marketing Board
25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what use the unexpended balances of sums issued to the Empire Marketing Board have been put in each of the following years: 1926–27, 1927–28, 1928–29, and 1929–30?
The unexpended balances of sums issued to the Empire Marketing Board are not liable to surrender. The balance at the end of any financial year remains in the Empire Marketing Fund and is used to meet expenditure incurred by the Board in the succeeding year.
Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, under existing circumstances, some of this surplus money could not be usefully employed?
I think I am expressing the opinion of the House when I say that the money is being usefully employed by the Empire Marketing Board.
Would the hon. Gentleman say how much money stands to the credit of the Empire Marketing Board at the present moment?
That is not the question I have been asked, but, if the hon. Member desires to have that information, I will give it.
Juvenile Employment (School- Leaving Age)
41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the number of juveniles aged 14 likely to be employed or available for employment in 1931 is still estimated at 365,000 as stated in Cmd. 3327, 1929: and whether she can say what addition should be made thereto to show the total number of juveniles that would be withdrawn from the labour market if children were kept at school till the end of the term in which they became 15?
After further consideration of the available information, the figure of 365,000, representing the average number of juveniles aged 14, in Great Britain, who would be likely to be employed or available for employment in 1931 if the school-leaving age remained as at present, has been revised, the number being now estimated at about 332,000. The raising of the school-leaving age as from 1st April, 1931, however, will not involve the immediate withdrawal of this number of juveniles from the labour market since it will not affect those who have reached 14 years of age by that date. It is not possible to state exactly how many boys and girls who would have been available for employment will be retained at school, but it is estimated that by April, 1932, the figure for Great Britain will be between 350,000 and 400,000.
Education (School Attend- Ance) Bill
45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the growing concern of local education authorities at the delay in proceeding with the School Attendance Bill; and can he state when the Second Reading will be taken?
I am aware that local education authorities are anxious about the progress of the Education (School Attendance) Bill, but I can add nothing at present to what I have already said on this subject.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will bear in mind the urgency of action while an atmosphere favourable to agreement on the religious controversy exists?
I have assured the House of that weeks and months ago.
Africa (Liquor Traffic)
4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state for the last year for which reports have been received from the Central International Office at Brussels for the control of the liquor traffic in Africa, the quantities of spirituous beverages as imported into or manufactured in the African territories for each of the high contracting parties to the convention of St. Germain-en-Laye, and the duties levied under Articles 4 and 5 of the convention?
Yes, Sir. The statistics, however, are so long and involved that I would prefer to communicate them privately to the hon. Member rather than circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, unless there is evidence that they are of general interest to the House.
Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with me privately?
Yes.
Will the Foreign Secretary take into consideration the fact that there is considerable interest taken in this matter by many hon. Members and will he make the figures generally available?
I did not know that they were of such general interest. They are very long and involved, but, if there is a general desire to have them, it is only a question of printing.
British Children, Port Said (Education)
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the lack of educational facilities for children of British subjects resident at Port Said; whether he is aware that there are schools for the children of French and Italian nationals but none for British children, who can only receive education if entered in one or other of these foreign schools; and whether he will take steps to provide a British school for British children?
I am aware that there is no school for British children at Port Said, but I regret that in the present financial conditions it is not practicable to impose any charge on the British taxpayer for such a purpose.
Lighthouse Services
38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the rates of wages and conditions of working of men engaged in the lighthouses round the coast of Great Britain; the wages and conditions of officers and men in the light vessels; and the wages and conditions of officers and men engaged on the steamboats engaged in the lights service?
The lighthouse services round the coasts of Great Britain, apart from those under the control of local authorities, are managed by two general lighthouse authorities, the Trinity House and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses. The staffs are not paid out of Votes, but out of the General Lighthouse Fund. The grades employed are too numerous and conditions too varied to enable detailed information to be given in reply to a question, but I am sending my hon. Friend copies of various Industrial Court awards which contain a large amount of relevant information relating to the pay and conditions of service of officers and men employed by the Trinity House. These awards have been applied, so far as possible, to the staff of the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners.
Where any vacancies occur in this service, will the hon. Gentleman give first consideration to those British subjects who have been dismissed from the lighthouse service of the Egyptian Government?
I can have the matter brought to the attention of the authorities responsible for engaging those men. The authorities are Trinity House and the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners.
Consumers' Council Bill
"to provide for the constitution of a Consumers' Council; to define the powers and duties of that Council; to enable the Board of Trade to regulate by order the prices to be charged for certain commodities and the charges to be made in respect of sales thereof; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. William Graham; supported by Mr. Secretary Adamson, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor-General and Mr. Walter Smith; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]
Chairmen's Panel
Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. James Brown to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Housing (Scotland) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.
Selection (Standing Com- Mittees)
Standing Committee A
Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Angell, Rear-Admiral Beamish, and Earl of Dalkeith; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Butler, and Mr. D. G. Somerville.
Standing Committee B
Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White; and had appointed in substitution: Rear-Admiral Beamish.
Scottish Standing Committee
Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Housing (Scotland) Bill): Commander Bellairs, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Oswald Lewis; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Charles Cayzer, Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White, and Major Glyn.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Orders Of The Day
Ways And Means
Report
[14th APRIL.]
Resolutions reported,
Customs And Excise
Beer (Excise)
1. "That in addition to the duty of excise now payable in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, there shall on and after the fifteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, be charged the following duty (that is to say):—
| s. | d. | |
| For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of | 3 | 0 |
and so in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
Beer (Customs)
2. "That in addition to the duties of Customs now payable on beer imported into the United Kingdom there shall on and after the fifteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—
In the case of beer called or similar to mum, spruce, or black beer, or Berlin white beer or other preparations, whether fermented or not fermented, of a similar character—
| s. | d. | |
| For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof are or were before fermentation of a specified gravity— | ||
| Not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of | 12 | 0 |
| Exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of | 14 | 0 |
| In the case of every description of beer other than that above specified— | ||
| For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of | 3 | 0 |
and so in proportion for any difference in gravity.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
Licence Duty On Certain Motor Vehicles
3. "That, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, a motor vehicle shall not, for the purpose of determining the rate of the licence duty chargeable under the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, be deemed to be electrically propelled unless the electrical motive power is derived either from a source external to the vehicle, or from an electrical storage battery which is not connected to any source of power during the time when the vehicle is in motion."
Income Tax
Charge Of Tax
4. "That—
Provided that the foregoing provision relating to annual value shall not apply to lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the administrative county of London with respect to which the valuation list under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, is by that Act made conclusive for the purposes of income tax.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
Amendment As To Sur-Tax Rates For 1929–30
5. "That income tax for the year 1929–30 in respect of the excess of the total income of an individual over two thousand pounds shall, instead of being charged at the same higher rates as were charged for the year 1928–29, be charged at rates in the pound which exceed the standard rate by the amounts specified in the second column of the following table:—
| TABLE. | |
| For every pound of the first five hundred pounds of the excess | One shilling. |
| For every pound of the next five hundred pounds of the excess | One shilling and threepence. |
| For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess | Two shillings. |
| For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess | Three shillings. |
| For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess | Three shillings and sixpence. |
| For every pound of the next two thousand pounds of the excess | Four shillings. |
| For every pound of the next two thousand pounds of the excess | Five shillings. |
| For every pound of the next five thousand pounds of the excess | Five shillings and sixpence. |
| For every pound of the next five thousand pounds of the excess | Six shillings. |
| For every pound of the next ten thousand pounds of the excess | Six shillings and sixpence. |
| For every pound of the next twenty thousand pounds of the excess | Seven shillings. |
| For every pound of the remainder of the excess | Seven shillings and sixpence. |
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
Amendment As To Relief In Respect Of Life Insurance Premiums
6. "That, notwithstanding that the standard rate of tax exceeds four shillings, the relief from income tax in respect of life insurance premiums and other payments given by Section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall be computed as if the references in the said section to the standard rate of tax (other than the last such reference in Sub-section (9) of the said section) were references to a rate of four shillings.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
Provisions As To Over-Deductions And Under-Deductions Of Income Tax
7. "That—
And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913."
Standard Rate
8. "That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to cases in which in any year in which there is a reduction of the standard rate income tax is deducted by reference to the standard rate of the previous year either under Rule 20 of the General Rules from payments of such preference dividends as are mentioned in the last preceding Resolution, or under Rule 19 of the General Rules from payments of interest on securities of a body corporate."
Interest On Loans Used For Payment Of Premiums, &C, Not To Be Allowed As Deduction For Purposes Of Sur-Tax
9. "That—
Period In Respect Of Which Profits Or Gains Are To Be Computed
10. "That it is expedient to amend the provisions of the Income Tax Acts which relate to the determination of the period the profits or gains of which are, for the purposes of an assessment to income tax in any year, to be taken to be the profits or gains of the year preceding the year of assessment."
Computation Of Profits Or Gains In Case Of New Trade, Profession Or Vocation
11. "That it is expedient to amend the provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to the computation for the purposes of income tax of the profits or gains of a trade, profession or vocation so far as relates to the charge of income tax in respect of any such profits or gains for the year of assessment next after, and the year of assessment next but one after, the year of assessment in which the trade, profession or vocation was set up or commenced."
Death Duties
Estate Duty (Alteration Of Scale)
12. Resolved, That there shall be substituted for the rates of Estates Duty set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1925, rates in accordance with the following table:—
| Principal Value of Estate. | Rate per Cent. of Duty. | ||
| £ | £ | ||
| Exceeding | 100 and not exceeding | 500 | 1 |
| Exceeding | 500 and not exceeding | 1,000 | 3 |
| Exceeding | 1,000 and not exceeding | 5,000 | 3 |
| Exceeding | 5,000 and not exceeding | 10,000 | 4 |
| Exceeding | 10,000 and not exceeding | 12,500 | 5 |
| Exceeding | 12,500 and not exceeding | 15,000 | 6 |
| Exceeding | 15,000 and not exceeding | 18,000 | 7 |
| Exceeding | 18,000 and not exceeding | 21,000 | 8 |
| Exceeding | 21,000 and not exceeding | 25,000 | 9 |
| Exceeding | 25,000 and not exceeding | 30,000 | 10 |
| Exceeding | 30,000 and not exceeding | 35,000 | 11 |
| Exceeding | 35,000 and not exceeding | 40,000 | 12 |
| Exceeding | 40,000 and not exceeding | 45,000 | 13 |
| Exceeding | 45,000 and not exceeding | 50,000 | 14 |
| Exceeding | 50,000 and not exceeding | 55,000 | 15 |
| Exceeding | 55,000 and not exceeding | 65,000 | 16 |
| Exceeding | 65,000 and not exceeding | 75,000 | 17 |
| Exceeding | 75,000 and not exceeding | 85,000 | 18 |
| Exceeding | 85,000 and not exceeding | 100,000 | 19 |
| Exceeding | 100,000 and not exceeding | 120,000 | 20 |
| Exceeding | 120,000 and not exceeding | 150,000 | 22 |
| Exceeding | 150,000 and not exceeding | 200,000 | 24 |
| Exceeding | 200,000 and not exceeding | 250,000 | 26 |
| Exceeding | 250,000 and not exceeding | 300,000 | 28 |
| Exceeding | 300,000 and not exceeding | 400,000 | 30 |
| Exceeding | 400,000 and not exceeding | 500,000 | 32 |
| Exceeding | 500,000 and not exceeding | 600,000 | 34 |
| Exceeding | 600,000 and not exceeding | 800,000 | 36 |
| Exceeding | 800,000 and not exceeding | 1,000,000 | 38 |
| Exceeding | 1,000,000 and not exceeding | 1,250,000 | 40 |
| Exceeding | 1,250,000 and not exceeding | 1,500,000 | 42 |
| Exceeding | 1,500,000 and not exceeding | 2,000,000 | 45 |
| Exceeding | 2,000,000 | — | 50 |
Estate Duty In Cases Where Deceased Person Had Transferred Property To A Company
13. "That—
Estate Duty In Case Where Annuity Charged On Property Has Been Surrendered
14. "That property which was subject to an annuity or other periodical payment ceasing on the death of a deceased person shall, for the purpose of the enactments relating to estate duty, be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased notwithstanding that the annuity or other payment has been surrendered, assured, or otherwise disposed of during the lifetime of the deceased, whether for value or not, to, or for the benefit of, a person entitled to the property, unless the surrender, assurance, or disposition was bonâ fide made or effected three years before the death of the deceased, and no benefit, by contract or otherwise, was secured to the person entitled to the annuity or other payment in return for the surrender, assurance, or disposition thereof."
Death Duties On Objects Of Art, &C
15. "That where any property which, while enjoyed in kind, is exempt from estate duty by virtue of Section twenty of the Finance Act, 1896, and the Acts amending that Act, is sold, death duties shall become chargeable on the proceeds of sale in respect of the last death on which the property passed and, as respects estate duty, at the rate appropriate to the principal value of the estate passing on that death."
First Resolution read a Second time.
I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out "3s. 0d." and to insert instead thereof "2s. 6d."
The history of the Beer Duty is a long one. It was first imposed in 1660, in the reign of Charles II, the rate for strong beer being 4s. 9d. per barrel, and for small, intermediate or table beer 1s. 3d. per barrel. Apparently nothing further was done in the matter until 1697, when a malt tax at the rate of 6¾d. a bushel was levied in addition. In 1711, a hop duty of 1d. per pound was imposed, but this was eventually abolished in 1862. In 1784, a licence duty was imposed on brewers, with a minimum of 20s. for table beer, and for strong beer it ranged from 30s. to £50. In 1800, the Beer Duty, after some minor changes, was raised to 10s. for strong and 3s. for small beer. In 1830, the rates were 9s. to 10s. for strong and 1s. 9½d. to 5s. for small beer. Including the malt tax, the taxation on beer at the end of the reign of George IV was approximately 4½d. per gallon. In 1850, a sugar duty of 1s. 4d. per hundredweight was imposed. In 1854 it was increased to 6s. 6d., in 1874 to 11s. 6d., and in 1880 it became merged in the Beer Duty. In 1880, Mr. Gladstone repealed the malt and sugar duties and brewers' and maltsters' licence duties, and in their stead a licence duty of £1 was imposed on all brewers for sale, and a duty of 6s. 3d. for every barrel of beer of a specific gravity of 1,057. In 1889, in Mr. Goschen's Budget, the standard of gravity was changed from 1,057 to 1,055, equal to an increased duty of 2½d. In 1890, Mr. Goschen reduced the duty by 3d. per barrel so far as Imperial revenue was concerned, but immediately re-imposed it for local taxation purposes. In 1894, in Sir William Harcourt's Budget, the duty was increased from 6s. 3d. to 6s. 9d. In 1900, the duty was increased by a "temporary" war tax of 1s., which remained permanent. In 1910, the brewers' licence duty was altered from a flat rate of £1, and based on a sliding scale, the effect of which was to increase the duty by about 3d. per barrel. In 1914, the output was 36,165,000 standard barrels, which may be described as the pre-War rate. In 1914, the duty was raised from 7s. 9d. to 23s. per standard barrel. In 1916, it was raised to 24s., in 1917 to 25s., in 1918 to 50s., and in 1919, under the Coalition Government, to 70s. In 1920, in a time of peace, the duty was raised to 100s., or practically 13 times the pre-War rate. Beer drinkers in this country have not been treated fairly. Every other War tax has been reduced, while the tax on beer was not only increased considerably immediately after the end of the War, but has since been doubled, and to-day beer has reached a price, owing to taxation, at which it is impossible for the ordinary workman to purchase even a small quantity out of his weekly wages without depriving his wife and family of the necessaries of life. Take the case of an agricultural labourer. I am asked and have been asked many times, "When are we going to get cheaper beer and cheaper tobacco?" If an agricultural labourer in Kent, with the standard rate of wages, namely, 32s. a week, purchases a pint of beer for himself and half a pint for his wife—[Interruption.] I do not think that even the most hardened teetotaler in this House would consider that a pint and a half for a family is an excessive quantity. At the price at present charged for beer, that will represent 18½ per cent. of that man's total wages. He is not able to do it; but he has a right to the beer—he has a right to that moderate refreshment—but the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to let him have it. In the case of the industrial worker also, his wages are certainly in excess of those of the agricultural worker, but still they are not sufficient to allow him to indulge in the moderate alcoholic refreshment to which he is entitled. There is a difference between the agricultural worker and the industrial worker. The agricultural worker has not the facilities for amusement which the industrial worker has. In a constituency that is really agricultural, the only amusement that the worker has is generally to have a nice little chat with his pals in the local public house over the work of the day. Fortunately, as a rule, politics do not interest him; his neighbour's cow or his neighbour's pig interests him considerably more than anything which takes place in this House. He cannot go to the cinema; he cannot go to a theatre; and, therefore, when he is seated in his local amusement house, the public house, he is entitled, I think, to have one pint of beer a day, half a pint in the evening and half a pint with his dinner in the middle of the day. What is the difference between beer, tea and coffee? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he wanted to give a free breakfast table. Why not a free dinner table? Why not give the labourer the same advantage that is given to the tea drinker? Surely, we must admit that there is more family disaffection caused through tea than through beer. There is more bad temper created in the women of to-day through the excessive consumption of tea in one month than there is through the excessive consumption of beer by men in 12 months. Tea is only a drink, after all. Beer, in addition to being a drink, is a food. Yet you take the entire duty off tea, and, instead of leaving the Beer Duty as it was originally, every successive Chancellor of the Exchequer adds to it, because he knows that the beer drinker, generally speaking, is a good-tempered individual, contented and wishful always to do his duty to his country. He curses the Chancellor of the Exchequer over his glass of beer, but he goes on his way grumbling and does not voice his complaint through an organised body. It is the usual case of the man in the street having no voice in this House. The country consists in the main of beer drinkers. Beer is our national drink, and will remain so for ever. It has built up our nation. We have not built it up on tea or coffee or slops. I appeal to the Chancellor to agree to this reduction and also to make up his mind, if he has a surplus next year, that it is his duty to beer drinkers to allocate it entirely to the reduction of the present very excessive duty on beer.I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for a rather different reason from that of my hon. Friend. I agree with him that the present duty constitutes a very heavy and unfair tax, but I am more interested in the Chancellor's statement in his Budget speech that he had an assurance from the brewers to the effect that the duty would not be passed on to the public in the shape of beer of a lower specific gravity. I realise that it is impossible to pass this duty on to the public in the shape of an increased price, as it would amount only to ⅛d. per pint, which is smaller than the smallest coin of the Kingdom. I quite understand that the big brewers can bear this extra taxation without very serious inconvenience, but I want to know what is going to be the position of the smaller breweries, carrying on local businesses, supplying people with the beer to which they are accustomed and which they like, and not finding it too easy to make both ends meet. I feel that this may be the last straw which will drive these smaller businesses to close down and to merge themselves in larger concerns. I do not think it is good for the industrial life of the country that we should so frame our taxation as to encourage and hasten the process of rationalisation or trustification of everything as seems to be the desire of so many people at present. The big firms can shoulder the extra taxation. They can probably, by means of slight economies and employing slightly leas labour, manage to carry the burden without putting up the price to the consumer or seriously deteriorating the quality of the article. But the bigger the company, the less there is of the human touch between those who are responsible for its conduct and those whom it employs. The big business will have its head office in London and its brewery, or breweries, in other parts of the country, and those who are responsible for its conduct have no knowledge of the employés, no knowledge of their public-houses and no knowledge whatever of the conditions of the population whom they serve. That is not good for the country, for the people employed, nor for anyone. Yet it seems to me that by this system of taxation you are always making it easier for the big business and harder for the small one. We are, in fact, encouraging that very rationalisation of which so many Members opposite complain because of its effect on employment. We should not put our taxation in such a way as to weight the scales unfairly against the small private business. It is because I fear that that I support the Amendment. I should like to know whether the Chancellor has had an assurance from the smaller brewers, or whether he has merely received an assurance from one or two of the bigger companies.It is unfortunate that, whenever this subject comes up for discussion, it tends to be treated something like a comic strip and to evoke hilarity and amusement. I want to say a word on the principle that is involved in connection with this duty, as representing an agricultural constituency on which this form of taxation bears very heavily. If anyone had the conception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being a public benefactor, whether in fact or in aspiration, I am sure he would have changed his view on listening to the Budget statement. The principle that has been carried through this financial legislation has been very largely, in the wards of the Chancellor himself, to place the fresh burden, which he said he was compelled to place, on broad backs, and I presume he regarded the brewers' backs as being sufficiently broad to bear another straw.
Very often, when you are doing a certain thing, you find that the effects are not exactly what you thought they were going to be, and in this matter there is not only the big dividend distributing, wealth-earning company, but there is also the consuming population, who are the foundation of the existence of the business whose prosperity is subject to taxation. If it were the ambition of the Chancellor and of hon. Members opposite gradually to arrive at the complete elimination, not only of taxation on what is called the breakfast table, but taxation that is widely distributed, we have here a case in which the largest proportion of the beer drinkers are classed among the weekly wage earners and, therefore, in constantly piling the burden of taxation on to this article, he is to that extent piling an unfair proportion on to the consumers of this commodity. If this were a question of temperance legislation, it would perhaps be an entirely different question as to whether you were going, by regulation or taxation, predatory or otherwise, to try to eliminate what you regarded as a bad habit, but we are not considering that at the moment. We are considering the principle of raising revenue for carrying on the activities of the country. I think anyone who heard the Mover of the Amendment, or who has seen the comparative tables of the general consumption of commodities and the burden of taxation that they bear, must admit that the tax or, beer is out of all proportion to any theory of taxation. The only excuse for it is that you charge all that the traffic will bear, and this traffic has been able to carry all this piling up of taxation. Members who do not live in country districts cannot realise in the way we do what a tremendous difference the heavy taxation of this article has made to the ordinary population of the countryside. It has almost made beer a luxury. I do not pose as a temperance legislator at all, but I believe that, owing to the regulated consumption of that article, the nation gains from every point of view. I wish to take the opportunity of emphasising that the time has about come when it is no longer a broad back on which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer can place additional burdens, because, so far from being the back of the despised brewer, it is the back of the consuming population; it is the back- bone of this country on which the burden is being placed. Therefore, I urge this reduction on the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the principle that his method of taxation is an unfair one in this particular direction and that the time has come to call a halt in constantly adding and adding to the burden of the consumers of the countryside.I should like to add a few words in support of my hon. Friend who introduced the Amendment on behalf of the agricultural labourer whose needs are never thought of. If nothing else can be done, at least something should be done to cheapen his beer. It would repay this country and enable him to do much more work. Many of us have supported temperance, not from the total abstinence point of view, but from the point of view of better conditions in the public-houses. This, I believe, tends to do more to stop drunkenness than anything else, and it is one of the things which you really penalise by keeping this vicious taxation upon the brewers. I have never had any money in breweries, and I have nothing to do with brewers. It is simply from the point of view of this new movement which started in the Army and which, while in the Army, so many of us supported. It is now developing in civil life, and I fear that this Budget will do something towards checking it. It was started in the Army by General Smith-Dorrien. We had our wet canteen and our dry canteen. The wet canteen was like a prison cell. Anyone who wanted a drink had to go into that cheerless place, and when the men were allowed to have beer with their supper in the dry canteen, it produced a revolution in the Army. The arrangement was continued during the War and certain civilians were very much struck by it.
About a month ago the movement to introduce better conditions in the public-houses in the poorer parts of London was explained to some of us by representatives of the society concerned, and their point was that, if they could get some help from the Government, they knew that the brewers would be able to give some of their spare profits in order to build better houses and make gardens round public-houses and generally improve the conditions, so as to make them places where men could take their wives and children. The movement depended upon the brewers being big subscribers. The society can show you houses which have been developed on these lines by Whitbreads and other brewers, and have proved a great success. It is a great pity that heavy taxation should penalise a movement of this sort which really is going to increase temperance more than any other method and make people more respectable and better. I should be very sorry if this movement were to be deliberately stopped now that the brewers are doing all that they can with spare money to help this movement, which is one of great importance and which this Budget will do much to impede.I am sure that the whole House listened with a great deal of interest to the historical sketch that was given by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland), who moved this Amendment. When an alteration was proposed in the duty on beer the House would, of course, have been disappointed if we had not had several speeches extolling the value of beer and the importance of it to the people of this country. But when the hon. Member for Canterbury, and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Major Davies), speaking later, described this additional duty as penalising the agricultural labourer and penalising consumers generally, I think they were considerably wide of the mark.
My remark was that it was the total duty at present levied and not this particular 3s.
That may be so, but that surely is not a question for debate on this particular proposal. The proposal which is the subject of discussion is to put on an additional 3s. a barrel, and the object of the Amendment of the hon. Member is to reduce that 3s. to 2s. 6d. I waive aside the fact that he proposes to take off only 6d. because I realise that it is the Parliamentary form of moving to get rid of the whole 3s. The point I am making is that the 3s. which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proposing to add to the Beer Duty is not anticipated to have any effect at all on the price of beer to the consumer. It may be that there is a case which the hon. Members would like to make for removing a large part of the Beer Duty, but the question of price to the consumer does not enter into the proposal which we are discussing to-day at all. Therefore, I think that the whole of the case which they endeavoured to make against the proposals of the Resolution put forward by my right hon. Friend entirely falls to the ground.
4.0 p.m. The case which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) made was a different one. He said, "I admit that this tax will fall upon the brewers and will not be passed on to the consumer, and that it may be that the larger brewer will be prepared to carry this burden without taking it out of the quality of beer or out of the consumer. But what is the position to be with regard to the smaller brewers?" When my right hon. Friend said that he had had an assurance from the brewers, he was not speaking of the well-to-do brewers only but of the brewers as a whole. In so far as the brewers are represented by the Brewers Society—and I understand that it is a society which includes the big and the small brewers and is thoroughly representative of the trade generally—it was that Brewers Society which gave the assurance to which my right hon. Friend referred. It was not until they had a meeting, at which 50 different representatives of the trade were present, that they gave the assurance to which my right hon. Friend referred. That assurance was that they would not attempt to pass the additional duty in the price to the consumer and that they would not alter the gravity of the beer; that they were in a position to bear the burden of the duty without passing it on to anyone else. In these circumstances, it seems to me that there is very little case for the Amendment, and, of course, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to sacrifice the loss of revenue involved. The actual Amendment would mean a loss of something like £500,000, but if the Amendment is merely a means of negativing the whole increase of 3s., of course, that would mean a loss to the Revenue of £3,000,000 which we hope to get from this addition to the duty. Therefore, I must ask the House not to accept this Amendment.The point that I want to put to the House is a different one from the points that have been put so far. I am not bringing it forward on behalf of either the brewers or the beer consumers, but on behalf of the growers of malting barley. I understand that this addition to the duty will not be passed on to the consumer by the brewer, and that the brewer will not reduce the specific gravity of the beer; but I have very grave fears that he will try to get as much as he can out of the grower of malting barley, for the production of which very large tracts of land in the eastern counties are used. A few years ago it was the practice to use good malting barley in beer, and to pay high prices for the barley. In recent years there has been a tendency on the part of travellers for the merchants in the market to say they will not buy any more malting barley but only feeding stuff, at a very much lower price, and it has been found that this has been sold to the brewers for malting. I am afraid that there will be an attempt to knock down the price of malting barley, low as it is in the eastern counties, and try to get this tax out of the very hard-pressed farmers in those counties.
I should like to take a rather more general aspect on this Amendment, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £3,000,000 which, I understand, is to be raised by this duty, will be counted in the national statistics upon the direct or the indirect side of our ratio of taxation? It seems to me very important that that ratio between direct and indirect taxation, which has for so many years been followed as an index of the political character of Governments, should be based on sound and true foundations. During the last few years many taxes have been added which are of a different character altogether from those which formerly constituted the basis of indirect taxation. In the old days it was said that indirect taxation is the fund mainly contributed by the mass of the people, and direct taxation is the fund mainly contributed by the well-to-do, and, as far as you are dealing with great articles of popular consumption, tea, sugar, beer, no doubt there is a great deal of truth in that. The index is sound, and that is why it was always the subject of such careful scrutiny from year to year in all the great Budgets at the end of the last century and the beginning of this.
But when you introduce taxes of a sumptuary kind on luxuries—silk, motor cars, musical instruments, and all sorts of matters which are not amongst the staple articles of popular consumption—obviously, you are introducing into the ratio new factors, and in this case the right hon. Gentleman is not really levying an indirect tax at all. It is his boast—one made not for the first time by a Chancellor of the Exchequer—that by private discussions with the leaders of a great trade, by putting pressure upon them, by coming to an arrangement with them—I am not at all criticising this—he has secured from them a, yielding up of some of their profits in the farm or a direct tax, that being included in the total of indirect taxation. Indirect taxation is paid by the consumer. Here is a tax, the very essence of which is that it is not to be paid by the consumer. Why vitiate the figures by introducing a factor which is obviously entirely contrary to the very purpose for which the ratio of indirect taxation is always quoted? No doubt if the right hon. Gentleman has taken this £3,000,000 by direct taxation from one particular class of producers, he will still emphasise how in his Budget he has carried the ratio of direct taxation much higher than it has ever been carried before, and has lowered that of indirect taxation. But these will be figures produced on an altogether unsound basis, and it seems to me that we require a new classification. I am all for the ratio being strictly followed from year to year as it should be followed, on a strictly comparable basis, and for that purpose sumptuary taxation on articles ought not to be included among indirect taxation. They ought to be in a separate category, and certainly taxes like these, the whole yield of which is to be paid, not by the consumers but by a limited class, ought to be withdrawn from any fair computation of statistics
Division No. 260.]
| AYES.
| [4.9 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bellamy, Albert | Brothers, M. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Brown, Ernest (Leith) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Benson, G. | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Burgess, F. G. |
| Arnott, John | Bowen, J. W. | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) |
| Ayles, Walter | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Broad, Francis Alfred | Caine, Derwent Hall- |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Brockway, A. Fenner | Cape, Thomas |
| Barr, James | Bromfield, William | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Brooke, W. | Charleton, H. C. |
of the ratio between direct and indirect taxation.
I am afraid that I could not see very much relevance in the right hon. Gentleman's observations. The question which is now before the House is whether the proposed increase of the Beer Duty should be reduced by 6d. I am concerned with the amount of revenue I shall receive under this proposal, and I leave it to statisticians to decide the question as to whether they will include this increase under direct or indirect taxation. I think it is rather unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have raised this question. His memory has failed him on this occasion. He was out of the House of Commons at the time, but the Leader of the Opposition reduced the Beer Duty in 1923, and he did it under an arrangement similar to the one I have made now. Then, the brewers undertook to bear something like £4,000,000 of the cost of the reduction. I suppose that since 1923 up to the present time, the whole receipts from the Beer Duty have been classed as indirect taxation, and I remember that the right hon. Gentleman has on more than one occasion presented to the House figures in regard to the proportions of direct and indirect taxation over a series of years, and no doubt they include the revenue from this duty. As I said, however, I am more concerned with the question of getting revenue, and, for the time being, I am not very much concerned whether in future it will be classed as direct or indirect taxation. Of course, it is perfectly true that this duty will be paid by the brewer, and, therefore, in that sense it might not strictly come under the category of indirect taxation.
Question put, "That '3s. 0d.' stand part of the Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 112.
| Clarke, J. S. | Kinley, J. | Romeril, H. G. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Kirkwood, D. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Knight, Holford | Rowson, Guy |
| Compton, Joseph | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Cove, William G. | Lathan, G. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Daggar, George | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Dallas, George | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lawrence, Susan | Sanders, W. S. |
| Day, Harry | Lawson, John James | Sandham, E. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Dickson, T. | Leach, W. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lees, J. | Shield, George William |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lindley, Fred W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Egan, W. H. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shinwell, E. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Logan, David Gilbert | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| England, Colonel A. | Longbottom, A. W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Foot, Isaac | Longden, F. | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sinkinson, George |
| Freeman, Peter | Lowth, Thomas | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lunn, William | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | McElwee, A. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Mackinder, W. | Snell, Harry |
| Gill, T. H. | McKinlay, A. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Gillett, George M. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Glassey, A. E. | McShane, John James | Sorensen, R. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Gould, F. | Mansfield, W. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | March, S. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Marcus, M. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Granville, E. | Marshall, Fred | Strauss, G. R. |
| Gray, Milner | Mathers, George | Sullivan, J. |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Matters, L. W. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Middleton, G. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Montague, Frederick | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Morley, Ralph | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Tout, W. J. |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Mort, D. L. | Turner, B. |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Moses, J. J. H. | Walker, J. |
| Hardie, George D. | Muggeridge, H. T. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Murnin, Hugh | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Haycock. A. W. | Oldfield, J. R. | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Herriotts, J. | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne) |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Palin, John Henry | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Paling, Wilfrid | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Hollins, A. | Perry, S. F. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | West, F. R. |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | White, H. G. |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Pole, Major D. G. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Isaacs, George | Potts, John S. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Price, M. P. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Johnston, Thomas | Quibell, D. F. K. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Raynes, W. R. | Wise, E. F. |
| Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford) | Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Briscoe, Richard George | Colman, N. C. D. |
| Albery, Irving James | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Colville, Major D. J. |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Buchan, John | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Atkinson, C. | Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Butler, R. A. | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Carver, Major W. H. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Boyce, H. L. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Fermoy, Lord | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Long, Major Eric | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Lymington, Viscount | Smithers, Waldron |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Marjoribanks. E. C. | Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Muirhead, A. J. | Wardlaw-Milne. J. S. |
| Henderson, Capt. H. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | O'Neill, Sir H. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Penny, Sir George | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Purbrick, R. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) | |
| King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Major the Marquess of Titchfield |
| Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | and Captain Wallace. |
| Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Savery, S. S. |
I beg to move, in line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
If we pass this Amendment it will certainly have an effect for good on agriculture in this country. I am not criticising the brewer—I am not a brewer nor do I own a single brewery share—but we know perfectly well that if an inducement were held out to the brewing industry, by means of this Amendment, that they are more likely to make a bigger effort from the business point of view to use more English barley than they are doing at the present time. The barley industry, like every other branch of agriculture, is in a very bad state. When we look at the figures of years ago and compare them with the figures of to-day we can appreciate, with the increased costs of to-day, what a tremendous difference the price of barley has made to the farmer of 1930 compared with the farmer of 1870. In 1870, the average price of barley was 34s. 7d. per quarter, and in 1880 the price was 33s. 1d. In 1929, although the cost of living was nearly double that of 1880, the price of barley was down to 29s. 9d. The farmer has to pay 70 per cent. more on his labour bill and everything that he buys, his concentrates, his cake, his tools, his machinery, has increased in price, but for the article that he produces he is receiving less than in 1880, although in 1880 he, or his father, was able to purchase the machines and other things necessary to carry on his industry at half the figure that has to be paid to-day. In 1929, we imported 12,975,345 quarters of barley, of which 2,726,585 quarters were imported from the Empire and 10,248,760 quarters from foreign sources. Farmers in this country would grow more barley if there was an incentive for them to do so. The greater the demand for brewing barley the higher the price would be. Barley may be divided into three classes. The best barley produced in this country is purchased by the brewers; the second quality goes to the domestic consumer, generally speaking, and the third quality is used for poultry food and for fattening stock. The brewer wants the best article that he can procure and for that article he is naturally going to pay a better price. The farmer is not always able on the same land to produce a good barley crop sufficient to offer to the brewer, but, taking the country as a whole, every farmer from year to year or every year or two is able to offer to the brewer, if the season has been favourable, barley for the purpose of being made into beer. If we could induce the brewer to purchase a larger percentage of British barley we should have gone some way towards relieving the present depressing barley situation. I sincerely hope that the Amendment will be accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my constituency, a considerable quantity of hops are produced. The hop industry is in a very depressed condition, owing to the fact that there has been over-production, due to the reduced consumption of beer, in part, and due also to the excessive price of beer and excessive taxation. If it were not for the £4 Duty, which protects to a certain extent the hop growers, the industry would be in a very much worse position than it is. If we could pass this Amendment and a greater percentage of home-produced barley were used by the brewers, the brewers would naturally require a larger percentage of English hops. Therefore, it would not only do one industry good but would have a good effect on both industries."Provided that where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that any beer brewed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is brewed solely from malt and hops of Home production there shall be allowed a rebate of two shillings for every thirty-six gallons of worts, and for the purposes of this Resolution beer shall be deemed to be brewed from Home-produced malt only when the proportion of sugar and malt does not exceed fifteen per centum."
I beg to second the Amendment. I, like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland), can say that I am not in the least interested in the brewing industry. I am to a certain extent interested in the question of beer, slightly as a consumer but more as a producer of those articles that should enter into the manufacture of beer—malt and hops. The Amendment proposes that there should be a rebate to a small extent upon beer brewed of British malt and hops and that that rebate should be enforced only when there is a limited percentage of other ingredients brewed in the beer, such as sugar. I regard this Amendment as a small step towards the ideal which I have always desired to attain, and that is pure beer for the British consumer, beer made of malt and hops, both of which should be grown in this country.
This is not the first time that I have spoken on this very controversial subject. The last time that I had the privilege and honour of discussing the matter was at 2 o'clock in the morning, when the subject of beer was possibly more congenial to the House that at the present time, 4.30 p.m., when we are thinking more of tea than of beer. I am in the possibly enviable position of knowing something about the subject of beer. Beer is defined in the Encyclopaedia Britannica as a beverage manufactured from malt and hops. The beer consumed to-day, is not manufactured to a large extent from malt and hops, it is brewed from waste products of sugar manufacture, and possibly other chemicals enter into its composition. My ideal is to obtain for the consumer that for which he pays his money—beer! I submit that the attainment of that ideal should receive and will receive, the sympathetic consideration not only of the hon. Members on this side of the House but also of hon. Members opposite. When beer is offered to a man for sale and he accepts the offer and pays his money, he expects to get beer, the product of malt and hops; but to-day he is not getting that product by any means. I know that in this argument I shall receive the sympathetic support of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), because my proposal would enable him to get that for which he pays. I am sorry that he is not present. I feel confident that I should also get the sympathetic support of the Noble Lady the Member of the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), because even she would expect that when a man paid for beer he would get it. I am also a producer of milk. Hon. Members opposite are anxious to make sure that the milk put on the market is pure milk. If I attempted to make my milk of starch and water and sugar and fat I should, quite rightly, be immediately prosecuted for attempting to defraud the public. To some people milk is a beverage; to others beer is a beverage. Beer may not be as suitable as milk as a beverage for babies, but there is a class in the community which considers beer as essential as milk, and if it is necessary that the milk put on the market should be pure I suggest that it is equally essential in the interests of the community that the beer put on the market should be pure. I desire, as I have said, to protect the interest of the consumer, but my main desire in seconding this Amendment is to help that great industry of ours, British agriculture. As the mover of the Amendment has very clearly stated, the industry, particularly the arable side of it, is in a very precarious condition at the present time. There is no part of the industry which has suffered recently to the extent that the barley grower has suffered. My hon. Friend has pointed out how a few years ago barley was fetching something like 40s. to 50s. per quarter. To-day, with the costs in the agricultural industry up 100 per cent., barley is selling for 25s. a quarter, some 5s. or 6s. below the pre-War price. That is pounds per acre below the cost of production. That is the position of the barley growers in a large part of the Eastern Counties of England. The farmer, I contend, has a great grievance when he sees brewers making beer out of foreign material. Beer is not a luxury, but a necessity, for the man who has to do hard physical work in the open air. There is no greater necessity for such a man than a good glass of beer. The farmer sees his men drinking beer made out of imported foreign barley while the barley that he is producing is unsaleable. The farmer has a definite grievance in the fact that his market is being destroyed by the foreign article. I am aware that this Amendment may not receive the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The last time I moved an Amendment of this description the right hon. Gentleman did me the honour of replying to me. He said that he could not accept the Amendment for financial reasons. I hope, however, that the Amendment to-day, which mentions a very small figure, will receive the right hon. Gentleman's approval. I am sure that it will have the approval of his colleague the Minister of Agriculture. The present Government have been in power nearly a year. In my constituency during the General Election supporters of the Government said: "Send us back to the House of Commons and we will make farming pay." I ask the House what single act has been done by the Government so far to help the farming industry? We were told to wait and see until a certain conference had made a report. We have waited patiently. That conference has not yet reported, and I understand that it is adjourned indefinitely. I am sure that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer listened to the advice of the Minister of Agriculture he would accept the Amendment, because the Minister of Agriculture is looking to discover in what way he may bring forward something this Session to help the agricultural industry. This Amendment is a small thing, but it would be a step in the right direction and would help the industry. The Minister of Agriculture is a representative of a Norfolk constituency, and a large proportion of the barley used in brewing is grown in Norfolk. I know that the Minister's constituents are urging him keenly to do something that will help the industry on the lines of having beer made as far as possible of British barley. I end with an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Two-and-sixpence a barrel is a little thing, but the rebate would be a slight enticement to the brewers to use British barley. It would provide a slight financial stimulus. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to listen to the advice of the Minister of Agriculture and accept the Amendment.I think I can congratulate my hon. Friends on introducing a subject which provokes hilarity in the House. Whenever the subject of beer is mentioned I notice that the spirits of hon. Members rise, and I think that that may be taken as a tribute to the good qualities of beer in the abstract. We are anxious to improve the quality of that beer, and so increase hilarity and enable this country to get through some of its political difficulties with far less trouble than is necessary to-day. Anyone who knows village life knows what a great social factor beer is. You have only to go into the village centre of social activity to realise that there is a certain assuaging of difficulties and differences of opinion round the little table and the beer pot. Unquestionably in my own constituency, where there are so many of these villages—about 120 of them—it would be an enormous aid in assuaging political difficulties if we were able to say in our public houses, "This beer is all-English beer." I put that point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wishes, as we all wish, to see a merry England again.
We have heard of the difficulties with which the Minister of Agriculture is faced. We have had in the country big conferences of farmers and farm-workers, assisted by hon. Members opposite, to try to make the Government and the country realise in what a really dangerous position agricultural production is, and how precarious is becoming the position of the agricultural worker. Moreover, as has been said, we have had an agricultural conference at which the three sections of agriculture have been trying to find a solution of present difficulties. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should come to the help of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We are told that the Minister of Agriculture will very shortly issue a White Paper in which he will set forth the means by which the Government propose to carry out their election pledge to the agricultural community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be giving material support to his right hon. Friend if he would accept the principle of this Amendment, though perhaps some of its details might have to be altered. No one can visit East Anglia, to say nothing of my own constituency, without realising what a desperate position has been reached by the arable agriculturists. Barley production is especially in peril, for reasons with which the House is familiar, and the position of the worker on the land is also imperilled. If we could only get well established in this country the consumption of real beer, of English beer, an enormous boon would be conferred on the agricultural industry and on the consumers of beer. In the late Parliament I had the temerity to induce an East Anglian firm which produces all-English beer to send to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day a good specimen of its products, and the right hon. Gentleman accepted the gift. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is out of the House for the moment. If he were present I have no doubt that he would tell the House what a very fine product the beer was, and what a great benefit would be conferred on the community if we were able to provide them with a similar all-English product. Perhaps I am not too sanguine in saying that but for the little mishap of last May we might have had in this year's Budget the concession that we are now seeking in this Amendment. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may say, "But this cannot be done." He may say that investigations have shown that certain commercial treaties stand in the way of carrying out the suggestion contained in the Amendment. In reply to that argument, I submit that the word "cannot" is quite inapplicable when dealing with commercial treaties. We are such a large importing nation and other nations are so largely dependent on our market that, if we are only fair in our dealings, we can do practically what we like in the matter of commercial arrangements. I venture to say that a strong Government here, talking to Governments oversea which impose special burdens on our products, has only to speak to them in a language which they can understand, in order to get fair play for the products of this country and fair treatment as regards excise duties. We, on this side, have our own methods and we have our own suggestions to make. We know that if we regained our bargaining power we should have no difficulty in securing fair treatment in this matter as in all other matters. I suggest to the House that the time has come when in this and in other matters we ought to look after our own people and follow the principle of "home first." My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) has reminded the House that one of the phrases used in the election addresses of the party opposite was "make farming pay." This Amendment provides one of the minor means by which the Government can redeem that pledge. If the spokesman of the Government were able to say that although, at the moment, certain difficulties existed, the Government were determined to put this proposal before the oversea, countries concerned and announce their intention to give this measure of fair play to British producers, I have no doubt that they would experience no difficulty in securing this great boon for British agriculture.I rise to support this Amendment which follows closely the lines of a Bill introduced by me during this Session. We may take it that Socialist extravagance has made it necessary to increase the total volume of taxation and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his wisdom, has decided that he must have £2,750,000 from the brewers this year—rising afterwards, as I think it does, to something over £3,000,000 a year. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has calculated that there are few brewers concerned and that the consumers will be largely propitiated by the assurance that the retail cost of beer will not be increased. I feel a little uncertain, however, as to whether the quality of the beer will be improved as a result. One tax after another has been piled on beer by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer during recent decades. Beer has been taxed until it has very little body, soul or spirit left in it, and I am not sure that this little additional impost will not produce a struggle between the chemist and the Surtax which will probably end in our getting one stage nearer to synthetic beer. That, in itself, is not a cheerful outlook, but what I am chiefly concerned with in connection with this matter, is the position of the barley grower and the agricultural industry in general.
A great deal of barley is grown in our Eastern counties. It is all very well to ask, "Why do they not grow something else?" but that is not possible. There are thousands of acres in the Eastern counties on which barley is the only cereal crop that can be grown in the rotation. If barley ceased to be grown on that land, it would fall back into its natural state of heath or moorland. It is a very serious matter when we find that not only barley, but many other crops now grown upon this land are being grown at a loss, and when we find that costs all round in the agricultural industry are mounting up, while the prices of its products are constantly falling, we can only view with grave alarm any further prospect of a diminution in arable land, whether it is brought about by such a tax as this, or in any other way. One of the effects of such a tax will be that brewers will have to look round to see where they can effect a saving. They, of course, will want to get it back; and one of their resources in that respect will be to buy more foreign barley than they do at the present time. The last season has been a particularly depressing one, because, while we have had magnificent barley crops, there have been heavier losses than in almost any previous year. These losses have been very largely due to large imports of barley, which have not only brought down the price, but have resulted in the better barley being taken out of the category of malting barley and depressed to the category of feeding barley because there was no market for it. The purpose of this Amendment is to encourage the brewer to buy British. We have the advertisements of the Empire Marketing Board calling on the people to buy British. Why should not the legislature come in and help a little by making it worth while for the brewer to buy British instead of buying foreign, especially if it can be done without very much cost? It could be done by merely altering the tax, and personally I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some alteration in this flat rate of 3s. If he must have his total of £3,000,000 a year, let him make the tax higher for those who do not qualify and lower for those who do. Let us have some graduation of the tax in that way so as to give some encouragement and some inducement to the brewer, and make it better worth his while to buy British than to buy foreign. In reference to the question of ingredients grown solely in the United Kingdom, if the word "solely" implies cent per cent, I question if that requirement is quite advisable. We have, I regret to say, become so much used to a large admixture of foreign barley in beer, that public taste—so my brewer friends inform me—now prefers a beer which can only be obtained with the partial use of foreign barley. I am not dogmatising upon this point, but if that statement be true, it might be wiser to insert some qualification and make the requirement a little lower than cent per cent. Personally, I look forward to the day when we shall revise the whole system of the taxation of beer and base it not solely upon gravities, but upon gravities graded according to the proportions of British ingredients which figure in the beer. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what he can in this matter to help the great industry of agriculture.I need not remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of the peculiarly important problem which the fall in barley prices and the general lack of trade in barley have brought about in that great agricultural district of Scotland—the most northerly of our great arable districts—on the shores of the Moray Firth. In that area there is highly developed arable farming, the basis of which is barley and not wheat, as in the case of certain Southern districts; and it is a vital matter there that this prime crop should get the price which comes from a large consumption of malting barley and should not fall into the lower category—which its quality does not deserve—of a mere feeding stuff in the manned indicated by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carington). I am aware of the argument with regard to commercial treaties which, I gather, applies to this and similar subjects, and this seems a suitable opportunity to emphasise a point which has been made on previous occasions, when we have been faced with the recurrent argument that steps in favour of British agriculture are impracticable owing to commercial treaties. That is the point that these commercial treaties should be reviewed, revised and, if necessary, withdrawn.
I do not pretend to be an expert in the matter of commercial treaties, but no one will, I think, deny that there is not a single commercial treaty in which we are concerned, the effect of which is not to assist our urban industries at the expense of our rural industries. It seems as if those who framed our commercial treaties entirely neglected the effectiveness of that weapon for the assistance of agriculture. That is only another example of the mental condition of this country—the almost complete urbanisation of the national mind and the complete neglect of all the deeper rural considerations. Looking broadly over the major questions arising in our national life, I am satisfied that there is none more important than that this over urbanisation of the British mind should be corrected and that the public men of this country, in every way and in every department of public life and legislation, should do their best to bring the rural side of British life into the position which it deserves to occupy and which indeed it must occupy if this country is to progress. If this Amendment could be introduced by a readjustment of commercial treaties, or if it were found on a close examination—which perhaps the topic has never received—that this Amendment could be introduced without interfering with any commercial treaty, then it might be a small step, but it would be a real step towards emphasing the necessity for developing the rural life in this country. 5.0 p.m. Within the orbit of the Budget and the Budget Resolutions, I doubt whether any single alteration could be made which would more effectively, more rapidly and more directly assist arable agriculture in this country, than to give the home growers of barley an advantage in the malting barley market. That is a practical way in which agriculture can be assisted. We are led to believe that the Government have a profoundly thought-out scheme of agricultural reorganisation, and an agricultural policy on the widest possible scale. If it ever existed it must have been overlooked and lost. If at present we must content ourselves with making narrower suggestions, then there is none which would have a more valuable result than that the producers of malting barley should have this assistance and the brewer this incentive to use a national instead of a foreign product. I would urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it be impossible for him at this stage to agree to the Amendment, to consider his great financial task in a closer relation to the rural necessities of the country. It will not do, looking at the life of this country in its broadest aspect, to continue to have the urban aspect always taking first place. It is a tendency of recent growth. We have only had some 70 years or so of Free Trade. If you consider the result on the life of this country of another 100 years, with this class of thought of always putting the town first and the countryside second, how can anyone face with equanimity the effect that this is likely to have on the national well-being. It may be said that in an Amendment to the Budget Resolution it is asking the Government to go too far afield to have consideration as to what is likely to happen 100 years ahead, but, if you are to arrest these deep-seated tendencies, you cannot begin too soon. You must use the small weapons that are available, and I would urge upon the House that the smallest weapon should not be overlooked. The interests of barley growers should not be subordinated to any commercial treaty. I would ask the Financial Secretary, when he replies, to make it clear, if he cannot accept this Amendment, as to how existing commercial treaties of this country make its acceptance impossible, for I believe that in many cases these commercial treaties are merely a screen and a camouflage which is used not by any one Front Bench or any one Government alone, but by Governments generally, in order to save the trouble of facing up to all the difficulties of rural life and rural industry. There is this other consideration: We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer tests the whole national life by the question of whether it is being conducted on the principles of Free Trade. It is not prosperity, but it is purity that he is after, Free Trade purity. That seems to me, speaking as one who has always believed that economists are as bad constructors as are architects, to be a fatuous outlook on national life. To let Britain die rather than save her by other than Free Trade methods is folly. But I will not attempt the impossible task of converting the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would say, however, that such a rebate as is here suggested is in no real sense an attack upon Free Trade principles. The Free Trade principle is that you should put no artificial barriers on the carrying on of international trade. True Free Trade does not prevent the giving of a better opportunity for our own industries so long as you do not do this by raising artificial barriers to international trade. That is not proposed in this Amendment. All it says is that home-grown barley is more likely to be used than barley grown abroad. That is a hideous proposition, perhaps, to certain Free Trade minds, but it does not controvert true Free Trade. This is the last Free Trade Government this country will ever see. Everyone knows that and is making ready for it. But I would venture to ask, dealing with this topic on the strictest principles of Free Trade, where is the damage in this Amendment; where does it controvert this fancy economic idea? There is no such opposition to Free Trade; and in this Free Trade Budget it would at least be an advantage that one industry should get assistance, and that our agriculture, which has been so damaged by 70 years of Free Trade, should, from a Free Trade Chancellor of the Exchequer, get at least one crumb of comfort.There are several reasons for supporting this Amendment. Living as I do in the midst of an arable district in East Anglia, I have been impressed by the fact that there have been only two occasions for discussing this subject. I have on both occasions spoken and dealt with the dumping of German wheat and the beet-sugar subsidy, giving a picture of what is happening, particularly in East Anglia. Living as I do in the midst of a district so closely affected, it would be impossible for me not to rise upon this occasion to attempt to convert the inconvertible, or rather impress, the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the necessity of giving this small rebate to the home grower of malting barley. There is more malting barley grown in my district than in others. It is suitable for wheat or malting barley, and, if we are not to have from the present Government any policy for dealing with the trouble of wheat growers, then I wish to have some assurance of assistance for barley growers. I listened to Dr. Schindler, who talked recently to the Commercial Committee of the House of Commons. The conditions are bad abroad, but I know that they are not so bad as they are in arable districts here. One way of proving this is by looking at the condition of the agricultural buildings which have not been repaired for a long time. What is more important is that the cottages, which should have been repaired from the proceeds of farming, are in a terrible condition. Agricultural cottage dwellers suffered more than the fishermen in the recent gale.
The economic conditions in the arable districts are deplorable, and I regret that no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture is here to listen to the conditions which prevail. I should have thought that this was one of the occasions for the Minister himself to be here to hear about this matter, and to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant this important though very slight assistance to the barley grower in England, and in East Anglia in particular. It would also help the small brewer, who will feel the new proposals in the Budget more than the large brewer. Personally, I prefer the products of the small brewer. In my division, there is beer produced—there are two places where it is produced—from pure British malt. In one district, it is sold at 4d. to the working man so that he may drink in the hours of his recreation what he has produced by the honest toil of his hands. I say, therefore, that the small brewer who does this should be compensated by the State, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give suitable attention to the Amendment for that reason. It is often said that the home product is not so good as other beers; that it has not that bright and lustrous sheen associated with the bulldog strain, or that it is lacking in certain qualities which might improve the health or the happiness of the consumer. I would say, having consumed both in my Division, and in the House of Commons, that the home product is extremely good for health and for the palate. It would not be amiss of me to point out that the workers' sole recreations in the district where I live are his tobacco and his beer. He has not the facilities for going to picture houses or public libraries, and these two, his tobacco and his beer, form his only recreations. He simply cannot afford to over-indulge at the miserable wage that he now gets, and, therefore, there can be no possible argument as to an extension of drinking as a result of this rebate. As I have said, it would be welcomed by the small brewer, who will feel the taxation more than the large brewer, and it would be appreciated by the working man. We are told that if you provide a market for wheat or barley you would improve the position of agriculture, and I say that this Amendment would go a small way to improve the position. There are one or two facts which some say constitute difficulties. First, that it cannot be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise without undue cost to the State, I say that it could. I have discussed it with the people in the trade in my Division, and they say that it should constitute no serious difficulty. On the question of purity, I believe that the effect of the Amendment would be good and would bring us nearer to getting good, digestible and better beer. I am sure it would reduce the number of teetotallers in this country, which would be a very good thing. There is another point which arises. When the hops meet the barley in the mash tun, the hops are now able to say to the barley, "We are protected," and the barley has to reply, "We are not protected, but are in a very much worse position than you are." I do not see that it is equity in the mash tun that barley should not have any form of attention and that the hops should be protected. With regard to treaties, I am sure that I speak for a great many people in the agricultural districts when I say that it is about time our international obligations were not directed against the most oppressed section of the community. We have asked the Government to make representations to foreign administrations on this question. We asked them in the Debate on German wheat, and we ask them now, to let us manage our own Excise without asking the foreigner. The men of old, who presumably made this country what it is by their own enterprise and initiative—the working men of old and their employers—drank beer made of home barley and home hops, because very often they could get no other, and that is what has made England what it is. I therefore support this Amendment.I should like, as the representative of an agricultural constituency from East Anglia, to say one or two plain words in relation to this Amendment. I very much enjoyed hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), who has just sat down, but his optimism in regard to what Protection may possibly do for barley, combined with his detrimental remarks as to what has made old England what she is, leave me guessing as to what would happen in regard to the brewing interests if we could only get them to face the position in the same spirit as that in which the Opposition is facing the problem to-day. It seems to me that we are looking to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what the brewing interest itself should long since have undertaken, and that is to supply a pure article made from British malt, British barley, and British hops; and when one considers the remarkable amount of profit secured from the aeroplane price and the submarine quality of the article. One must suggest that the remedy lies, not in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in raising the price of the article by putting on an additional tax, but rather by insisting that the brewers shall present an article that is worthy of the reputation suggested by the last speaker.
The position, from the British barley growers' point of view, is this, that both the politician and the brewer have played far too long with this subject, and that either of them, from the standpoint of real practical legislation, leaves us in the soup in rural Britain in relation to the growing of cereals. I simply rise to associate myself with a very earnest appeal to men of all parties in this House really to get down to the problem, apart from these petty tactics of making party capital out of small things that will not affect the price of barley one iota when it comes to the real value of the thing.I rise to support the Amendment, because it seems to me that it would be the logical form of Preference where it is most needed. If there is one thing in the British Empire which really needs Preference, it is British agriculture. We should begin at home. It may be that that Preference will not appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, but I cannot help feeling that it will appeal to the Lord Privy Seal, or would, if he had any inkling of the fillip which it might give to agricultural employment. The barley districts of the country are the most hard-hit. The soil that can grow barley most profitably is light, shallow soil, for which barley is most eminently suited, and there is no question that help to barley would mean a great difference to the harvest in arable areas like those in a great part of my own constituency. I am an interested speaker in the sense that every year I produce a considerable quantity of malting barley, or barley that is fit for malting, which is very often not sold as such, but is fed to pigs. Barley taken by itself is, in the rotation of crops, one of the few paying crops, besides wheat, when it can be made to pay, which you can put into rotation in the spring. Much of the land that is prepared for wheat in the autumn cannot be put in, owing to weather and feeding off by sheep during the winter, but spring barley is the one paying crop on which you can get some hope of a return by using your best land for it. This Amendment should prove a real fillip for that crop.
It is true that the hop is protected to-day, but it does not make it much easier for the hop grower. I know a Kentish farmer who is farming 159 acres, of which a great proportion is in hop gardens, and this year his accounted loss is over £2,000. I have been told by many brewers that the British public has been gradually educated away from a taste for British beer. My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) has indicated that there is in his constituency a brewery producing an all-British beer, and in the process of that education for which he is so zealous a proselytiser he has introduced into this House this all-British beer, which I would advise any hon. Member to taste, for it is excellent. It is becoming gradually a most expensive introduction for himself, because all his friends ask to taste it, and if it is an expensive matter to educate Members of this House up to a taste for British beer, it is also going to be an expensive job for the brewer, no matter what his motives are, to re-educate the British public up to a taste for British beer. Through taxation and through disregard of one of our great national industries, beer has got more and more synthetic as time has gone on, and something must be done to make it worth while for the brewer really to get a chance of going back to what we were weaned on, namely, beer made from British malt and British barley in the old days. I personally would prefer to have seen the rebate proposed in the Amendment far bigger than it is, but I realise that it is almost beyond practical politics, even if we had the Chancellor's consent, with the state of the Exchequer as it is to-day. At the same time, I should like to say that beer, which can be grown in this country, and tobacco, which can be grown only in certain places adjoining my own constituency, are almost the only consolations of the agricultural labourer throughout the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to a very great extent. There is no greater richness, no greater geniality, no greater kindliness or companionship to be found than in the village "pub." Nobody who has any feeling for the British labourer will deride the fact that beer is a very good, simple, and friendly enjoyment of his leisure. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer very seriously to consider going back and giving the brewer this particular inducement to brew British, to de-synthetise our beer and to re-naturalise it, and, by doing so, above all to give the hardest hit of the arable portions of our country great assistance.I approach this Amendment from a rather different angle than that from which it was approached by several of those who have spoken on this subject. I am a teetotaller, and I believe I share that distinction with the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, but where I think we part company—I am not sure—is that I have no desire to impose my particular predilections on my fellow citizens. I am afraid I do not know whether some would consider it a boast or whether it is a confession, but I have never drunk a glass of beer in my life. Nevertheless, I can whole-heartedly support this Amendment. It is evident, from the speeches to which we have listened, that there are beers and beers. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) gave us such a graphic description of the in gredients of modern beer that it surprises me that any hon. Member of this House could drink that concoction, but we have also had an equally graphic description, in the very eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler), of the merits of pure beer.
I approach this question, in the desire to support the Amendment, from two points of view. I recognise, first of all, that even in spite of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), there will be a considerable number of people in this country who, for a considerable number of years more, will continue to drink beer, and my contention is that, if you insist on drinking this, to my palate, offensive beverage—[An HON. MEMBER: "You said you were a teetotaller!"]. I have tasted a glass of beer, but I have not consumed a whole glass of beer; and as no doubt, in spite of my personal dislike of this beverage, a large number of people in this country will continue to drink it, I think, in the interests of the health of the nation, they should drink and consume beer as pure as it is possible to make it. I believe this Amendment will, to a very limited degree, increase the supply and therefore the consumption of pure beer in this country. The hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor), who spoke from the other side, made an interesting contribution to the Debate, but it was rather difficult for us, on these benches, to understand quite clearly whether he supported this Amendment or not. He misinterpreted it. He said that this is a puny, miserable little sum, which would raise the price of beer. He said that it is no good trying to get pure beer by raising the price of beer, but he could not have read the Amendment, for the price of beer can hardly be raised by giving a rebate. We could not follow him in his statement on that point, but the whole of his arguments seemed to be not so much against the Amendment, as that the Amendment did not go far enough. He said that this miserable sum of 2s. 6d. will not do anything. Presumably, he would like an Amendment to substitute 10s. instead of 2s. 6d. It would be interesting if we could get some elucidation of his views on this matter, but, judging from what he said, we are led to hope that he will support us in the Division Lobby. The other aspect from which I view this Amendment is that of agriculture. I happen to live in Kent, where acres are devoted to growing hops, and I also represent an agricultural constituency. I do not think that even the most sympathetic and warmest supporters of the present Government will contend that, while they have been in office during the past 10 months, they have by a single word or action done anything to assist in any manner those who depend for their livelihood on agriculture. From the very day that they took office, when they refused to carry out the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Army, Air Force and Navy should be fed upon British meat and upon a certain quantity of British-produced wheat, they have done nothing to bring hope to the hearts of those who live in agricultural districts. This is a small matter, and I admit that it would not go far, but it would at least he a step in the right direction. It would not cost the Treasury much. We have been used in the last few months, while the Socialist Government have been in office, not to consider a few thousands of pounds; we have got used to talking of millions, and I cannot feel that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted this small Amendment, it would make much difference to the Budget next year. I hope that he will not ignore it merely because it is a very small matter, because I believe that in the interests of pure beer and in the interests of the agricultural community it is a step in the right direction.This Amendment has been put forward and supported from a considerable number of different points of view, but I do not imagine that the most sanguine of its supporters, even the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) will expect that it will be accepted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It really is hardly necessary for me to make any reply at all. Though hon. Members opposite have quoted in support the silent witness of the Minister of Agriculture and the Lord Privy Seal, and assured us that they must have made many representations to my right hon. Friend in its favour, that assertion is entirely without foundation. Hon. Members opposite have themselves given the reasons why this Amendment cannot possibly be accepted. They have reminded us perfectly correctly that it is debarred at the outset by commercial treaties, and one hon. Member asked me to specify exactly what it was in the commercial treaties that rendered the Amendment unacceptable. I will read a section from Article 14 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Germany. It provides that:
A rebate such as is proposed in this Amendment would run directly counter to that Article. One hon. Member said quite calmly that he thought that a treaty of this kind ought to be no bar, and that there are ways in which we could ride through the Treaty and get what we want in spite of it. I should have thought that that somewhat doubtful attitude was something like treating the Treaty as a scrap of paper, and it would be exceedingly unwise, even if it were not immoral, for us to treat an article of a Treaty in that way, because articles of that kind have a mutual reason for their existence, and, if we were to tear up and disregard the provisions of a treaty made in our in- terest, those with whom we made the treaty could tear it up from their point of view. It may be suggested that this Treaty is one which accords with the principles and methods of the party which is at present in power, but, as a matter of fact, it was signed and the final negotiations were carried out, not by this Government, but by the late Government. It was signed in December, 1924, and my information is that its final provisions were agreed and negotiated by the late Government. Under those circumstances, when hon. Members talk about disregarding the provisions of this Treaty, they are really objecting to provision of an article which was made by their own Government. From the point of view of the Treaty, therefore, this Amendment is impossible, and could not in any case be accepted. Apart from that, there are many other reasons why my right hon. Friend could not consider this Amendment. They were also mentioned in the speeches which we have already heard. In the first place, there is the loss of revenue. It is not possible to say exactly what the loss would be, because it is doubtful how far the brewers would think it worth while to take advantage of this provision; but, if they did go to the trouble to take advantage of it, it would probably involve a loss to the revenue of no less than £1,000,000. Quite obviously, my right hon. Friend could not face that loss. There are also administrative difficulties. One hon. Member attempted to make light of this, but it must be perfectly clear that, if we were to differentiate in the materials which are used by brewers, and to trace them back to their origin, it would involve a new system of machinery which would cause a great deal of trouble to set up and to carry through. One hon. Member attempted to argue that this Amendment was in strict accord with Free Trade principles, while the Noble Lord, the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) made the claim that it was a splendid illustration of preference—not Imperial Preference, but a preference protecting the goods produced in this country from the goods produced not only in foreign countries but in Canada and elsewhere. Finally, an attempt was made to defend the Amendment on the ground that it was the only safeguard for getting pure beer. To allege that the beer at the present time is manufactured from impure articles, or from articles of chemical production, instead of from genuinely grown materials, is a very dangerous argument to pursue, and one which cannot be substantiated by the facts. Owing to the particular methods required in examining the brewers' accounts, we have full knowledge of the materials from which beer is made, and it would be a very unwise and unsound thing to have it stated, and to have it allowed to get abroad, that our beer is at present of an impure kind. These arguments show that this Amendment cannot possibly succeed. It would be at the present time contrary to a treaty, and it would be necessary to abrogate all the treaties with which it came into conflict before it could really be considered; but, quite apart from that, on its merits, my right hon. Friend could not see his way to accept the Amendment."No internal duties shall be levied within the territories of either of the two contracting parties…on goods the produce or manufacture of the territories of the other party which are other or greater than the duties levied in similar circumstances on the like goods of national origin."
The Financial Secretary has given us a series of objections to this Amendment which are doubtless very satisfying to him, but which will not be at all satisfying to come of us who are taking a great interest in the principle behind it. We were prepared for some of the objections which the hon. Gentleman has raised, particularly the objection about the commercial treaties, but he has shown less than his usual fairness in the way in which he dealt with that objection, because no one, and least of all those on this side of the House, suggests that such matters of obligation should be treated as scraps of paper and torn up.
The criticism which we have to make is that apparently there is a readiness to stand behind the provisions of these treaties, which prevent action of this sort being taken, rather than an anxiety to see how the treaties may be got round. It leaves me perfectly cold to be told that these treaties were put into operation by the Government which I supported. I am a good party Member of the House, but I am not going to have it suggested that all the perfections are to be found on our Front Bench, or on any Front Bench, and, if the conditions were such as to justify a treaty like this being entered into at the time—and I do not think that the conditions did justify it—there is no reason why in a constant change for the worse such as we see in the agricultural industry, it should not be competent for the Government to see whether more would not be gained by a reconstruction of these treaties even if we were to lose what is supposed to be a mutual advantage with the other countries concerned. This Amendment gives us the opportunity of voicing something that strikes everyone who has had time to study the Budget as a whole in regard not so much to its sins of commission as to its sins of omission. It would be out of order for me to dwell on the fact that in the introduction of the Budget the Chancellor has been supremely unconscious of the fact that we have industrial depression in this country and huge figures of unemployment, and that there exists an agricultural industry. It is on the third omission that I wish to say a word. From the purely financial point of view, it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when faced with certain liabilities, to produce the necessary revenue to meet them, but his possibilities for good or evil are not confined to that, because Budget provisions can offer encouragement or discouragement to industry. Take, for example, the basis of taxation on motor vehicles. Everybody knows that by our system of taxation we have compelled motor manufacturers to build particular types of engines in order to bring their vehicles under the lowest rate of horse-power duty imposed. The same considerations apply to the subject now under consideration, the encouragement of the production of a certain type of "liquid food," may I say. What disappoints us is not that the amount is refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary, because both of them know perfectly well that the rules of procedure confine us to such an Amendment as this; but though the proposal is small in itself, it does enable us to ventilate the question. What disappoints us is their lack of apparent willingness to offer any encouragement to those engaged in agriculture. We are not interested in the position of the brewers. One after another of my hon. Friends who have spoken to this Amendment has stated that he has no connection with the brewing industry, and that is my position also; I have not a single share in breweries, nor any kind of interest in brewing. However, I am not like unto my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke a short time ago from the bench below me and confessed that he had never drunk a glass of beer in his life. The picture he drew was too horrible! He told us that he took one mouthful of beer, but failed to swallow it. There are only two alternatives when you take a mouthful of beer, and I do not propose to pursue the point further, except to say that I think he is misguided in his taste in liquid refreshment. As I have said, it is not a question of helping or hindering brewing, but whether the Government have not here an opportunity of fulfilling a millionth part of the pledges they gave at the time of the General Election that they were really interested in assisting agriculture. We have had no evidence of it up to now. It is true that the Minister of Agriculture goes about saying, "Look what I am doing under the Merchandise Marks Act!" carefully glossing over the fact that that was passed by us in the teeth of his opposition, although it has now become his great slogan—coupled with the provision of village halls, which is the other side of his policy. The Minister of Agriculture is working overtime, breaking his trade union regulations in doing so, in going about the country trying to induce people unofficially and in his private capacity to consume British goods; but the moment it is suggested that there should be legislation providing that the Defence Forces should consume home-killed meat or have a certain amount of home-grown flour in their wheat, he says, "We cannot do that, because the principal result would be that it might raise the cost to the consumer." I am with him in his action in preaching the doctrine which he is disseminating throughout the country, but I must say he is inconsistent in urging people unofficially to do a certain thing while at the same time pleading, when the Government are asked to take action themselves, that what is desired would raise the cost of living and therefore must not be encouraged. Here is an opportunity for the Government to offer definite testimony that they want to assist agriculture, but we are told that what we ask cannot be done. Various reasons have been set forth by the Financial Secretary, but not one of them is sufficient answer to the charge we make. Hon. Members opposite seek to indicate by their words that at last they realise that all is not well with agriculture, realise that it is not the case that agriculture is being carried on by a lot of incapable and wealthy farmers who are burdened by a lot of equally incapable and uninterested landowners. They show that they realise that there is a problem—that the dwellers in the urban districts are sweating the dwellers in the countryside in order to enjoy the privilege of a low cost of living. No hon. Member opposite, most of whom represent industrial centres, would get up and defend the position of things existing to-day, which is that the men in my constituency, most of them agricultural workers, are getting the magnificent wage of 32s. a week to enable the constituents of hon. Members opposite to have a better standard of living. That lop-sided state of affairs in the body politic cannot be adjusted by merely passing legislation compelling the farmer to pay 45s. or 50s. a week instead of 32s., because the farmer would say, "How am I going to do it, while you are sweating me in the price you pay for the food I grow?" That is the wide issue that is raised by this Amendment. The Financial Secretary could have told us that, though there were difficulties about these commercial treaties and the predecessors of this Government had failed, they were determined to try what could be done; but he said nothing of the kind. The impression left on us by him was this: "I am so glad that I can get under this umbrella and so obtain protection from the criticisms of hon. Members opposite." He gave us not one sentence of sympathy, not one glint of light in regard to the Government's slogan, "Make farming pay." We deplore this absence of all desire to help on the part of the Government, though it is all part of the whole attitude displayed by the Government towards agriculture since they secured office by the promises they made to agricultural voters. I cannot say that we had any expectation that this Amendment would be accepted, but, the whole countryside must deplore the fact that the party opposite have thrown away this chance to help agriculture.
The whole House must be disappointed with the non possumus attitude adopted by the Financial Secretary in reply to my hon. Friends who are responsible for this Amendment. The reasons he put forward showing how impossible it was to accept the Amendment were these: First of all, he referred to the commercial treaties, and, after quoting an extract, said it was quite obvious that these treaties could not be fulfilled if the Amendment were passed. He even suggested that we on this side were asking him to tear up the treaties, or to deal with them in some other cavalier manner. No such suggestion was made with regard to any treaty. If one considers the extract which he read from the treaty with Germany, it will be seen that, obviously, the intention was to ensure that neither of the contracting parties would by governmental action place the produce of the other at a disadvantage, in competition, in the other's country.
That is the spirit of the Clause; let us ask ourselves how it has been fulfilled by Germany. We have had a Debate on the so-called dumping of German cereals into this country, and I do not wish to travel that weary ground again, but it is perfectly obvious that by an intricate fiscal device the German Government have, in effect, enabled their agriculturists to trade here under terms which are unfair, because uneconomic, to the British farmer. If we regard the spirit of the treaty rather than its letter, it must be quite obvious that there was an opportunity here for His Majesty's Government to approach the German Government and say: "We understood the treaty to be one to secure fair play in these matters, and that no governmental action would be taken to give advantage to the traders or exporters of either nation. You, in effect, though your practice may be ingeniously kept within the terms of the treaty, are using the power of your administration and your fiscal system in order to strike a very heavy blow at certain sections of our agricultural industry." With the German Government seized of the irritation which their practice is causing amongst our agriculturists, I am certain it would be easy, after a little negotiation, to get through the German Chancellery the proposal now before us to allow us to give a little assistance to our own farmers. With every project for assistance there are bound to be some practical difficulties, but I am sure the administrative difficulties associated with this Amendment are in no way insuperable or even formidable. If there were a will to do it, the Government would be perfectly able to find the way. They have erected complicated machinery in order to juggle with the price of coal, and this proposal of ours would require much less complicated machinery to carry it out. After all, what is our proposal? We ask that the brewer who makes his beer from British malt and hops shall get a certain rebate on the additional duty which the Chancellor is imposing for the first time. It is perfectly easy to ascertain from each brewer how much British malt and hops he has bought during the year. He could produce to the Inland Revenue authorities the invoices of his purchases, and on those they would be able to assess him correctly for duty. I cannot agree that the acceptance of this proposal would mean any great loss of revenue, at any rate in this year. It is the fact that the British public have been, to a very great extent, educated to drinking beer made from a peculiar variety of malt which comes from abroad, and it would take a little time before the inducement of this rebate enabled brewers to re-educate their customers into drinking beer made from British materials, so, though the immediate encouragement to agriculture would be very considerable, the loss to the Exchequer would not be in any way formidable. For the reasons I have given, I respectfully suggest that neither the treaties, nor the administrative difficulties, nor the loss to the revenue would be sufficient to deter the Government from accepting the proposal if they really had the will to do so. 6.0 p.m. My hon. Friends, in putting forward this Amendment dealing with beer, must have been aware that they were putting forward something in regard to which they could not be very confident of receiving a favourable reception. Judging from the statement made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), it appears that there is a certain affinity amongst certain persons for different beverages, but none of us has credited the Chancellor of the Exchequer with possessing any particular affinity for the beverage known as beer. If the right hon. Gentleman has an affinity for any particular beverage, one would be inclined to say, from the asperity of his remarks, that it would be a beverage more acid than beer, or of a more aerated character. I do not approach this question from the point of view of beer at all, because it is really a question of agriculture and not beer. It is the effect of this proposal on agriculture that this House ought to consider. The question of distress in agriculture has been touched upon quite sufficiently and adequately by my hon. Friends, but the position which this House will have to face, sooner or later, is that we have, by successive legislation, imposed upon agriculturists, whether they happen to be large or small farmers, the absolute duty, by law, of carrying on the operation of their production under certain definite legal disabilities. In other words, the farmers of this country are bound to produce their products under a system which this House has created for them. The farmers have to pay wages of a certain sort—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—every farmer would rejoice if he had the opportunity of paying his men more wages—the farmers are bound to pay contributions to National Health Insurance and unemployment, and they have to observe a multitude of rules and regulations, all of which add to their difficulties and to their cost of production. Our farmers have to produce under a national system which this House has created for them, but when it comes to selling what they have produced, and getting some return for their labours they have to sell their produce in an international market which is perfectly free and open, and it is an international market in competition with nations which have not those burdens placed upon them which are placed upon British farmers. That is one of the causes of agricultural depression, and this Amendment is a small attempt to give to British agriculturists some recognition and some message that this House is mindful of their difficulties and troubles. We are trying to give the British farmer a fair share of our patronage and favour, and besides imposing burdens on his back we all wish to help him. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept this Amendment, it would be taken by the agricultural community as a whole as a sign of the continued interest and support of this House, and it would do much to dissipate the feeling of despair which is making itself felt inside the agricultural industry. We ought to look at this question in relation to our food supply. This question has been discussed very largely from the point of view that barley is used mainly for brewing beer. I would like to point out that in my own county barley was, and is still, used as human food, and if by any means we could put a greater area of our land under barley we should be doing something to conserve the food supplies of this country, and this source of supply would be very useful in times of panic and food scarcity. At the present moment we are all looking forward to effecting some reduction in our Naval armaments. In the past our forefathers thought it was necessary to maintain an adequate Navy which was a kind of insurance premium, because we all realise the terrific calamity which would befall this nation if there were any serious interruption of our food supplies. If savings are effected in the premiums which we have hitherto paid for the protection of our food supply, then I think that a certain proportion of the money which will be saved in that way should be devoted to some measures to create an alternative food supply in this country to enable us to tide over any severe crisis. Measures of this kind would enable the nation to reorganise itself until we were able to get our food supplies from abroad as before. With this question of disarmament in mind, I think this is a favourable opportunity for the Government to consider the acceptance of an Amendment of this description, which, at any rate, does something to give a message of hope to agriculture, and will tend to stop this wasteful process of turning arable land to grass. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) said that the growing of barley ought to be encouraged, and ought to occupy a greater proportion of the soil of this country than wheat or any other crop. In this Amendment, which we are urging the Government to accept, we are looking at this problem from a national point of view. We are suggesting measures of a practical kind designed to promote the growing of barley, and the cultivation of a larger proportion of the arable land which is most useful in this country. There can be no doubt that if we weigh up this matter from all points of view we shall come to the conclusion that the Government ought to try to do something in order to show agriculturists, who depend upon arable farming to a very great extent, that the Government are not unmindful of their difficulties, and are willing to do something to assist them. Hon. Members opposite have been reminded of their statements made at the last election in which they told the electors that they were going to make farming pay. May I be allowed to say that farming to-day is as far from paying as it has ever been before? Every Motion put forward in this House in order to
Division No. 261.]
| AYES.
| [6.9 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Day, Harry | Hollins, A. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Dickson, T. | Horrabin, J. F. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfleld) |
| Arnott, John | Dukes, C. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Duncan, Charles | Isaacs, George |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Ede, James Chuter | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Ayles, Walter | Edmunds, J. E. | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Johnston, Thomas |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Egan, W. H. | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Barr, James | Elmley, Viscount | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Batey, Joseph | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Foot, Isaac | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Freeman, Peter | Kennedy, Thomas |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Gardnor, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Kinley, J. |
| Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Kirkwood, D. |
| Benson, G. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Knight, Holford |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Gibbins, Joseph | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Lathan, G. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Gill, T. H. | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gillett, George M. | Law, A. (Rosendale) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Gossling, A. G. | Lawrence, Susan |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Gould, F. | Lawson, John James |
| Bromfield, William | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lawther, W. (Sarnard Castle) |
| Bromley, J. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Leach, W. |
| Brooke, W. | Gray, Milner | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Brothers, M. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lees, J. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Groves, Thomas E. | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Longden, F. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Cape, Thomas | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Lowth, Thomas |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hardie, George D. | Lunn, William |
| Charleton, H. C. | Harris, Percy A. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Chater, Daniel | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Church, Major A. G. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Haycock, A. W. | McElwee, A. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hayday, Arthur | McEntee, V. L. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hayes, John Henry | Mackinder, W. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | McKinlay, A. |
| Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Compton, Joseph | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) |
| Cove, William G. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Daggar, George | Herriotts, J. | McShane, John James |
| Dallas, George | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Mansfield, W. |
achieve the end which hon. Members put forth at the last election has been met by the same negative non possumus attitude. The question of feeding the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force with British produce was turned down with a blank "No," and the proposal which was made for dealing with the dumping of German cereals was treated in the same way. This Amendment is an attempt to recall to the House its duty to our oldest and greatest industry, and I think it ought to receive favourable consideration.
rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 141.
| March, S. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sullivan, J. |
| Marcus, M. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Marshall, Fred | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Mathers, George | Ritson, J. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Matters, L. W. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Melville, Sir James | Romeril, H. G. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Messer, Fred | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Milner, Major J. | Rowson, Guy | Tout, W. J. |
| Montague, Frederick | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Morley, Ralph | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Turner, B. |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Carwen) | Vauqhan, D. J. |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Viant, S. P. |
| Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sanders, W. S. | Walker, J. |
| Mort, D. L. | Sandham, E. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Moses, J. J. H. | Sawyer, G. F. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Scurr, John | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor |
| Muggeridge, H. T. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Murnin, Hugh | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Naylor, T. E. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Oldfield, J. R. | Sherwood, G. H. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Shield, George William | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Shillaker, I. F. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Palin, John Henry | Shinwell, E. | West, F. R. |
| Paling, Wilfrid | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Palmer, E. T. | Simmons, C. J. | White, H. G. |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter. Withington) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Perry, S. F. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Sinkinson, George | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sitch, Charles H. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Phillips, Dr. Marion | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Wise, E. F. |
| Pole, Major D. G. | Snell, Harry | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Potts, John S. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Price, M. P. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) | |
| Quibell, D. F. K. | Stamford, Thomas W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. B. Smith and Mr. William |
| Rathbone, Eleanor | Stewart J. (St. Rollox) | Whiteley. |
| Raynes, W. R. | Strauss, G. R. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Albery, Irving James | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Fermoy, Lord | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Atkinson, C. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Marjoribanks. E. C. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstcad) | Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Meller, R. J. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Balniel, Lord | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Muirhead, A. J. |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Grace, John | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | O'Neill, Sir H. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Peake, Capt. Osbert |
| Boyce, H. L. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Penny, Sir George |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben |
| Buchan, John | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Purbrick, R. |
| Butler, R. A. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Remer, John R. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Haslam, Henry C. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henl'y) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hurd, Percy A. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Savery, S. S. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Knox, Sir Alfred | Smith Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Lamb, Sir J. O. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Long, Major Eric | Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lymington, Viscount | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Turton, Robert Hugh | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Womersley, W. J. |
| Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon | Wayland, Sir William A. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) | Wells, Sydney R. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) | |
| Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Warrender, Sir Victor | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain |
| Margesson. |
Question put, accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
Division No. 262.]
| AYES.
| [6.20 p.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Ganzoni, Sir John | Peake, Capt. Osbert |
| Albery, Irving James | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Atkinson, C. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Grace, John | Purbrick, R. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Remer, John R. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Balniel, Lord | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Rothschild, J. de |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. | Haslam, Henry C. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Boyce, H. L. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Savery, S. S. |
| Buchan, John | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Butler, R. A. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hurd, Percy A. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Lamb, Sir J. O. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Churchill Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Ccurtauld, Major J. S. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Long, Major Eric | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Lymington, Viscount | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Meller, R. J. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Womersley, W. J. |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Fermoy, Lord | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Muirhead, A. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | George Penny. |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | O'Neill, Sir H. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Benson, G. | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Birkett, W. Norman | Caine, Derwent Hall- |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Bowen, J. W. | Cameron, A. G. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Cape, Thomas |
| Arnott, John | Broad, Francis Alfred | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Brockway, A. Fenner | Charleton, H. C. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Bromfield, William | Chater, Daniel |
| Ayles, Walter | Bromley, J. | Church, Major A. G. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston) | Brooke, W. | Clarke, J. S. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Brothers, M. | Cluse, W. S. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. |
| Barr, James | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Cocks, Frederick Seymour |
| Batey, Joseph | Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Compton, Joseph |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Buchanan, G. | Cove, William G. |
| Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Burgess, F. G. | Daggar, George |
The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes. 275.
| Dallas, George | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Rowson, Guy |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lawrence, Susan | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Day, Harry | Lawson, John James | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Dickson, T. | Leach, W. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Dukes, C. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Sandham, E. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lees, J. | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Scurr, John |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lindley, Fred W. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Logan, David Gilbert | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Egan, W. H. | Longbottom, A. W. | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Longden, F. | Shield, George William |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Foot, Isaac | Lowth, Thomas | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Freeman, Peter | Lunn, William | Shinwell, E. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Simmons, C. J. |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Wellington) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | McElwee, A. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | McEntee, V. L. | Sinkinson, George |
| Gill, T. H. | Mackinder, W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Gillett, George M. | McKinlay, A. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Glassey, A. E. | MacLaren, Andrew | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Gould, F. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McShane, John James | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Snell, Harry |
| Gray, Milner | Mansfield, W. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | March, S. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Marcus, M. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Marshall, Fred | Stephen, Campbell |
| Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mathers, George | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Matters, L. W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Melville, Sir James | Sullivan, J. |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Messer, Fred | Sutton, J. E. |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Milner, Major J. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Montague, Frederick | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Morley, Ralph | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Hardie, George D. | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Harris, Percy A. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Tout, W. J. |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mort, D. L. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Haycock, A. W. | Moses, J. J. H. | Turner, B. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Vauqhan, D. J. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Muggeridge, H. T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Murnin, Hugh | Walker, J. |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Naylor, T. E. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Oldfield, J. R. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor |
| Herriotts, J. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Watkins. F. C. |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Palin, John Henry | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Paling, Wilfrid | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Hollins, A. | Palmer, E. T. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Perry, S. F. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | West, F. R. |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Isaacs, George | Phillips, Dr. Marion | White, H. G. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Pole, Major D. G. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Johnston, Thomas | Potts, John S. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) | Price, M. P. | Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Quibell, D. F. K. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Wise, E. F. |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Raynes, W. R. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Kinley, J. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Kirkwood, D. | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | |
| Knight, Holford | Ritson, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Mr. B. Smith and Mr. William |
| Lathan, G. | Romeril, H. G. | Whiteley. |
Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I make this Motion in order to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement as to the Government's intentions in regard to the general progress of business this evening. The right hon. Gentleman is now at the opening stages of what are undoubtedly going to be very prolonged discussions upon a highly controversial and weighty subject, and it seems to me of the utmost importance that we should endeavour as much as possible to spare the House unnecessary labours and to avoid needless controversy. We were not only willing but anxious to reach, through the usual channels, some arrangement in order to parcel out our time between the important topics which have to be discussed, and to divide our Debates in such a way as to secure the discussion of the most important matters in the full light of day, when they can be reported by the newspapers and read by the country, and generally to endeavour to proceed in what, I imagine, is the most convenient and rational manner. We really hoped, as the result of communications that passed, that the Government would adopt some course of this kind, but all that we have received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is his laconic intervention into the discussion on the last Amendment to which, of course, I am not permitted to refer retrospectively. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first of all, what his views are as to the progress that he thinks we ought to make to-night. That is a matter upon which he will no doubt be able to give us full information. I would also ask him very seriously at the outset of these discussions, is he wise in assuming that only harsh procedure will suit his interests and facilitate his business? Is he wise at the very outset in assuming that the course of Parliamentary proceedings will be smoother and more rapid because he chooses to resent any discussion that may be offered on subjects on which a very large number of Members are interested as they represent the interests of their constituents? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will facilitate progress if he tries to conduct the Budget in something like the spirit in which it has always been the tradition of this House to conduct the Finance Bill and the financial Resolutions of the year. I have sat in the House since 1900, with some brief intervals, and I have seen some famous Chancellors of the Exchequer—Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and others—who conducted very lengthy Budgets through the House. On occasion they were forced to use whatever powers are at the disposition of the majority, but never did I see these Chancellors of the Exchequer at the very beginning assume that their only method of dealing with the Opposition was to endeavour to trample down all opposition by the use of a Parliamentary majority. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that, so far from intimidating the Opposition by such procedure, he will only gradually raise against himself a feeling which at present has not been excited. We are prepared to discuss the grave issues of the Budget, to which we take the greatest exception, in a cool, temperate and patient spirit. If to the injury which, in our judgment, it inflicts upon the country are added also those created by the personal methods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—his rasping procedure—then I warn him that he will encounter an ever-growing resentment, and that we shall certainly use those forms of the House which are provided for the protection of Oppositions and minorities.I think that I should be justified in ignoring the right hon. Gentleman's intervention in this Debate altogether. He spoke of his long experience in the House. Mine is not quite as long as his, but I think in all my Parliamentary experience I never heard a more unprovoked attack than that which he has just made. What grounds can there be for the tone of his speech? I moved the Closure upon a Debate on a not very important point which had extended for something like two hours, and at least half the speeches were a repetition of statements—
The right hon. Gentleman must not discuss the question of the Closure.
With all respect, I had not the Closure in my mind in making those remarks. I was saying I could find no justification for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention except my action in moving the Closure. He spoke about my rasping methods. I have taken little or no part in the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech and I at once rose and replied courteously to what he had said. This is the first afternoon of detailed discussions on the Report of the Budget Resolutions, and it is very early to ask what our ideas are in regard to the allocation of time to the respective proposals. I do not know how long the Debate will last on the private Bill, and therefore I cannot say yet how far we can go to-night. Of course, it would make all the difference in that respect whether the Debate on the Cardiff Bill concluded early or went on until 11 o'clock. I assure the House that I have no desire at all either to curtail discussion or to compel the House to sit late. I cannot say more than that.
I should be prepared to consider some arrangement by which we might allot time to the different Resolutions in order that the more important parts might be given longer time and taken at a time when the public would be able to follow our Debates. I want to consider the convenience of the House at all times. I do not want to act as a slave-driver in the House of Commons—far from it. Therefore, all I can say is that I shall be prepared, at the conclusion of the discussion on the private Bill, to say how far we propose to go to-night, and to-morrow I shall probably make a further statement as to the programme upon the Report stage of these Resolutions. If, as the result of conversations through the usual channels, we could arrive at something like a programme of the further stages of the Resolutions and the Finance Bill, I should be most happy.I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot meet my right hon. Friend's suggestion. He merely says my right hon. Friend has made an unprovoked attack upon him. I cannot discuss the right hon. Gentleman's action just now in moving the Closure, because I should be out of order, but those who have taken part in the Debate cannot help feeling that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an endeavour to cut short a reasonable discussion. As a matter of fact, I myself was going to speak, but the right hon. Gentleman's action has deprived me—
The right hon. Gentleman is now doing what he himself said would be out of order.
I regret that I was carried away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the latter part of his speech seemed to be melting
Division No. 263.]
| AYES.
| [6.45 p.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Beaumont, M. W. |
| Albery, Irving James | Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) |
| Atkinson, C. | Balniel, Lord | Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman |
somewhat. He seemed to suggest that he would welcome some sort of arrangement so that time should not be wasted, but should be devoted to the most important part of these Resolutions. But he says he cannot even now make any arrangement for to-day. Surely that is very unreasonable. He must know that the private Bill which is coming on at half-past seven will be discussed at very considerable length and will probably last the rest of the evening. If he will look at the Resolutions again, he will see that they divide themselves. The first three deal with beer and licence duties, and then we get on to a totally separate class of Resolutions—Income Tax, Super-tax and so on. Surely, if he looked at it again and was inclined to be reasonable, we should, on our side, be extremely reasonable if he agreed to take Income Tax on the next day that this House sits for the purpose of discussing these Resolutions. I would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might consider whether he could not make some offer on those lines to facilitate business and save time. If he will not do anything of the sort, time will be spent on some of these other Resolutions, and perhaps Resolution No. 2 and Resolution No. 3 may take even longer. [ Interruption.] I am speaking with a desire that the House should not have to spend too long upon these Resolutions and that the time should not be wasted. We ought to come to Income Tax, not in the middle of the night, but in the early part of the afternoon. There are some extremely important questions which arise both on Income Tax and on Surtax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must remember that he is making a very large increase in both these taxes, and it is reasonable that those who represent the taxpayers should be able to discuss the matter. I hope that even now the Chancellor of the Exchequer may feel, if he does intend really to be reasonable, that he should make some such offer as I have indicated.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 277.
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Purbrick, R. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Remer, John R. |
| Boyce, H. L. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Bracken, B. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Buchan, John | Haslam, Henry C. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Butler, R. A. | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Savery, S. S. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hurd, Percy A. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Knox, Sir Alfred | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Lamb, Sir J. O. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Long, Major Eric | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Fermoy, Lord | Meller, R. J. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel Georga |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Muirhead, A. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | O'Neill, Sir H. | |
| Grace, John | Peake, Capt. Osbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Sir Frederick Thomson and |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Preston, Sir Walter Rueben | Captain Margesson. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Cape, Thomas | Glassey, A. E. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gossling, A. G. |
| Addlson, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Charleton, H. C. | Gould, F. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Chater, Daniel | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Church, Major A. G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) |
| Arnott, John | Clarke, J. S. | Granville, E. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Cluse, W. S. | Gray, Milner |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) |
| Ayles, Walter | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Silston) | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Compton, Joseph | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Cove, William G. | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Barr, James | Daggar, George | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Batey, Joseph | Dallas, George | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Dalton, Hugh | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
| Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Day, Harry | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Benson, G. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hardie, George D. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Dickson, T. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Bowen, J. W. | Dukes, C. | Haycock, A. W. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Duncan, Charles | Hayday, Arthur |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Ede, James Chuter | Hayes, John Henry |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Edmunds, J. E. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Bromfield, William | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Bromley, J. | Egan, W. H. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Brooke, W. | Elmley, Viscount | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Brothers, M. | England, Colonel A. | Herriotts, J. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Foot, Isaac | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Freeman, Peter | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Hollins, A. |
| Buchanan, G. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Burgess, F. G. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Horrabin, J. F. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Gibbins, Joseph | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Hunter, Dr. Joseph |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Gill, T. H. | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Gillett, George M. | Isaacs, George |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Sinkinson, George |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Morley, Ralph | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Johnston, Thomas | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Mort, D. L. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Moses, J. J. H. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Muggeridge, H. T. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Murnin, Hugh | Snell, Harry |
| Kinley, J. | Naylor, T. E. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Kirkwood, D. | Oldfield, J. R. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Lathan, G. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Law, A. (Rossendale) | Palin, John Henry | Strauss, G. R. |
| Lawrence, Susan | Paling, Wilfrid | Sullivan, J. |
| Lawson, John James | Palmer, E. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Leach, W. | Perry, S. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Lees, J. | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Pole, Major D. G. | Toole, Joseph |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Potts, John S. | Tout, W. J. |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Price, M. P. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Quibell, D. F. K. | Turner, B. |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Ramsav, T. B. Wilson | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Viant, S. P. |
| Longden, F. | Raynes, W. R. | Walker, J. |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lowth, Thomas | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Lunn, William | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Ritson, J. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Watts-Morgan. Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Romeril, H. G. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| McElwee, A. | Rothschild, J. de | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| McEntee, V. L. | Rowson, Guy | Welsh, James C. (Coalbridge) |
| Mackinder, W. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | West, F. R. |
| McKinlay, A. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Westwood, Joseph |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | White, H. G. |
| Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Sanders, W. S. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| McShane, John James | Sawyer, G. F. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Scurr, John | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Mansfield, W. | Sexton, James | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| March, S. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Marcus, M. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Marshall, Fred | Sherwood, G. H. | Wise, E. F. |
| Mathers, George | Shield, George William | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Matters, L. W. | Shillaker, J. F. | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Melville, Sir James | Shinwell, E. | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Messer, Fred | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | |
| Millar, J. D. | Simmons, C. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Milner, Major J. | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B. |
| Montague, Frederick | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Smith. |
Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
Before the House agrees or disagrees with this. Resolution, it is as well to point out one or two things with regard to it. The object of this Resolution, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Speech, is to raise in this year a sum of £2,750,000, rising in a full year to £3,100,000 which, of course, is a very appreciable sum. The way he has devised to do this is by raising the Beer Duty by 3s., leaving the rebate unaltered. The result of this is apparently, that there is to be an actual increase of one penny per gallon, which is too small to be passed on. He told us in his Budget Speech—and it is one of the points on which, possibly, he might like to give the House some elucidation—that he had received assurances from the brewers on that point. It is a very curious thing to find a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer hobnobbing with brewers and receiving and accepting their assurances, considering the general attitude of his party in regard to these very inestimable persons. It would be very interesting if he would let us know what is the kind of assurances. In so far as the duty can be raised without the price being passed on, as, apparently, has been found possible through these assurances. I do not suppose that there are many Members in this House who would he prepared or anxious to say very much against the Resolution.
7.0 p.m. But there is one wider aspect of it which it is just as well to point out, and that is, that by this system the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have missed a great opportunity of doing something to assist British agriculture. I do not see why that should not be stressed once again. An opportunity naturally arises every year in every Budget, but it arises with even more than usual strength in a year when the duty is being raised. This year the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to raise the duty by 3s. He will, therefore, have an additional and unexpected opportunity coming his way to see whether some rebate might be arranged for the benefit of the agriculture of this country. I do not suppose agriculture expects much of him, because on a great occasion he called it the "pampered darling of the Tory party." Although at the Election he and his friends went about saying agriculture must be made to pay, the wiser people in the agricultural districts remembered his earlier statement, and did not believe the promises of the Socialists. They had every reason, because here the Government had the opportunity of assisting agriculture and yet did nothing. While, on the first ground that it raises revenue without affecting the general body of the taxpayers, one might feel inclined to support the Resolution, yet, on the other hand, because the Government have failed to assist agriculture when a heaven-sent oportunity arose, there are many who will wish to oppose the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to have given his mind unduly to the problem of British agriculture. When the matter came up no one was on the Front Bench who had anything to do with that department nor is there now. The excuse of the Financial Secretary why nothing should be done to help agriculture in the way suggested was that there were certain commercial treaties, and the proposals made went against them. I wanted to deal with this at an earlier stage, though I did not have the opportunity. What is the good of the Foreign Office unless, if you find that through a treaty you are up against some difficulty when you wish to help your own country, you are able to raise the matter? Why should not the diplomats ask for some conference between the Government here and the German Ambassador, or between the German Government and our Ambassador in Berlin? Why not point out to them that some time after the treaty was signed—after all the commercial treaty with Germany is not the law of the Medes and Persians, but can be modified or added to—we found that our agriculture was going from bad to worse, and that it had been helped on its downward course by the attitude of the German Government in subsidising their cereals on our market? That is one of the things from which British agriculture has been suffering in the last few months. We pressed the Government to do something about it and they refused. They could quite well say to the Germans, "In view of this action on your part, which is having such a deleterious effect upon our agriculture, we propose to take steps to help our own agriculture. We find that one of the ways in which the House of Commons would like to do it comes against a sub-clause of the treaty and we would like conversations on the subject." That is the kind of action the right hon. Gentleman should have taken, and I should like to hear some reason from the Front Bench why conversations did not take place. Let the Government negotiate with the German Government on this question. We do not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree with our thesis, but we put it forward as one of the possible ways of helping British agriculture. It may not be a good way, but the House must remember—as the country remembers perfectly well—that so far the Government have indicated no way at all. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. Taylor) said, when the suggestion was made, that it was only a small thing, and not worth considering. It is a small thing, but it is better than nothing, and the Government have so far offered nothing to agriculture. There is not a suggestion of any kind in this Budget dealing with the agricultural industry. We came along with this suggestion, and there was an opportunity to do something even in a small way to help our growers, but the Government turned it down. The Financial Secretary raised the old bogy of commercial treaties. The Minister of Agriculture was not even here to listen. He may be trying to evolve a policy, but he might, at any rate, consider the suggestions made to him from this side of the House. There is not, I think, very much to be said for this Resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] As hon. Members agree with me, it looks as if the right hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in getting through. It is not a question of whether people like beer or not. The question we have been trying to impress upon the Government is that, whether the Government like beer or not, the country as a whole does, and for that reason the country would like to have the best possible beer and, if it considers the best possible beer is British beer, it would like the Government and the House to do something to facilitate getting it. Everybody wants pure beer. The point is that the Resolution gave the Government an opportunity. If there had been no question of touching the Beer Duty at all, it would have been difficult to raise the question, but the Chancellor went out of his way to bring in the Beer Duty in order to raise a small amount of money. I thought there was some other reason for it, but it was only to raise this £2,750,000 and not to help British agriculture at all. While he is going to get some money out of the brewers—and we must stress the fact that he is satisfied with their assurances—at the same time he does nothing at all to assist the unfortunate growers in our countryside. I hope that he enjoys that reflection more than I and those who sit for agricultural constituencies enjoy it.I do not take the view of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I am not interested in the same deep and wholehearted way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a matter of fact, this Resolution does not affect me personally in any way. I am not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a lover of queer beverages. I have no particular interest in this beverage either from the point of view of finance or of taste, and I doubt whether I shall contribute much to this extra revenue which he hopes to raise. I take an entirely different point of view. This particular duty is one of the worst ways of indirect taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have used for the purpose of raising money. There is a good old doctrine about indirect taxation, with which many Liberals and Socialists agree, that you should not put burdens on the food of the people. I am not going to lay down whether beer is or is not part of the food of the people. I am not going to argue about that, although some of those who are opposed to that view, like the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), are not present at the moment. Many people think it is one of the most health-giving of all beverages.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had guarantees that this particular duty will never actually get to the consumer in any way. By that I conclude there will be no rise in price, and that there will be at least as good an article given to the consumer as at present. It would be interesting to the house to be enlightened as to precisely what guarantees he got on that occasion that this sum of money would not be passed on. We shall have to explain these things later and point out clearly how it was accomplished. It would be most interesting if the right hon. Gentleman told us plainly how he conducted the negotiations with such success that in this particular instance the consumer would never feel the tax at all. In involves a broader issue, with which I shall not attempt to deal now. It would be a matter of immense interest to the country as a whole if he could explain how you can place a tax on an article so that the consumer does not pay anything. If I had been called earlier, I would have said something about this particular duty on another point. I would like now some definite figures before me to show that there will be no difference in proportion or in gravity. That is a phrase which has not been explained. Hon. Members opposite must understand the difficulties which they will be required to explain, and I would suggest, in a friendly way, that they had better have their explanation ready, because they will get it pretty hot if the prophecy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the duty will not be passed on to the consumer, does not come true. In levying a direct duty of 3s., the Chancellor of the Exchequer is missing a very great opportunity in a number of ways. I will mention one or two ways. In the first place, if you are going to interfere with this duty, it would have been an admirable opportunity to use it in some way to improve the beverage known as beer. We want the pure article. Instead of putting on a flat rate duty of 3s., it would have been well if it could have been levied in such a way as to tax the bad varieties of beer or the varieties which may have in their composition something not particularly valuable for human health. That would have been doing something of immense value which, surely, would have commended itself to those who are interested in temperance, as I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, and would have been doing a great service to mankind. It is almost essential in these modern times that we should get not only purity in an article, but that we should do everything possible—here, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will sympathise with me—to see that in levying a duty of this kind it should be done in such a way as to get the best possible article for the consumer. It would be advisable so to readjust the duty as to get that better article. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been laying up for himself a series of troubles in the last few weeks. Before we vote in favour of this new duty, we must know that it is being used in the best possible way. In bringing in the duty in this way, the right hon. Gentleman has missed an unexampled chance of doing something for one of the greatest of British industries. I do not propose to enlarge upon that point, because I am convinced that it is hopeless asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help British industry. This burden has been deliberately put on in such a way as to try to encourage people to buy the foreign, bad, indifferent barley and to cut out British barley. That is the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this duty, and the sooner that object is realised by the community as a whole, the better it will be. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had not such a cast-iron majority at his back and that we had some reasonable chance of defeating him on this iniquitous proposal.The House has had an opportunity of discussing at some length the main question that is about to be put, and I hope that it will be possible to come to a decision now. I am sorry that a certain amount of heat was generated earlier in the Debate, but the agricultural Members, who have only occasional chances of putting their case before the House and the country, have been stirred by the success of hon. Members from the mining constituencies, who put their case in season and out of season and have succeeded, as the President of the Board of Trade will agree, in extracting very great concessions from the Government. Hon. Members from agricultural constituencies feel that that is an example which they could not do better than repeat.
The proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are for the purpose of extracting a considerable sum of money from the brewers. He says that it will be possible to extract that money without passing the duty on to the consumer. This will minimise the possibility of getting access to the profits of the brewers to help the barley-growing districts. Those who come into contact with agriculturists, particularly the agricultural deputations which have come up recently, know that the agriculturists have placed very strongly before Members of this House and Members of the Government the desirability of doing something, through the medium of malting barley, to help the consumption of their staple product. If we are defeated on this point, we do not intend to pursue the matter further.At this stage.
At this stage. Preference is given for wines produced within the Empire, and the use of home products is stimulated and fostered by the advertisements of the Empire Marketing Board. It would cause great indignation in certain sections of the House if the advertisements of the Empire Marketing Board were devoted towards the stimulation of the consumption of beer, whether brewed from British malt or foreign malt. That advantage is withdrawn from the home producer of malt. The argument in favour of a differential duty has been withdrawn from the home producer of malt, and he feels that as it is a home product he is entitled to the consideration which might be given in favour of the home producer. He feels that it is an unreasonable contention that because of certain treaties the difficulties of the arable farmer in this country should not be met. The loss of revenue of £1,000,000 by the granting of this preference would not be much as a step to deal with the position of the home producer of cereals. On these grounds, we were well justified in bringing forward this case, and we were also justified in our protest against the undue attempt to override the House at an earlier stage. We have been willing to deal with the Debate in a reasonable way and to parcel out our time to the best advantage of the House. For these reasons, I would appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House to allow us to come to a decision.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this duty will not be passed on to the consumer, but I have proof of a definite
Division No. 264.]
| AYES.
| [7.26 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Herriotts, J. |
| Addlson, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Dickson, T. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Dukes, C. | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Arnott, John | Duncan, Charles | Hollins, A. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Ede, James Chuter | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Edmunds, J. E. | Horrabin, J. F. |
| Ayles, Walter | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hunter, Dr. Joseph |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Egan, W. R. | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. |
| Barr, James | Elmley, Viscount | Isaacs, George |
| Batey, Joseph | England, Colonel A. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Foot, Isaac | Johnston, Thomas |
| Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Freeman, Peter | Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) |
| Benson, G. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Birkett, W. Norman | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Gibbins, Joseph | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Gill, T. H. | Kennedy, Thomas |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Gillett, George M. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Bromfield, William | Gossling, A. G. | Kinley, J. |
| Bromley, J. | Gould, F. | Kirkwood, D. |
| Brooke, W. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Brothers, M. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lathan, G. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Granville, E. | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Gray, Milner | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire) | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lawson, John Jamer |
| Buchanan, G. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Leach, W. |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Groves, Thomas E. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
| Cameron, A. G. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lees, J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Church, Major A. G. | Hardie, George D. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Clarke, J. S. | Harris, Percy A. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Longden, F. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Lovat-Fraser. J. A. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Haycock, A. W. | Lowth, Thomas |
| Compton, Joseph | Hayday, Arthur | Lunn, William |
| Cove, William G. | Hayes, John Henry | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Daggar, George | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Dallas, George | Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.) | MacDonald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) |
case that this duty is being passed on to the consumer and to the public houses which are not tied. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into that matter. The barley growers are hard hit, and this Budget means another burden placed upon them. Since the present Government have been in office, they have done nothing but pile burdens upon agriculture. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, whatever happens, the agricultural Members on this side of the House intend to give him a very rough passage in all his Measures if he does not mend his ways.
Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
The House divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 120.
| McElwee, A. | Price, M. P. | Sorensen, R. |
| McEntee, V. L. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Mackinder, W. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Stephen, Campbell |
| McKinlay, A. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Raynes, W. R. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Maclean, Neil (Glasgow. Govan) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring. | Sullivan, J. |
| McShane, John James | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Mansfield, W. | Ritson, J. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| March, S. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) |
| Marcus, M. | Romeril, H. G. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Marley, J. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Tillett, Ben |
| Marshall, Fred | Rothschild, J. de | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Mathers, George | Rowson, Guy | Toole, Joseph |
| Melville, Sir Jamas | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Tout, W. J. |
| Messer, Fred | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Turner, B. |
| Middleton, G. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Vauqhan, D. J. |
| Millar, J. D. | Sanders, W. S. | Viant, S. P. |
| Milner, Major J. | Sandham, E. | Walker, J. |
| Montague, Frederick | Sawyer, G. F. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Scurr, John | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Morley, Ralph | Sexton, James | Watkins, F. C. |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Watson, W. M. (Duntermline) |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sherwood, G. H. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah |
| Mort, D. L. | Shield, George William | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Moses, J. J. H. | Shillaker, J. F. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Shinwell, E. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Muggeridge, H. T. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | West, F. R. |
| Murnin, Hugh | Simmons, C. J. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Naylor, T. E. | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) | White, H. G. |
| Oldfield, J. R. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Sinkinson, George | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Sitch, Charles H. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Palin, John Henry | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Palmer, E. T. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) | Wise, E. F. |
| Perry, S. F. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Young, R. S. (Islington. North) |
| Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Snell, Harry | |
| Pole, Major D. G. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Potts, John S. | Snowden, Thomas (Accrington) | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Paling. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Woston S. M.) | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Albery, Irving James | Fison, P. G. Clavering | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd |
| Atkinson, C. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive |
| Balniel, Lord | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Muirhead, A. J. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.) | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | O'Neill, Sir H. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Peake, Capt. Osbert |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Penny, Sir George |
| Boyce, H. L. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Poto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Bracken, B. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Remer, John R. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Haslam, Henry C. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Butler, R. A. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hurd, Percy A. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Savery, S. S. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Knox, Sir Alfred | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) | Long, Major Eric | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Wayland, Sir William A. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George | |
| Wells, Sydney R. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) | Womerslay, W. J. | Captain Margesson and Captain |
| Wallace. |
It being after Half past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.
Private Business
Cardiff Corporation Bill (By Order)
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I and those who are acting with me regret that we have to hold up this Bill, but it contains two Clauses which depart so definitely from the settled policy which has existed for some years past, and we consider them so dangerous, that we are compelled to oppose the Bill. If those two Clauses, 136 and 137, had been absent, we should have helped the Bill through with our good will, and we are prepared to do so now if some amelioration of those two Clauses can be suggested by those who are in charge of the Bill. As I am moving the postponement of the Bill I wish to draw attention to two trivial points and to one which is of more importance. I feel interested in the Bill, and it has my good will because, in common with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, I have had the happiness of serving my own native city in the position of Chief Magistrate, and I know from my own experience the working of a Bill like this. The two trivial points that I want to mention are dealt with in Clauses 97, 105 and 112. I hope that those in charge of the Bill will take note of what I and my friends feel about the matter. Clause 97 says:In other words, the householder is bound to provide covered dustbins from which the refuse is to be tipped into a Corporation van. But if the Corporation does not provide a covered van a whole street may be smothered with dust, microbes and disease. The van used by a Corporation for clearing away house refuse should be a covered van so constructed as to prevent dust and refuse escaping into the street. We know what we have suffered from the dust nuisance in London. It is a minor point but one to which this House should draw attention. Clause 105 says:"The Corporation may by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of any dwelling-house, warehouse, or shop to provide adequate portable, covered, gal- vanised iron dust-bins in lieu of ashpits or ashtubs or other receptacles for refuse."
In my opinion, the greatest offenders in this matter are the Corporations themselves. A Corporation van can be the greatest menace to the health of a locality. Within the last three months I have had to ring up the official of a great municipal Corporation and to complain about the Corporation sending out vans that are uncovered, with the result that dust blows about. If Corporations come along and set up regulations which provide that householders must have covered dustbins, the Corporations at least should play their part and see that their vans are covered. The other minor point to which I would refer is to be found in Clause 112, which deals with the registration of premises used for the manufacture of potted meats. On one or two occasions attention has been drawn to the sale in this country of foreign cheeses which were made of skimmed or inferior milk and were palmed off on customers without those customers knowing that they were not full-milk or full-cream cheeses. When questions were asked in this House we were told that the Ministry of Health had no power to prevent this fraud on the poorer part of the population. I do not propose to import into this Bill any Amendment for dealing with the grievance, but the Bill gives me an opportunity of drawing the attention of corporations to the need for obtaining powers to go into shops where this abuse of the people's confidence takes place, and to punish those who palm off these inferior foods just as they now punish those who sell food that is unfit for human consumption. Another point in the Bill is of academic interest. I notice on page 96 of the Bill, in Clause 139, that there is a scheme for the borrowing and repayment of money. The period for repayment is for specified numbers of years from the date of borrowing. What this Clause really deals with is a sinking fund. I take no exception to the periods of repayment or the method of borrowing, or the terms, but what I want to direct attention to is this: In Clause 139 it is provided that any money borrowed under the provisions of Sub-section (2, b) shall be repaid within such period as may be prescribed. How is it to be repaid? This seems to be a very loose provision. We all agree that the money must be repaid by means of a sinking fund to wipe off exhausted assets, but if sinking funds are placed in non-productive undertakings of the corporation that is a breach of sound finance. If a corporation borrows a large sum of money to be repaid within a certain date, I quite agree with the sinking fund being placed in the reproductive undertakings of that corporation, such as water, gas, electricity or trams, where the money can fructify, and by the operation of a further sinking fund help to find the money to wipe off the debt, although it masks borrowing. I do not object to that method, although it is not the best way of carrying out a sinking fund, but I object to the sinking fund going into non-reproductive undertakings or properties of the corporation, and I see nothing in this Bill to safeguard the finances of the Cardiff Corporation in this respect. Suppose that a debt has been incurred and that so much a year must be paid off that debt. It sometimes happens that that sinking fund money may be put into the gas or water or electricity undertakings of the municipality to avoid the necessity of borrowing on the market. As I have said, there is not much against that method, but it is not the best method. On the other hand, it is not unusual for the sinking fund to be put into non-productive undertakings such as the building of a town hall or the making of a park. When the time comes for the money to be paid to replace boilers and machinery and plant which is worn out or wearing out or obsolescent, there is no money available with which to find the funds necessary for repayment, because the money has been put into a park or a town hall which yields nothing. What is the result? A further loan has to be raised, and a further rate has to be imposed on the people to find the necessary interest. I therefore say that we ought to lay down in this House the method in which local government sinking funds ought to be applied, and there is a much better way than either of the methods which I have described. Hon. Members opposite may say that it is better to have £100,000 going into a sinking fund to be used for the necessary extensions of reproductive municipal undertakings than to go on the market and borrow, but I am not so sure about that. If you have a sinking fund operating by what is technically called "creeping action," year after year—using your sinking fund to rebuy your stock, and to repay your loan on the market, or, if you cannot buy your loan back, using the money by putting it into trustee securities which will become due when your debt is repayable—if you keep a creeping sinking fund going on like that, I know from my own experience as a municipal worker that you maintain the price of the stock of your city at a higher level; that is to say, you maintain your credit much higher. You keep up the price of your stock, and, in the end, if you wish to borrow again for the purposes of your city, you find that the price of your stock is high in the market and you can float your loan higher. We ought to insist on sinking funds not being placed in non-productive undertakings. At the very least, they ought to be placd in the reproductive branches of corporation activity, and I should much prefer if they were put into some liquid form so as to be available for use when the time comes for the repayment of debt. That being so, I propose to move a manuscript Amendment, and perhaps I may be allowed to mention it now as indicating what is in my mind—Clause 141, page 98, line 23, at the end, to insert:"Section 44 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall extend to empower the Corporation to make by-laws for regulating the tipping of dust, soil and refuse, and for prohibiting the use of any refuse tip so as to be a nuisance to the occupier of any premises in the neighbourhood thereof."
That is wholesome finance, and there is nothing hostile about that proposal. All it seeks to do is to reduce the risk of a rise at a future date in the rates placed upon the citizens of Cardiff, the sinking fund having been so provided that it pays off the old debt."(4) All sums paid into the Sinking Fund under the terms of this Act shall be, with their accumulation by way of interest, applied as far as may be to the purchase or repayment and cancellation of the then existing debt of the Corporation, and/or invested in trustee securities, authorised by the Treasury until the date on which the debt of the Cardiff Corporation falls due for repayment, when the investment so held shall he sold, and the proceeds applied to pay off the debt of the Cardiff Corporation."
On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman moving that the consideration of the Bill be adjourned for six months. What is before the House? We cannot tell from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
The original Question was "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered," and I fancy that the hon. Gentleman is now moving as an Amendment that it be considered upon this day six months.
The hon. Gentleman has said that he is going to move certain Amendments, but we are still waiting for him to give some reasons why the consideration of the Bill should be postponed.
On a Motion of the kind which is before us, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to discuss the whole Bill.
I am stating the objections which we have to the Bill, and the reasons why we wish to postpone its consideration for six months. I have already outlined the two minor objections which we have to the Bill and also our objection in regard to the sinking fund. I am now about to come to the main objection, namely, that in reference to Clauses 136, and 137, which deal with the power to establish a savings bank, and the power to make advances for housing. I fancy that no one was more surprised than the Cardiff authorities themselves when they found these two Clauses still in the Bill as drafted. They were passed by the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee. Owing to an unfortunate and sad reason one member of the Committee was not present who would have voted against these proposals—otherwise these two Clauses would never have appeared in the Bill. I have received a communication from the Cardiff Corporation, giving the main reasons for these two Clauses, particularly the setting up of the municipal bank, and of 11 paragraphs in this statement, 10 base the whole argument on the fact that a municipal bank has been set up in Birmingham. If they use the Birmingham argument in this connection, they cannot have read the Bradbury Report. I may say that I have read this Bill carefully, and I have studied this municipal bank proposal with some industry. Since 1919 no Bill has gone through this House authorising the setting up of a municipal bank and I would ask the House to hear what the Bradbury Committee's Report has to say on the subject.
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who constituted that Committee and what they were?
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) was not in the House two or three years ago when we had a Debate on municipal banks, which was, I think, one of the most interesting Debates for some years in this House. The Chairman of this Committee which dealt with the subject of municipal savings banks was Lord Bradbury.
The hon. Gentleman is now going into the subject matter of the next Amendment which appears on the Paper in his name. If he proposes to deal with it now, he cannot deal with it again. He can deal with the whole subject now if he wishes, and afterwards formally move the Amendment standing in his name, if that seems to the House to be the convenient course.
I would like to save time, and not to trespass on the patience of the House or on your patience, Sir, and, if you will allow me to do so, I will deal with these Amendments now.
Are we to understand, Sir, that we are to have a general Debate now on all the points covered by the hon. Gentleman's Amendments, and that subsequently there w not be further Debate on each particular Amendment?
I am in the hands of the House, as regards this matter, but it seems to me that that would be the most convenient way of dealing with the question. I should not like to have the Debate twice over.
Does not your Ruling, Sir, apply only to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel)—that he cannot make the same speech over again on another Amendment? Surely, if another Amendment is formally moved, any other Member who is interested in that Amendment can speak upon it.
That is why I said that I was in the hands of the House. I think it would be the most convenient course for hon. Members to make their speeches on these Amendments on the Question, "That the consideration of the Bill be deferred for six months," and that the Amendments should then be dealt with formally.
I shall be content to follow that course with regard to the two Amendments on the Paper in my name and also the manuscript Amendment which I have indicated, and which I shall hand in. I shall make my observations in the general discussion now, and, later on, formally move these Amendments.
That was my idea, but I should say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) has given me notice of an Amendment which he is going to move, and I think it will probably be best that he should move it later on.
The hon. Member for Lichfield, I understand, presses me for the names of the Committee?
Yes, and their occupations.
8.0 p.m.
The Chairman of the Committee was Lord Bradbury, and I think everyone knows who he is. The other members were Sir Lawrence Halsey, who is, I think, a member of the firm of Price, Waterhouse and Company; Sir Harry Haward whom I have not the pleasure of knowing; Colonel the hon. Sidney Peel, a Member of this House in former times, and a great scholar, and Sir William Schooling, K.B.E., who is, I think, an actuary for one of the large insurance companies. As I have said, the only Bill containing a proposal of this kind which has become law, was that of Birmingham. Since the Birmingham bank was established, every demand made for a municipal bank has been opposed. Cardiff, having examined the whole proposition on the basis of the Birmingham bank, have omitted to notice that the Bradbury report is adverse to the setting up of further municipal banks. Moreover, a general Bill was brought in in 1923 for the setting up of municipal banks, and it died. In 1925 another Bill was introduced and died. Similarly in 1926; and in 1927 another Bill, based on the Birmingham model, were introduced and died. On many occasions other municipalities have tried to obtain powers and have failed. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have always blocked them!"] Swansea tried in 1920 and Wigan and Tottenham in 1921. Again, Swansea tried in 1922 and Stoke-on-Trent in 1923, Bristol in 1926, and Swansea in 1927, but all were unsuccessful. The London County Council which considered this matter set up a committee with a view to investigating the question of a municipal bank for London. They thought that conditions differed so widely, not only from a population point of view but also from a municipal point of view, that it would be rash of them to think that they might achieve the same success if a bank were established in London on the basis of that established in Birmingham. The Manchester special committee of 1924 dealt with the question of establishing a municipal bank and their report was adverse to any such development. With regard to Liverpool, the finance committee, having considered the report:
Those are not decisions of this House, but of important towns. Nottingham's decision was"did not recommend the establishment of a municipal savings bank in Liverpool."
Then there is Aberdeen. Their report was to the effect that"that it is undesirable, unnecessary, and impracticable to proceed in the matter of the establishment of such a bank at Nottingham."
Glasgow corporation considered"the establishment of a municipal bank in Aberdeen could not be justified."
We had a discussion on the same subject about two years ago on a Motion for the establishment of a municipal bank. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland took part in that discussion which was an exhaustive one and one which was carried on on a high plane, and the proposal was turned down. I hope that this Debate will not turn upon the success achieved by Birmingham. Birmingham has been successful, but there is no other case but Birmingham. Birmingham is peculiar. It had no previous facilities. There had been no trustee savings bank there since 1864. The figures of the Post Office Savings Bank showed what happened after the setting up of the Birmingham bank. Had Birmingham had a Trustee Savings Bank it is doubtful whether the municipal bank would have secured any new savings. It simply took what would have gone into other banks, had they been handy. The figures show the total Post Office Savings Bank deposits on 31st December, 1919 and 1925. The 1925 percentage of the 1919 deposits for the rest of England and Wales was 110, and for Birmingham City 82. Why was this? It was because the extra facilities offered in Birmingham had filched away the money from the other forms of savings. [interruption.] If you have two shops and one takes away the trade from the other, that does not increase the total trade. The municipal bank had reduced the amount of money put into the Post Office savings bank and had taken it over to itself. The figures for the head offices show that the 1925 percentage of the 1919 deposits in Birmingham was 81, in Manchester was 125, in Bristol was 104, and in Leeds was 103. This is what is said on page 57 of the report:"whether representatives should be sent to give evidence before the Committee, and resolved by 51 votes to 46 that they should not."
"On the whole, these figures suggest primâ facie that, if there had been no municipal bank, Post Office deposits in Birmingham would not merely not have decreased but would have substantially increased."
Did the new bank in Birmingham offer a better rate of interest than the savings bank?
Yes, it did. I will make a special reference to that in view of what was said by the Labour party on a previous occasion when the matter of interest was discussed. Members opposite suggested that the Post Office should be allowed to offer a higher rate of interest. If Cardiff seeks to encourage thrift which is quite a right thing to do, there is the Post Office, there are National Savings Certificates, there are building societies and the various Government loans for investors, and I believe Cardiff will take money from £50 upwards for bonds repayable at a certain date. Here is an interesting side to the matter. Mr. Holden, chairman of the Accrington Co-operative Society in 1928, said that the municipal banks would injure the co-operative movement. He said that the Birmingham municipal bank had reduced the local co-operative society's capital. Our objection to this particular Clause is the risk or danger to depositors, because banks run on these lines run the risk of borrowing "short" and lending "long." The Bradbury report takes that fact into consideration. It says, in Clauses 93 and 94:
"In so far as the bank's funds are invested in liquid short-term securities, that can in fact readily be sold on the market at any time and cannot substantially depreciate, the probability of serious difficulties arising is no doubt remote. But we apprehend that those who desire to establish such banks would not in general be prepared to invest the greater part of the bank's funds in this way, but would wish to invest most of the money either in long-term Government securities or more probably with the corporation itself. The fact that the corporation might undertake to repay the loan at call would not make it a liquid security of the hank since it could not be sold on the market.
We saw a painful situation in the case of Wakefield which was put to great loss. Suppose that Wakefield had had a municipal bank after the disclosure that the corporation had lost £300,000. What would have happened? There might have been a run on the municipal bank by depositors after they had learned of the loss. One has seen this sort of thing happen before. I wonder if hon. Gentlemen remember the delicate situation set up in Yorkshire 25 years ago. If hon. Members think that some benefit is coming to the corporation of Cardiff through being able to borrow money at 3½ per cent. from the public, let me point out that if depositors leave money at 3½ per cent. with the corporation, that money does not cost the corporation 3½ per cent., but nearly 5 per cent."Now the use of savings banks deposits for long-term capital expenditure is in effect borrowing short and lending (or spending) long—a practice repugnant to sound principles of banking."
No.
Does the hon. Member not remember that it came out in Debate that money borrowed of the public by a corporation bank at 3½ per cent. has to be administered, that you have to have buildings and so on? I remember well the figures given in this House by one of the speakers in that Debate.
As I was the first chairman of a municipal bank and have had considerable experience of it, let me tell the hon. Member that the cost of the working expenses is one quarter per cent.
This was stated on the 22nd February, 1928:
"Interest to depositors, £3 10s. per cent.; expenses of management, 17s. 2d. reserves, one quarter per cent., which is the minimum rate which can safely be placed to reserve; cost of liquid balance, 3s. 9d., being a total of £4 16s. 3d. before any profit at all is made to the bank."
Where is that from?
That was said here, and it passed unchallenged. It was also said in that Debate:
"The influence and name of Chamberlain will exist in Birmingham for all time. I thought the hon. Member was going to ask me how they get on in Sheffield without them. I was going to say very badly. This municipal bank was formed in March, 1919.…I do not think the ratepayer will get anything by way of reduction in lending his money to a corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1928; cols. 1691–5, Vol. 213.]
Whose speech is that?
Colonel Woodcock's. It is not arguable that if you get money at 3½ per cent. you can lend it at that rate. It must cost you something to carry on. You cannot get your money through a municipal bank for very much less than 4¾ per cent., and corporations can borrow in the market at short notice on corporation bills, say, at six months, at less, or for long dates, say, 30 years, at about 5 per cent. There is therefore no saving to a corporation if they borrow money from depositors at something like 3½ per cent. It is said there is a great need for municipal savings banks, but since last year the Trustee Savings Bank Bill has become an Act, and they will give safer facilities than municipal savings banks, because the trustee savings banks have the whole of the guarantee of the State behind them.
I remember that a pledge was given last year by the Labour party in regard to the question of interest, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). I believe it was given by Lord Arnold, who said that when his party came into power they would insist on raising the rate of interest in the Savings Banks above 2½ per cent. It will be an injustice for the old savings bank if this House lets Cardiff set up a bank giving a rate of interest at 3½ per cent. and prevent the Post Office Savings Bank giving any more than 2½ per cent. I am certain that the pledge was given by the Labour party, and I think it was given by Lord Arnold. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to say this evening whether the Government are going to fulfil that pledge. Does he remember, when he sat opposite me when I was in charge of the discussion, that he pressed me to raise the Trustee Savings Banks rate of interest? If so, surely it is only an act of justice to carry out consistently the policy which he then advocated, and allow the Savings Banks to charge a higher rate so that they may be able to compete with the municipal banks. Then again hon. Members must remember that National Savings Certificates issued in an area enable money to be obtained by the area from the National Debt Commissioners for municipal purposes, and so with trustee savings banks. If fewer National Savings Certificates are issued in districts owing to municipal banks taking the money for themselves, it will be less possible for the municipalities to obtain the money which they need from the National Debt Commissioners. There are municipal short-term loans quite as safe as municipal banks, and not so dangerous in the event of a run or a panic. I had to study the history of English banking before and after 1844 two years ago, when it was my duty to bring in the Bank Notes Bill, and it came into my mind time after time, while I was going through those records, that the catastrophes and smashes of private banks throughout the country were caused by the banks placing their deposits into two few baskets and putting their eggs into local baskets. Here you will have the same thing again. You will have municipal banks with all their eggs in one municipal basket, lent to one corporation alone, with one type of borrower, and if anything happens, such as a catastrophe or a breakdown of trade in the district, what must the result be? Think of some of the districts in Wales where, on account of the misery in the coal trade, they are now becoming almost depopulated. Suppose you had a municipal bank there, with all its money invested in the district, how could you get it without falling back on the State or some other helper to repay the depositors? The Bradbury Committee says, on page 42 of its report:Who will control these municipal banks? The council, which is the borrowing authority and which is also the spending authority? We do not even allow that here. On the Public Accounts Committee we have one official who intervenes between the spending and the legislating authority. Are you going to have an Auditor-General and a Comptroller intervening between the authorities overseeing the borrowing of the bank and the authorities who oversee and authorise the lendings of the bank? If you do not, disaster must occur, and that is why we oppose this Bill. I should like to quote one other thing from this Report:"We feel, therefore, that we cannot disregard the possibility that a Municipal Savings Bank might become, or seem likely to become, seriously embarrassed, and that it is necessary to consider what reactions its embarrassment might have both on the Municipality and on the general credit structure. While the two aspects of the question should not be sharply distinguished, since each reacts on the other, they correspond to some extent with two different types of difficulty, the gradual and the sudden. In either case there is a presumption that the general financial position of the municipality is already difficult and that the whole credit system is somewhat strained."
We do not wish to offer an uncompromising opposition to the proposals in this Bill; we have no intention or wish to hold up the Bill. We had hoped that by patting down these Amendments, the Cardiff authorities would make some accommodation with our views. There may be, and I think that there are probably, some middle courses that would meet our objections and the objections which I have outlined in the two Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose objections?"] They are my objections which I make from such ability as I have, but they are backed up by the Report of the Bradbury Committee. There may be some middle courses which would meet our objections, and which would give the safeguards which we desire. Perhaps the Financial Secretary, who is in charge of the Bill, can reconsider Clauses 136 and 137 as they now stand, and propose some processes by which the assets of the municipal banks can be maintained in a form sufficiently liquid to ensure security both to the depositors and to the corporation. That was recommended by the Bradbury Committee. Let me read their recommendation:"We are much impressed with the great vigour of municipal life in this country, the general efficiency of local government and the immense value of the civic spirit, and we fully recognise the importance of enlisting that civic spirit in the service of thrift. At the same time, municipal func- tions are already many and varied and there is a prima facie presumption against adding to them unnecessarily. After very careful consideration of the whole position in all its bearings, we have come to the definite conclusion that in view of the present position of national finance the extension of Municipal Savings Banks within the next 10 years would not be in the interest of the community as a whole, and that even apart from questions of national finance it is exceedingly doubtful whether the special incentive to thrift provided by such banks is so great as to outweigh the risks involved."
that is, with regard to the Birmingham Bank—"Had we been dealing with the question entirely afresh"—
We must oppose this Bill on account of these two Clauses. Perhaps those in charge of the Bill may see fit to move Amendments on the lines of those which I am supporting. I think that Paragraph 138 of the Bradbury report would probably meet our objection."we should have been disposed to recommend that the bank should keep in cash and at its bankers a balance of 5 per cent. of its deposits that 40 per cent. or 45 per cent. should be placed with the National Debt Commissioners, who would invest the money in short term securities, allowing the interest actually earned, and would undertake to repay it at call if the cash balance should at any time be exhausted, and that the Corporation should have the use of the rest of the money for their own purposes or for housing advances, paying interest on terms to be prescribed by statute or fixed by the Treasury."
I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to remind the House of the circumstances under which these Clauses have come down to this House for discussion. They are very remarkable. To begin with, in Committee upstairs these Clauses were carried by a majority of one, the Chairman having voted twice. I have always understood that it is the usual practice for the Chairman of a Committee, where there is a proposed innovation, not to give his casting vote in favour of the innovation, but in favour of the status quo. [Interruption.] I would remind the House that one Member was unavoidably and regrettably absent from the Committee. It does not seem to me fair to the House that Clauses of this magnitude should be carried by the casting vote of the Chairman upstairs. I would further remind the House of the witnesses who were called before the Local Legislation Committee. It is a remarkable fact that on Clauses involving such a great departure of policy, no witnesses were called in opposition to the Clauses. Only three witnesses were called by the Cardiff Corporation to give evidence—Will the hon. Member tell us under which Standing Order a Committee has that duty imposed upon them?
I do not quite understand the hon. Member's interjection. If he refers to the Chairman's casting vote—
I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that there was a Standing Order which made it incumbent on the Committee to call evidence in opposition.
If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am saying, instead of putting his own thoughts into words, he will not make such an absurd suggestion. I made no such statement. I said that I understood—and I may be wrong—that it is the usual practice for a Chairman not to give his casting vote—in other words to vote twice upon the same point—in favour of an innovation, but to give his vote, if it is required, in favour of maintaining the status quo.
Is it in order for an hon. Member to criticise and to call in question the conduct of a Chairman of Committee upstairs?
It is not in order to call into question the conduct or action of a Chairman upstairs, but it is in order to use such an illustration as the hon. Member is using for the information of the House.
I have no intention of casting a reflection on the Chairman, but it is a remarkable thing that Clauses involving such a wide departure of policy should have been decided by a casting vote of the Chairman. Hon. Members may have a different view, but I do not like to think that Clauses of this magnitude should be decided by what I will call unusual procedure on the part of the Chairman. I want to call attention to the number and quality of the witnesses who were called to be examined on this question. There were three witnesses, all of whom were prejudiced, biased, and with interests to serve. There was the general manager of the Birmingham Bank, and nobody would suggest—[Interruption.] I am casting no reflection on him. I only say that one would expect that he would be in favour of municipal banking. The second witness was the chairman of the Birmingham Bank, and I leave it to hon. Gentlemen to decide whether it is not possible that the chairman of a municipal bank in Birmingham would be in favour of municipal banking. Lastly, there was the City Treasurer of Cardiff, who evidently wishes to extend his sphere of activity. These were the only three witnesses called to discuss these main Clauses, and I maintain that it is a remarkable fact that in a wide departure of policy of this kind, there was no opportunity of hearing evidence in opposition.
It is very remarkable because in the past applications from local authorities for power to start a municipal bank have always been strenuously opposed by the Treasury. On this occasion, the Cardiff Corporation were amazed, and their chief counsel expressed his astonishment that no opposition from the Treasury had been met with. When Swansea applied for powers, they were opposed by the Treasury. When Bristol, which I represent, applied for powers, as recently as 1926, they were strenuously opposed by the Treasury. I will deal with Bristol later. I am only pointing out that in the past the Treasury have always offered the most strenuous opposition to any Clause giving powers to local authorities to run municipal banks. On this occasion, by a remarkable coincidence—it may be coincident with the arrival of a Socialist Government in office—the Treasury withdrew their opposition. I come next to another important happening upstairs, to my mind the most remarkable one, and that is that the national aspects of this question were ruled out by the Chairman. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Henley (Captain Henderson) endeavoured to extract some information and some opinions regarding the effects of municipal banks on the country as a whole, he was ruled out of order by the Chairman. I propose reading the Chairman's remarks. The hon. and gallant Member for Henley had tried to introduce a consideration of the national aspect of the question as opposed to the purely local and selfish interests of Cardiff, and here is an extract from page 150 of the minutes of evidence:I really think we should discuss the Corporation Bill on its merits, without any prejudice from any report that is issued from the national standpoint."
That was Mr. Palin's view, and the Chairman supported it.That report is a national report, and I should like to say that we have to accept it as a national matter; but I submit that we are not dealing with the question from a national point of view. We are discussing the question as to whether or not Cardiff is a city that ought to have a bank.
The report offered an opinion as to whether all municipalities should be entrusted with these powers. We are discussing the question of whether one municipality of a very high financial standing should be entrusted with these powers."
Hon. Members opposite cheer that ruling by the Chairman. For all I know the Chairman may have been perfectly correct in his ruling, according to the laws of procedure upstairs, but I submit that the national standpoint is all important, and it is the national standpoint, and not the purely local and selfish interests of Cardiff, which I ask the House to consider this evening. To rule out entirely the effect of municipal savings banks upon the finances of the country as a whole is to adopt a most extraordinary attitude. It is the more remarkable because the Bradbury Committee, which was appointed in 1926 and reported in November, 1927, was expressly set up to considerThe Committee, which was composed of very eminent authorities, considered this question from every angle and came to very definite conclusions, which were adverse to a further extension of municipal banks. The principal argument in favour of the establishment of municipal banks is that they will encourage thrift and stimulate saving through the medium of a bank owned by the citizens, which can use their accumulated savings to assist the finances of their city. The encouragement of thrift is the great aim. The Bradbury Committee examined this contention and came to the conclusion that"whether it is desirable to promote a further extension of municipal savings banks, and, if so, within what limits, and subject to what conditions, statutory or otherwise."
They arrived at that conclusion after a very careful examination of the only municipal bank which had then been established, the Birmingham Municipal Bank. When they examined the deposits of the Birmingham Municipal Bank they estimated, and it was a conservative estimate, that no less than 30 per cent. had been diverted from the Post Office Savings Bank, that 20 per cent. had been diverted from investment in National Savings Certificates, that 15 per cent. had been diverted from the ordinary joint stock banks and ordinary investments—[Laughter.] I see nothing to laugh at in that. Perhaps hon. Members will cheer this more heartily—10 per cent. was diverted from co-operative societies and from miscellaneous agencies. If we add those percentages together we find that only 25 per cent. of the savings which the Birmingham Municipal Bank has secured are really new money; 75 per cent. of the money accumulated in the bank has been diverted from other agencies which would have collected it. Therefore, the Birmingham Bank has been of advantage in encouraging thrift only to the extent of 25 per cent. I would point out that in Birmingham there were exceptional advantages in favour of such a bank. There was no trustee savings bank, the building societies were not strong, and the municipal bank was established when trade was good and wages were high and people had, presumably, more money to put by than is the case at the present time. Further, I understand that the Birmingham Bank took over from a previous savings bank, and therefore started with a substantial balance in its coffers. In every way the Birmingham Bank started under the most favourable conditions, but in spite of that has been instrumental in securing new savings to the extent of only 25 per cent. of its total deposits."municipal banks would provide some additional incentive to thrift, but that the proportion of new savings which they and they alone would obtain was small in relation to the whole."
The total deposits were round about £10,000,000, and 25 per cent. of that is a very considerable sum.
The Bradbury Committee said that at a liberal estimate the new savings secured by the Birmingham Bank amounted to £1,000,000.
Well, that is a fair amount.
My argument does not rest on that. I do not reject the savings bank as a means of thrift; obviously every new agency which is created taps some source of savings; but what I am pointing out is that we must not attach too much importance to the power of a municipal bank to stimulate savings, as the savings which it secures consist for the most part of money diverted from other agencies which would have collected it.
I know nothing about Cardiff, but I do know something about Bristol. One thing I have discovered is that Cardiff does not possess quite the same amount of civic spirit as Bristol possesses. I have made a very careful examination of the various savings agencies in Bristol and I assume that they are typical of the whole country. I do not say that Bristol is more go-ahead than the rest of the country, but I find upon examination that there are quite a large number of agencies in Bristol encouraging thrift and saving among the people. I would like to mention, first of all, the building societies, which are very strong in Bristol and which do the work that the Cardiff Corporation is seeking to do under Clause 137 of this Bill. Those building societies are doing a great work in assisting the purchase of houses in Bristol. Then there are the co-operative societies which are fairly strong in Bristol, and they have savings banks which encourage their members to save their money, and I congratulate them upon the good work that they are doing. There are also in Bristol the ordinary joint stock banks, which not only cater for the wealthy classes, but which have set themselves out to capture the poor man who has not very much money, and all credit to them for doing that good work. These banks have started the system which is now known as home safes. Not long ago I took the trouble to discuss the matter with the bank managers of Bristol, and I find that these home safes are going like hot cakes in the various parts of the city and they are encouraging saving among those men and women whom the municipal savings bank is designed to catch. Those joint stock banks, by the initiation of home safes, are doing much to encourage thrift and saving among the working classes. Then there is the Post Office Savings Bank. Not long ago I asked the Postmaster-General a question on this subject and his reply was to the effect thatThose are remarkable figures, and they show that a great deal has been done by the Post Office Savings Banks in Bristol to encourage thrift. There is, in addition, the corporation mortgage loans for three, five, seven or 10 years for a minimum sum of £50, at the ordinary current market rates. I admit that that does not appeal to the very small investor, but at any rate it taps a very wide circle of investors who have an opportunity of lending their money to those in their own city at reasonable rates. There are a number of other minor systems which encourage saving and thrift. Last but not least, I come to the National Savings Certificates which, to my mind, are doing a tremendous work in the encouragement of thrift. I was amazed at the figures which I obtained for Bristol, and I have no reason to doubt that those figure are typical, and that they represent quite an average estimate of the savings in other towns and cities. I find that in 1926 the people of Bristol bought £477,000 worth of National Savings Certificates, in 1927 £508,000, in 1928 £563,000, and in 1929 £606,000. Those figures show a steady upward movement each year in the number of National Savings Certificates which are brought by the people of Bristol. I would like to point out that in buying National Savings Certificates these people are not only helping the Government, but they are advancing their own interests, because the Public Works Loan Commissioners are prepared to advance loans to municipalities to the extent of 50 per cent. of the purchases of National Savings Certificates in a year, and, as a result of that arrangement, Bristol has been able to borrow no less than £620,000 from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and this year Bristol has applied for a further loan of £225,000 to cover the sale of National Savings Certificates which were issued last year. Those facts are not generally known in this House and the country as a whole, and I was amazed when I read the evidence submitted by the representatives of Bristol to the Bradbury Committee to discover that those representing the financial interests of the Bristol Corporation did not know those facts."The total amount deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank through the post offices in the Bristol Town delivery area amounted to £781,375 in 1928 and £779,286 in 1929."
May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether we are discussing the Cardiff Bill or a Bristol Bill?
I understand that the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) is giving as an illustration the working of saving agencies in Bristol, and suggesting that as in Cardiff there are similar agencies, the powers sought should not be granted. He is going rather too wide of the subject now before the House. The question that we are discussing is whether or not this Bill relating to Cardiff should be now considered.
Surely it is quite impossible for any hon. Member to address himself to the question whether Cardiff should institute municipal banks under this Bill unless he is allowed to show what takes place in other cities in regard to municipal banks in order to show that such a system is not necessary?
I have ruled that the hon. Member is entitled to argue that there are sufficient saving agencies in all cities at the present time, and that the powers asked for under this Bill are unnecessary and harmful.
In the discussion of a Clause of this kind, the figures I have given are of general interest. I do not say that Bristol is more patriotic or has more of the civic spirit than Cardiff, but I believe that the argument for establishing a municipal bank is entirely dependent upon the existence of that civil spirit. The figures I have given show that hon. Members opposite would be well advised to consider whether they could not effect the same purpose which they are seeking to carry out by giving more encouragement—
Did Bristol ask for a municipal bank?
I am not going into any more detail upon that point, although I am quite prepared, at any time, to explain why Bristol was refused those powers, and that is much more pertinent to the argument. I want to ask whether you cannot get money for corporation purposes as effectively through existing institutions as you could by establishing a municipal bank. The success of a municipal bank is dependent upon a keen civic spirit. That was admitted by the promoters of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, and you must have keenness in regard to propaganda and voluntary effort. Unless those things are present, municipal banks are bound to be a failure. If hon. Members opposite would only put the same energy and enthusiasm into the encouragement of thrift as they do into the destruction of capital they would be doing a much greater service to the cities they represent and to the country as a whole.
I do not want to go into the general objections to municipal banking; they have been dealt with very adequately by my hon. Friend, and have been dealt with at great length in the Report of the Bradbury Committee; but I want to say something about the national standpoint. I pointed out at the beginning that the Cardiff Corporation Bill has so far been considered only from the point of view of local and selfish interests. I speak of selfish interests not in any spiteful spirit, but obviously, while it may be in the interest of Cardiff to run a municipal bank, it may not necessarily be in the interest of the rest of the country. In fact, the Bradbury Committee expressly stated that it was not. They stated, in the third conclusion of their Report, that:I would ask the Financial Secretary whether conditions have changed for the better during the last three years? Why should it have been inappropriate, inadvisable, and undesirable to establish municipal banks in 1927, and not to-day, when there is more unemployment, and when the financial conditions are certainly no better? It seems to me that, if a Committee of that influence, and after such careful discussion and consideration, has definitely reported that in its opinion it would be undesirable in the national interest to extend municipal banking during the next 10 years, it is folly for this House to embark on that enterprise at the present moment."We think that the general establishment of such banks within the next 10 years would cause serious embarrassment to national finance during what is likely to be a very difficult period."
That was a Tory Committee.
I would like to read these few further lines from the Bradbury Report:
Is the position any better to-day; is the need for converting debt any less urgent than it was three years ago; is unemployment better; is trade better; are financial conditions better, that we can go back on this considered opinion of the Governor of the Bank of England, expressed less than three years ago? The Treasury said that they"The Governor of the Bank of England thought that the establishment of municipal banks would cause very serious embarrassment to Government finance, and that no worse time than the present or during the next 10 years could be chosen for recommending their extension."
Have conditions altered since the Treasury expressed that view? I venture to suggest that the conditions are even worse than they were in 1927. I now want to deal with the Treasury opposition, or lack of opposition, to this proposal. In 1926, the Bristol Corporation promoted a Bill which included powers for the establishment of municipal banks. I will not be tempted into a discussion of their reasons for asking for those powers, although there is a very good explanation. What I am concerned with is the response of the Treasury to this proposal. The Treasury addressed a letter to the Bristol Corporation, on the 18th February, 1926, in these terms:"could only view with the greatest apprehension any project which tended to reduce the £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 of new capital resources which comes in every year from the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks."
What has altered the Treasury view in this very short space of time? [Interruption.] Is it because there has been a change of Government? Is it that political pressure has been put upon the Treasury? If so, that is a very serious state of affairs. Less than three years ago the Treasury expressed the decided view that an extension of facilities for municipal banking would be inimical to the public interest. To-day, with a Socialist Government in power, are we to assume that political pressure has been brought to bear on the Treasury to withhold their opposition? I am reminded rather of the charge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought against my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), whom he accused of manipulating the Bank rate, of exercising influence upon the Bank of England to prevent a rise in the Bank rate. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman, as many Socialists do, completely contradicted himself only a few months later, when he told the Trades Union Congress that the Government had no influence whatsoever upon the Bank of England; but he did state, when it was convenient to him, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping had put pressure upon the Bank of England. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether that has taken place in this case—whether political pressure has been brought to bear on the Treasury officials—because what we fear in the case of municipal banks is that political pressure will be brought to bear upon those who run these banks. We are quite aware that the policy of hon. Members opposite is to socialise the banks, to nationalise the banks of this country, and one can quite understand that from their point of view the municipalisation of banking would be a step in the right direction. There is one further argument, and that is that already municipal Government is over-burdened with duties. Local councils are overburdened with the duties which this House thrusts upon them. I am a councillor of the City of Bristol, and I know perfectly well—"I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to inform you that they must request the omission of Part XVI of this Bill, which contains proposals for the establishment by the Corporation of a Municipal Bank.…Similar provisions were omitted from the Swansea Corporation Bills of 1920 and 1922, and were disallowed by Parliament in the Wigan Corporation Bill of 1921 and the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill of 1923. My Lords would conceive that it was the intention of Parliament, while recognising the existing Birmingham Bank, not to encourage further Municipal Savings Banks. The primary object of the Bank would appear to be to take deposits withdrawable on demand and apply them to housing and other fixed capital expenditure. There are very obvious dangers in borrowing short and lending long in this fashion, and these dangers are much more considerable when the risk is concentrated in one place.…My Lords would therefore find it necessary to oppose the Bill if the Clauses in question are proceeded with."
9.0 p.m.
And you can be a Member of Parliament too.
I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to obtain the right type of men for municipal Government, and to obtain the whole-time services of those who are prepared to serve their city; and for that reason alone I think it would be a mistake to thrust new duties upon the Corporation. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite are in any way concerned with the encouragement of thrift. Their whole idea is to provide cheap money for the State or the municipality to spend. They are exactly like the Soviet Government, which encourages the private trader one day to make profits, and, as soon as he is doing well, comes down and takes his profits away, and spends them upon the State. We should be the first to support a municipal bank if we thought that it was desirable in the national interest, because we think that every man should be a capitalist. We do not want to stamp out thrift and kill capitalism, and, therefore, it is in no spirit of antagonism towards thrift that I support the deletion of these Clauses. If hon. Members opposite would turn their energy and enthusiasm to propaganda on behalf of the existing institutions which are to be found in our great cities, they would be doing much more service in the cause of thrift, and of the municipalities which they represent, than by advocating the establishment of new and unnecessary institutions which are undesirable in the public interest.
The hon. Member who has just spoken wound up his speech with a very violent attack upon Members on these benches, alleging, among other things, that we were seeking to cheapen money at the expense of thrift. [Interruption.] May I put it in this way? He suggested that the object of these Clauses was to enable municipalities to obtain cheap money, presumably for municipal purposes. He seemed to suggest that that was something peculiar to those who are what he calls Socialists, but these Clauses have been approved by, and have received the support of, the whole Cardiff Corporation, and he may not know that that corporation includes members of the party to which he himself belongs. The hon. Gentleman who spoke first criticised the Bill and, in doing so, relied upon the Report of the Bradbury Committee. He apparently based his criticism on the finding of that Committee to the effect that the establishment of municipal banks throughout the country might lead to the embarrassment of our national finances. The amazing thing about that argument is that there has been only one municipal hank in operation in the country.
The hon. Member must have misunderstood me. I did not bring the question of the national finances into the argument.
Perhaps I may be allowed to join the speech of the last speaker with that of the hon. Gentleman himself. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Report of the Bradbury Committee was adverse to the establishment of municipal banks. The last speaker elaborated that by quoting from the Report that it would have an embarrassing effect on the national financial position. Any deduction that the Committee made as to the establishment of municipal banks could only have been based on the existence of the Birmingham scheme. If I were able to show the House that the Birmingham Municipal Bank has been a success, which it has, we are entitled to say that, however eminent the members of that Committee are in their respective spheres, whether as bankers or accountants, at any rate as bankers, they are not unprejudiced when dealing with a banking system which will compete with their own. We have had a criticism of the Bill from the hon. Gentleman who was the Financial Secretary in the last Government, and a very eminent financial authority, but sitting next to him is an even greater financial authority, one who has occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am going to quote what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) thinks with regard to municipal banks. I have here a book written by Mr. Hilton, the general manager of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, to which the right hon. Gentleman contributed a preface. In his opinion
Cardiff is a great provincial city. It is the metropolis of Wales."The municipal bank is possessed of some unusual, inherent, vital principle not to be found in other comparable institutions, however enterprising and well managed they may be. I believe this unique principle is to be found in the fact that it is a municipal bank. In a great provincial city—"
All of which applies to the City of Cardiff—"In a great provincial city, with its strong sense of civic pride, its traditions of public service and its highly trained and efficient officers—"
Later on the right hon. Gentleman waxes most eloquent in his eulogium with regard to this form of banking. He says:"a savings bank which is part of the local administrative machine inspires general confidence, and even a sort of affection."
For once I endorse and adopt the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with municipal banks, and I hope the House will follow not only the unanimous wish of the Cardiff Corporation but also, for once, the lead of the right hon. Gentleman."Have we indeed reached the limit of what municipal enterprise should be allowed to attempt if we confine it to a single town? For my part I would as soon endeavour to imprison a volcano."
I have listened very carefully to the speeches of the opener and the seconder and I have also studied very carefully the Bradbury Report. The opener quoted very considerable portions of the Bradbury Report but I think it is not unfair to say he intended to pick out the portions that were unfavourable to municipal banking. I think he suggested that the Birmingham bank did not provide cheaper money than Birmingham could get otherwise. If he will refer to page 14, he will find the statement that the remaining funds of the bank are invested with the Corporation at an average rate of 4½ per cent.
So that according to the report, the only municipal bank that we have provides cheaper money than can be found in other ways. That is a point of some considerable importance. The second point is that, although the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the bank was a success, he did not quote the words of the Bradbury Report on the matter. If he looks at page 16 he will find:"The rate has always been below the rate which the City Treasurer is prepared to pay for mortgage money or outside borrowing."
That is the report of the committee on which the right hon. Gentleman is mainly relying in asking us to reject this Bill. There can be no question that the Birmingham bank has been a remarkable success. Only two objections have been raised to it. One, quoted by the hon. Gentleman, is that there may be a certain financial risk, if they borrow short and lend long. That is true, and I quite agree with him that there must be some regulation to prevent an undue risk, and I see in Clause 136 that,"The results achieved by the bank are very remarkable and have considerably exceeded anticipations. The bank has achieved a success of which Birmingham is justly proud."
Those are the same words as are in the Birmingham Act. It seems to me that we are safe in trusting the Treasury to prescribe regulations to prevent that risk and I hope such regulations will be prescribed. There is only one other risk, which was referred to by the seconder, that borrowing by a large number of municipalities may affect the national credit. There may be some risk of that. A good deal of stress was laid on that in the Bradbury Report and, as the result of that, one of their recommendations is:"The bank shall be carried on in accordance with such regulations as the Treasury, or the Corporation with the approval of the Treasury, may prescribe."
Not a general establishment at any time, but a general establishment within the next 10 years. They do not say that it is undesirable to establish a certain number of them. What they say is—it is a very strictly limited recommendation—that they object to a general establishment of such banks within the next 10 years. The way in which our great municipalities develop is always the same. One or two municipalities get powers under a private Bill. If they are successful, others follow, and ultimately an enabling Bill is passed. Here we have a municipal experiment which has been admitted and a great success, and so far no other corporation, although half a dozen corporations have tried, has been allowed to follow. Now Cardiff has come again to this House to obtain a decision whether or not it should follow Birmingham. We have either to turn it down and say that, although the experiment has been a success, we will not permit municipal banking, or else say we will proceed by introducing an enabling Bill. There is no intention at the moment of introducing a general enabling Bill. The Bradbury Report is against it, and the Governors of the Bank of England are against it on the ground that it is inappropriate. If we cannot proceed by a general enabling Bill, surely the only thing is to help a certain number of leading municipalities to establish banks. The information that we have got from Birmingham is, after all, limited—it is a very enterprising, successful and well-governed city—and I think that it is desirable, before passing a general enabling Act, that a certain number of other municipalities should have banks, so that we could get further information. That is why I, personally, welcome the application of Cardiff. I hope that the House will enable Cardiff and, possibly, a few other cities, to establish these banks. I think that Cardiff ought to be congratulated on its enterprise, and, taking everything into consideration, I sincerely hope that the House will enable Cardiff to do what it is asking to be allowed to do."The general establishment of such banks within the next 10 years would cause serious embarrassment to national finance."
It was inevitable that in discussing a proposal by a corporation to establish another municipal savings bank, the example of the Birmingham Savings Bank should be made the subject of discussion. Perhaps the House will not be surprised if I address a few words to it upon a subject in which I have taken a very deep interest. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell), alluded to certain of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee on Local Legislation. He said that it was not surprising that the general manager and the chairman of the committee which managed the Birmingham Savings Bank should be in favour of municipal savings banks. No doubt he will agree that it is not surprising either that the man principally responsible for the establishment of that bank should also be in favour of municipal savings banks. I venture to suggest that the fact that those who have had most to do with the only bank which exists in the country should be enthusiastic about its success and desire to see some other town act similarly is hardly an argument against their evidence.
I do not consider this to be, in any way, a party subject. It has really nothing to do with Socialism or anything else. It is merely a question of what is prudent and wise in the interests of municipal and national finance, and has a very definite bearing on the question of national thrift. I think all of us feel that when a great municipality like Cardiff comes forward with proposals which have been unanimously approved by its responsible representatives, we should not lightly turn them down. We should give most careful consideration to its views, and if, indeed, we find that we must differ from them, it should only be upon the strongest and weightiest evidence to the contrary. I would go further than that and say, that if any corporation should be allowed to repeat the experiment made by Birmingham in 1919, one surely would not exclude a town such as Cardiff, which has the highest possible reputation for its financial stability, and for the efficiency with which its municipal affairs are carried on. But it must be recognised, as my hon. Friend beside me has pointed out to the House, that we are in the presence of a report of a very well qualified and weighty Committee appointed in 1926 which definitely recommended that no further extension of municipal banks should take place at least for 10 years. [An HON. MEMBER: "General."] I do not think that they used the word "general." If hon. Members will refer to the paragraph, I think that they will see that no such word is included.Will the right hon. Gentleman look in page 53:
"we think that the general establishment of such banks within the next 10 years."
I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 131, in which they say:
It will be seen that there is no use of the word "general." Nevertheless, I agree that so far the whole argument on this document is on the assumption that they do not want to see the possibility of a number of municipal savings banks. I am bound to say that I do not now agree and never have agreed, with the conclusions of that committee. I think that they very seriously underrated the advantages of municipal savings banks, and that they exaggerated the risks. While I do not for a moment question their financial authority—every member of the committee was a man of distinction in his calling—at the same time, I think they were at a disadvantage. They had not had an opportunity, as I had, of watching the actual working of this bank from its very foundation. I do not think it is possible for anyone who is not intimately acquainted with municipal life to realise the enormous confidence that the citizens of a big town such as Birmingham or Cardiff have in the stability of an institution like the municipal savings bank. I remember very well when the first bank was founded—I mean the bank which preceded the present bank, the one founded under the original Act passed during the War—persons then came forward with sums of money which they had hoarded in drawers and in secret places for years, and which they had never sufficient confidence to invest in any kind of saving whatever. Some of them wanted actually to invest larger sums than we were at the time permitted to take under the constitution of the bank. We pointed out to them that they could have them invested in Government securities and they said, "No thank you; the Government might commandeer them." It never entered their heads that it was possible that the Government might commandeer savings invested in a municipal savings bank. That was, perhaps, over-confidence. At any rate, it indicates the remarkable feeling that the citizen of a big town has in the stability of the institution with which he is familiar and which he is certain will never fail him in his need. In the report of the committee, a considerable amount of space is devoted to the question as to how far a municipal savings bank robs other savings institutions, and the estimate is made that no more than 25 per cent. of the funds deposited with the municipal savings bank can be considered as new money, or as money which would not have been saved, if the bank had not existed, by some other form of saving. That, really, is a matter of speculation. It is not a matter susceptible of proof. I think that if one looks at the appendix to the report, there is very little that will bear out with any confidence the estimates made in the memorandum. An hon. Member, for instance, quoted the fact that Post Office savings deposits in Birmingham in 1925 were only 82 per cent. of those in 1919, and he went on to quote figures to show that in his own town they were 125 per cent. It is not at all safe to suppose that if there had been no municipal bank in Birmingham the Post Office savings in 1925 would have been 125 per cent. of what they were in 1919. The very table to which he referred shows that. The high figure which he quoted in the case of Norwich is the highest in the whole table, and it conies down very much lower in some of the other cases. Take the town nearest Birmingham—Coventry. There it had gone down to 87 per cent. I do not deny for a moment that the municipal savings bank is a competitor of the Post Office and of Vile National Savings Certificates, but I very much doubt, and indeed I strongly disbelieve in, the accuracy of the estimates made by this committee as to the amount of money taken from those institutions. Again, take the figures given in the memorandum with regard to National Savings Certificates. In Birmingham, in 1920, the sales per 1,000 of the population were £1,094, and in 1926–27 they had gone down to £598. It is not safe to assume that that is all due to the municipal banks. Take the case of Leeds. In 1920, the savings per 1,000 of the population were £1,100 as compared with £1,094 in Birmingham—practically the some figure. In 1926–27, whereas Birmingham had gone down to £598, Leeds had gone down to £515, and there is no municipal bank in Leeds. You can prove almost anything with figures. I venture to suggest that the conclusion which the committee drew from the figures which they themselves have published in the report are not justified when one comes to examine them. There is another point to which attention is drawn in the committee's report, and which, I think, is of very great importance when you are contemplating what the effect of a municipal savings bank may be upon the thrift and savings of the people. We are here dealing with the poorer classes of the community—not with the rich investors, but with people who deal entirely in small sums. In paragraph 78, after pointing out that it is doubtful whether the new savings that the municipal bank has caused to be made exceed £1,000,000 they say:"After very careful consideration of the whole position in all its bearings, we have come to the definite conclusion that in view of the definite position of national finance the extension of municipal savings banks within the next 10 years would not be in the interest of the community as a whole."
That seems to me of the very first importance. It indicates that, quite apart from the question of the actual amount of new money which has been saved owing to the activities of the municipal bank, a very large number of people have been induced to save who would, perhaps, not otherwise have had any savings. That is a point which has always impressed itself very vividly on any mind in watching the operations of this bank. Here you have an institution which does not wait for the people to come to it, but goes itself to the people and thrusts itself on the public notice. It has unequalled opportunities for advertising its facilities. It has the approval of all parties in the town, and it has its branches opened by the Lord Mayor and always a local councillor, to whichever party he belongs, speaking in favour of the bank on every possible occasion. It has the support of all the teachers in the town, and gets an amount of publicity which no private institution could possibly have. It is the effect of this tremendous amount of propaganda which a municipal bank is enabled to get which does induce a very large number of poor people, who, perhaps, otherwise would never have thought of saving, to put by a little money in an institution in which they have every confidence. Therefore, I differ particularly from the conclusion drawn by the members of the committee as to the effect upon thrift of the municipal savings bank. I believe that it does induce a great number of people to save who would not otherwise do so, and a very large number of these accounts are new money. Then what about the risks? We are not now dealing with a proposal to extend the system of municipal savings banks to a large number of municipalities. Nevertheless, I do not think it can be left out of account that what is done in this particular case may probably be used as a precedent. I do not imagine for a moment that Cardiff is the only town which is likely to put forward a claim for a municipal bank if these Clauses go through tonight. Therefore, in considering the risks, we must bear in mind that this will probably be followed by other applications, and it may be that some of them will not be quite so unexceptionable as this. We must, therefore, take into account the question of risks. I confess that the risks in the case of an individual corporation, provided that certain securities are given, are very little indeed. What are the circumstances in which one can imagine a run on a municipal bank? The people who put their money in know the rates are behind the bank, and that they have the security of the rates at the back of them. The only question is whether there is likely to be a sudden call for cash to such an extent that the bank is unable to meet the call out of its liquid resources. I think that is a very remote risk in these cases, but I agree that it is a risk, and one which ought to be dealt with by the Regulations under which the bank is governed. I know it is provided for in the Bill that the bank is to be subject to Regulations, but there is no statement in either of these Clauses as to what those Regulations are to contain. No doubt the Financial Secretary will be speaking later in the Debate, and, perhaps, he will tell us what is contemplated. But I say at once that the manuscript Amendment which I have handed in is designed not merely to give directions to the Treasury as to what they should put in the Regulations, but to insert statutory Regulations in the Bill itself, so that whatever these limitations upon the powers of the bank to deal with its investments may be, they shall not be hidden away among Treasury Regulations, which are not, perhaps, generally in the mind or attention of the general public, but should form part of the Bill itself, so that everybody will know of them. If I am in order in doing so, I should like to read the terms of the manuscript Amendment which I have handed in, because, as I am making my speech now, I should not, of course, propose to make a further speech on that Amendment."It is difficult to reconcile this conclusion with the very definite belief of several of our witnesses that the Birmingham municipal bank has induced a vast number of persons to save who would otherwise not have saved at all. The explanation is, perhaps, to be found in the fact that there, as in any savings bank, four-fifths or more of the total deposits are in one-fifth of the accounts. Making ample allowance for duplication of accounts between the municipal bank and the Post Office, we find the total number of accounts in the two together in Birmingham is remarkably high, and a very considerable proportion of the depositors in the municipal bank may well be persons who would never have had a savings bank account at all if there had been no municipal bank."
The right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to read the Amendment to the House, but he cannot move it before the House has disposed of the Amendment now under discussion.
I fully understand that. I was not intending to propose it, but merely to read it so that the House may understand its purpose. The Amendment which I suggest would be—In Clause 136, page 94, line 10, at end, insert the words
that is, Treasury regulations"And such regulations"—
Those words are taken from the report of the Bradbury Committee. In paragraph 138, speaking of the Birmingham Bank, and after considering the question as to whether they should recommend any alteration in the conditions under which that bank was being carried on they say:"shall provide inter alia that the bank shall keep in cash and at its bankers a balance of 5 per cent. of its deposits, and that 45 per cent. shall be placed with the National Debt Commissioners for investment in short-term securities."
It will be seen that the regulation which I desire to insert in the Bill was recommended by the Committee as being such as they would have recommended if they had been starting afresh with the Birmingham Bank. I have been asked whether these regulations are applicable to the Birmingham Bank. No, they are not. The Birmingham Bank was the first of its kind; it was the pioneer. It started off without any such limitation as that in question, although it was subject to Treasury regulations. The Committee no doubt felt that it would be difficult, in the absence of any fault to find with the working of the Birmingham Bank, to ask that it should be subject to regulations to which it had not been subject during the 10 years of its existence; but if we are going to extend the system and to bring in other towns, and if there are to be numbers of applications for the establishment of municipal banks, it is desirable that some such regulations should be applied. If I could be assured that regulations to that effect will be inserted in the Bill, I should be quite prepared to vote for the Second Reading, and I hope that my hon. Friends would agree that that would be sufficient safeguard for the views which they have put forward."Had we been dealing with the question entirely afresh, we should have been disposed to recommend that the bank should keep in cash and at its bankers a balance of 5 per cent. of its deposits, and that 40 or 45 per cent. should be placed with the National Debt Commissioners, who would invest the money in short-term securities."
It will be convenient if I make a short speech now with regard to the Bill. My remarks will be few because the ground has been very largely covered. I am sure that it is the wish of the House that this matter should be disposed of to-night and that we should take the vote for or against, so that the matter need not go over to another day. From those who oppose this Clause in the Bill we have heard a great deal of theory. From the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) we have heard facts. The right hon. Gentleman knows his facts because he has been in very close touch with one of the outstanding instances of municipal banking. Where this House has to decide between fact and theory it comes down every time in favour of fact and against the imaginary dangers of which theorists may dream. The one argument against the municipal bank is an extraordinary one, and here I think the right hon. Member for Edgbaston will share my amazement. The one argument which is seriously put forward against municipal banks is that they will be injurious to saving and national credit.
It is alleged that the municipal banks divert the savings of the people from useful and national interests into questionable and doubtful ones. Anyone who looks into the matter is bound to come to an exactly opposite conclusion from that. The fact is, knowing the one illustration which we have in existence, the Birmingham bank, that something like £1,000,000 of additional money every year are being deposited in the Birmingham bank. Opinions may differ as to how much of that is new money. The right hon. Gentleman put forward his view, with which I am in substantial agreement, that the Bradbury Committee greatly underestimated the proportion of that £1,000,000 which represents new money. But even the Bradbury Committee estimated that 25 per cent. is new money. If we allow that estimate to be true and that only 25 per cent. of the £1,000,000 is new money, it means that every year £250,000 is paid into the Birmingham bank which would not otherwise be saved. Even therefore if we take that conservative estimate, it would represent a very substantial sum if it be multiplied in other parts of the country, and it would be a very great addition to the savings of the people. It is perfectly clear that, granted the saving of this additional money and granted proper regulations for the use of the money, the municipal bank can do nothing but good, not only to the particular towns with which it is concerned and to the nation and national credit as a whole. But of course we should make sure that the money is not frittered away in useless ways and that it really is available for the credit which the country requires. That brings me to the regulations and principles which the Treasury will adopt in regard to the whole question of municipal banks. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment put forward a principle and doctrine which is wholly improper and wholly unconstitutional. He claimed that the Treasury had an existence independent of the Government of which it was one of the Departments. I am quite aware that that was one of the doctrines which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was fond of putting forward. It is an entirely unconstitutional doctrine. The right hon. Member for Epping used to argue in this way: the Treasury take a certain stand and the Treasury is a Department to itself. In that respect, the right hon. Gentleman shared the vicious and unconstitutional view of the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell), who put forward the Treasury as something outside the Government. I claim that that view is wholly false and improper. Take the Ministry of Health. It has no existence independent of the Minister. The Home Office has no independent existence apart from the Home Secretary. The Treasury has no independent existence other than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the financial Members of the Government. The reason is this: The Treasury has no independent means of stating its view; it can state them only through Ministers. Ministers are responsible to the Crown and to this House for the advice that they give, and the permanent officials of any Department, whether the Ministry of Health or the Home Office or the Treasury, are represented only through Ministers, and they have no means of stating their opinions or of correcting any misstatement of their opinion which Ministers can put into their mouths.Do we understand that the Financial Secretary ignores the considered opinions of the permanent officials? I ask that because the letter that I read, addressed to the Bristol Corporation, was signed by Sir Otto Niemeyer. I understand that his views are not changed because there is a new Financial Secretary?
The hon. Member is making his error worse by his argument. The constitutional position is this: That the Treasury is the mouthpiece of the Ministers who are at the head of the Treasury at a particular time. If Sir Otto Niemeyer writes a certain letter in 1926, that is the decision of the Government of the day. I challenge any hon. Member who has ever been a member of any Government to deny that constitutional position.
If the Financial Secretary looks at page 46 of the Bradbury Committee's report he will see "The Treasury can only view with the greatest apprehension," and so on. Are we to understand that that is the view of the Government of the day or the view of the officials who gave evidence before the Bradbury Committee?
I am stating the constitutional position and there is not the smallest doubt that I am stating it correctly. The decision of the Treasury at any time is the decision of the Government. It has no more independent position of the Treasury Ministers than the Ministry of Health or the Home Office or any other Department has of its Ministers. No one who has any knowledge of constitutional practice in this country will deny that statement. [Interruption.] I allowed one hon. Member to interrupt me when I was dealing with his case, but I cannot give way again. After all, what I have said is only an answer to an entirely false point that he endeavoured to put forward. Having stated the case so far, it is important that I should come to the Treasury regulations with regard to this matter. In the first place because the Treasury take no objection to the application of Cardiff for a municipal bank, it must not be supposed that any municipality of any size would be allowed to come forward and claim a municipal bank. It is the view of the Treasury that 150,000 population should be the minimum size to entitle a municipality to apply for a municipal bank. That, of course, does not refer to Metropolitan boroughs, but to municipalities in the Provinces.
Could a county council establish a bank?
A local authority with 150,000 population should be entitled to apply, and below that the Treasury—[Interruption.] I think it would be better, in order that the Treasury view may be clearly understood, that there should be no interruption. If I made a mistake in my statement it might very well give a wrong impression. In the second place the Treasury proposal is to impose a 5 per cent. cash balance upon any municipal bank, that is to say it must hold either in cash or at a joint stock bank 5 per cent. of its total deposits. That is, I believe, the proportion adopted by the Birmingham Municipal Bank, and if the House extends municipal banks to other places like Birmingham, the Treasury would impose that as part of the regulations which it would enforce. Then as to the use of the remainder of the funds, the method adopted by the municipal bank of Birmingham is that the bank lends all its available money, apart from the 5 per cent., to the corporation, and that the corporation has decided that not less than 50 per cent. shall be in Government securities.
That does not take account of money advanced for housing purposes.
Is that 50 per cent. in addition?
The Financial Secretary said that the Bank lent all the money to the Corporation, apart from the 5 per cent., but some of the money is used for making grants to persons who wish to buy their own houses.
And allotments.
The Treasury intend to put in a regulation which will give to the municipal bank an option. It will either take the form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech recently, namely, that 45 per cent. of the total should be invested in short-term Government securities, by which I mean securities maturing at a date not more than 20 years in advance; and the remainder can be lent to the municipality. But the Treasury will also be prepared to consider some different methods, more in accordance with the practice actually adopted by the Birmingham bank. Further than that, it is part of the intention of municipal banks to use their resources for the furtherance of housing, and one of the regulations of the Treasury would be that not more than 25 per cent. of the money which was deposited could be employed in that way.
Finally, I come to the question of the rate of interest. The Treasury has had before it two alternative methods of regulating the rate of interest. In Birmingham there is a flat rate of 3½ per cent. In trustee savings banks there is a different method. The flat rate applicable to all deposits is 2½ per cent., but depositors who have more than £50 in the bank can put the excess of £50 into a special deposit fund, in which case they can get sometimes 3½ per cent., and in some banks 4 per cent. The Treasury had to decide whether in the case of any future municipal bank it should adopt the principle actually in vogue in the Birmingham bank or bring the new banks into line with the trustees savings bank. After full consideration it has been decided that the rate applicable to new municipal banks should be along the lines of the trustee savings banks rather than along the lines adopted with regard to the Birmingham bank.Shame!
Giving away the pass.
Perhaps my hon. Friends will allow me to proceed without interruption. Some explanation of this matter is required because the position to-day differs considerably from what it was when the Birmingham Bank was originally started. At the present time I would remind hon. Members behind me that depositors in the ordinary joint stock banks of this country can only get 1½ per cent. on their deposits and they have to give at least a week's notice of withdrawal. Assuming that the House accepts this Clause and that the Regulations which I have indicated are put into force, the depositor in the Cardiff Bank instead of getting 1½ per cent. as would the depositor in a joint stock bank, would get no less than 2½ per cent., and without the condition as to a week's notice. If he wanted a higher rate that would only apply to the excess above £50 and in that case he would be subject to a month's notice. In view of the great importance of this matter to the Cardiff Corporation, I hope the House will come to a speedy decision and perhaps the Mover of the Amendment will see his way to withdraw it.
The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point which I made regarding the pledge given by the Labour party that if they came into power they would increase the rate of interest granted by the present trustee savings banks and Post Office Savings Bank. I would like to know exactly where we are in regard to that matter in view of the fact that 3½ per cent. is likely to be given in this case, and, whatever the merits of this Bill otherwise may be, that will operate unfairly against the trustee savings banks.
I am sorry I did not deal adequately with all the points which have been raised, but that is the worst of having so many interruptions.
rose—
I would prefer if the hon. Member would allow me to proceed with my statement. I have to deal with one question at a time. [Interruption.]
I am the very last person to interrupt my hon. Friend unnecessarily, but before he leaves the matter with which he has just been dealing, and which has caused some concern on these benches, I wanted him to inform the House of the considerations which have induced the Treasury to impose this limitation of £50.
10.0 p.m.
It is difficult to answer a number of questions all at the same time. I am quite prepared to answer any hon. Member who has a question to put, but I must deal with one question at a time. I may deal with the last question first and get it out of the way. There is no limit of £50 at all. As far as the rate of interest is concerned it is proposed that this bank, if it comes into existence, shall be in line with the practice at present existing in a large number of trustee savings banks up and down the country. That practice is that on the first £50, which can be withdrawn on demand, there shall be a rate of interest allowed up to 2½ per cent. Where the depositor has over £50—there is not a limit of £50 on the amount of the deposit—he can if he likes have the excess over £50 invested as a special deposit getting more than 2½ per cent. In some trustee savings banks at the present 3½ per cent. is allowed and in some others 4 per cent. is allowed, and it will probably be found necessary at the commencement, at any rate in this case, to allow 3½ per cent.
Let me now attempt to deal with the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). He asked me if it was our present intention to raise the rate of interest in trustee savings banks and the Post Office Savings Banks above 2½ per cent. The answer is "No." The situation at present is not one which justifies us in raising the rate above the 2½ per cent. maximum for deposits under £50, and for the present, at any rate, it must stay at that figure. I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) to ask that the regulations of the Treasury should be very similar to those which I have actually announced, and probably those regulations will satisfy him generally. He went further, however, and asked that those regulations should be embodied in the text of the Bill. I have consulted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point. We have only had a few minutes in which to consider the matter, but my right hon. Friend is not prepared, on behalf of the Treasury, to accept that suggestion and to put these regulations or part of them definitely into the Bill. He thinks that the Treasury ought to be left free in regard to imposing these regulations, but I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the regulations which I have announced are those which the Treasury for the time being propose to adopt in the case of Cardiff and any other municipal bank that comes forward. I think it would not be in accordance with the usual practice, or that it would be desirable to pin down the Treasury in these matters.With regard to the 150,000 population, would that govern a county council who desired to establish a county council bank with branches in separate villages?
There have been no applications so far from any county council, and that point would have to be considered when it arose.
The time of the House in discussing this important question—and it is important—has been by no means wasted. We have heard with great interest the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) in connection with the solitary specimen of actual practice in that town which we have at present. Members on these benches certainly heard with relief the announcement of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Regulations which he has read out were not to be incorporated in the Bill, because it is obvious that in a matter of such great import as this, for the House or the Treasury to lay down hard-and-fast lines would be impolitic. As to what has happened to-night, I gather that here is the second municipal bank, which will be followed almost certainly by other examples, and the Treasury say that in the light of present experience these are the regulations which it is wise and just to have. But they hold themselves free, as I understand the position, to expand or retract them as experience teaches them. My name appears on the back of this Bill, and, so far as I am concerned, I think that the Treasury have made through its Financial Secretary, a wise announcement. It is wise to move slowly in a fresh direction, and hon. Members below the Gangway have no reason to feel discouraged. It is a very wise move, and, so far as we in this part of the House are concerned, it will receive our approval.
As Chairman of the Committee which amended this Bill upstairs, and seeing that I have been brought somewhat prominently into this Debate, I think it is in order that I should say a few words about the Bill. First of all, the Mover of the Amendment started off by raising some petty objections to certain Clauses. I would assure him, on behalf of the Committee, that the next time dust-bins are being debated upstairs, we shall remember his words. With regard to the question of the casting vote, I want to say that I gave that vote conscientiously, and I have no apology to make for what I did. I gave it after hearing the evidence of two expert men in regard to municipal savings banks. Mr. Holden, manager of the Birmingham bank, gave evidence which, to my mind, was irrefutable, and he came out of his cross-examination scatheless. We had also the evidence of a gentleman who is chairman of the bank and an ex-Lord Mayor of Birmingham. I will not read what he said of the Bradbury Committee in reply to a question which was put to him, but, in the course of his evidence, he made it clear that the Bradbury Committee in his presence, threw bouquets at the municipal bank.
The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment is, I understand, a comparatively new Member of the House. It is apparent that he is not acquainted with the Standing Orders of various Committees, for he talked about no evidence having been given in opposition to the Bill. As chairman of that Committee, I cannot demand evidence other than what promoters or petitioners desire to bring forward. On certain committees and commissions they are empowered to call for papers or documents, but on the Local Legislation Committee we are not given those powers, and, therefore, the only witnesses before the Committee were the three witnesses submitted by the promoters. There was no opposition and no objections were taken. Further, I would remind the House that this Bill had gone through all the stages of the Borough Fund Act in the city before coming here. The council dealt with it, it was advertised in the local papers, and, finally, was dealt with at a ratepayers' meeting in the city, when no objections to the Bill were put forward from any source. There was tremendous opposition to other Clauses of the Bill, but no one raised any question on this matter. Furthermore, the Seconder said that the Birmingham bank was inaugurated at a time when things were good. Let us take any year he likes. In 1920, the first year's records of deposits showed that they amounted to £873,705 9s. 9d. I will take 1926—that will be a favourite year with the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1926, the deposits in Birmingham were £3,598,816 14s. 3d. If I take the 10 months to 31st January, 1930, the deposits amounted to £4,364,197 3s. 4d. I want to suggest to the House that the longer the Birmingham bank scheme is in operation the better it is so far as Birmingham is concerned. With regard to the evidence for Cardiff having the right, the ruling read out by the Seconder is absolutely correct, and I submit that in the circumstances I could give no other. We were not asked to decide on the general question of municipal banks, as to whether they were good or bad, but whether, on the evidence submitted, Cardiff had proved its case for a municipal savings bank. It is true that it was decided on my casting vote, and I am happy to think that I had a keen sense of anticipation. A week after the Local Legislation Committee upstairs had granted these powers to Cardiff, a Committee belonging to the other House unanimously—not by a casting vote—gave similar powers to Birkenhead in their Bill. Therefore, I feel somewhat flattered to think that the Lords followed my example. That having been done, this question will have to be debated again, in all probability. I want to be frank and honest with the House and to say that when I gave that casting vote I did it in the honest belief that the same regulations would apply to Cardiff as applied to Birmingham, and in my opinion all the evidence of the three witnesses before the Committee proved conclusively that. Cardiff had made out a case for a municipal savings bank under no more stringent regulations than those governing the Birmingham bank at the present time. I feel sure that the House will believe me when I say that the evidence was not taken in a slipshod fashion and that it was not hurried through; and anybody who likes to read the minutes of the proceedings will find that 35 pages of that volume of 55 pages are taken up by evidence given in regard to this question. Therefore, no Member of this House can challenge the Committee with not having dealt adequately with the question. In conclusion, I feel sure that the House will stand by the decision of the Committee and give the Bill the Third Reading.This is not a party question at all, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) was quite frank in indicating his view of the fact that in the 11 years since 1919, when the municipality of Birmingham was empowered to institute a savings bank, the venture has proved to be successful, but that whereas in the meantime quite a number of other great boroughs, including Bristol, have been refused similar powers by Parliament, if we pass the Third Reading of this Bill with Clauses 136 and 137 in it, we shall be creating a fresh precedent, which will be followed by a vast number of other boroughs. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has told us what the Treasury propose in the way of limitations on these applications, including that of a population not under 150,000. There are a great many boroughs in this country with a population of 150,000, and it would be invidious to draw comparisons between them, but recently there has been an application for funds for a great borough where 80 per cent. was left in the hands of the underwriters.
We must proceed either on the lines of the creation of a large number of municipal banks, or of strengthening the national savings system through the Post Office Savings Bank. In order to do that, it is quite clear that we must make the terms offered by the Post Office Savings Bank much more attractive. I will quote two of the reasons which were given in support of these Clauses by the Cardiff Corporation. They say that it was shown that the existence of the Post Office Savings Bank did not meet the needs of any person for whom the Municipal Bank would provide. If that be so, is that an argument for setting up municipal banks all over the country in competition with the Post Office Savings Bank, or is it an argument for making the Post Office Savings Bank an effective national means for collecting the savings of the people? It is an amazing thing that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should be advocating, as I understand they are—although I believe that there is a, certain amount of opposition—the setting up of these municipal banks in competition with the national system of the Post Office Savings Bank. I should have thought that their view would have been exactly the opposite. The paper which has been sent round in support of the Cardiff Corporation says:It is clear that the two things are in competition, and what we are asked to decide to-night is whether we are to proceed, by giving to the Cardiff Corporation power to set up a municipal savings bank, in the direction of having an almost infinite number of competing enterprises for the savings of the people, with regulations propounded by the Treasury which are supposed to be appropriate to the individual needs of the case; or do what I hope and believe that we shall do some day, really improve the Post Office Savings Bank system to such an extent that it will not only have an office in every post office, as it has now, but will have branches in every municipality in the country, offering terms with which there can be no competition, because they would be the best terms, with Government security, which is the best possible security for the savings of the people. Are we to assume that the Post Office Savings Bank is a "washout" and has been knocked on the head by the setting up of rivals which can offer far better conditions when they are run by municipalities. Surely the House is asked to decide a very large question. I do not think that this is the proper occasion to decide it against the Post Office Savings Bank. We have heard nothing from the Postmaster-General; surely he ought to defend the institution of which he is in charge. If we are to make this departure, we should not make it after a three hours' Debate on a private Bill promoted by Cardiff. Bristol and other great municipalities have been refused these facilities, and we should not grant them because Cardiff happens to apply and there has been a change of Government, and consequently a change of Treasury view upon this question. We should not therefore decide the question once and for all upon a Measure which means practically the abolition of a national system for the collection of the thrift of the people. I have always thought it was one of the meanest of our institutions. We offer to the poorest of the people the poorest rate of interest for their savings, a rate which would not be accepted by anyone with substantial sums to save. The decision we are asked to take means going away from a national system of savings banks altogether. We have never tried to reform it, never tried to make it attractive for the savings of the people. Eleven years ago we allowed one municipality at Birmingham to set up an opposition shop, and we are now going to say that because the State's effort is such a "washout" and such a fraud from the point of view of poor people another municipal bank shall be opened at Cardiff. It would not matter if there were to be only two, but the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said, and the Financial Secretary agreed with him, that this means opening the gates for every municipality in the country to have its savings banks. We are going to take the investment of the money of the great mass of the people out of the control of this House and pass it over to various municipalities, saying, "We hand it over to you because you can make a decent job of what we have not been able to do ourselves." Is the Postmaster-General satisfied with that state of affairs? To-night we are deciding that his Department is a failure, and that his national system of savings banks is a failure; that the only thing to be done is to let Cardiff and every other borough in the country which has more than a certain population try to manage banks and, with local influence and local patriotism, make a success of that work in which State management has absolutely failed. In the circumstances I am opposed to these two Clauses being in the Bill. It is far too great an issue to be decided after so short a debate, and without the great questions which are before the House having been answered by the Financial Secretary. The real question which he ought to have answered is, "Is a State savings bank a good thing, or is a municipal savings bank a good thing?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Both!"] One or the other, but not both. According to the argument of Cardiff municipal savings banks are going to wipe the floor with the national savings bank and obliterate it. If that is the direction in which we are going, I, for one, should want to hear a great deal more—something from the Postmaster-General at any rate—before deciding so grave an issue."The comparatively ineffective appeal made by the national savings organisation and trustee savings banks were contrasted with the result obtained by the Birmingham Municipal Bank."
rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent; and declined then to put.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
I understood from the Financial Secretary that he gave an undertaking that the Treasury would lay down Regulations governing this Cardiff Municipal Bank, which closely approximated to the suggestion I made at the close of my speech. That being so I think some of our objections have been to a considerable degree met. Safeguards will now be laid down of such a kind that those acting with me will accept the Government's offer, and for that reason I do not propose to move the Amendments which stand in my name. I am very sorry and very much surprised, however, that the Government do not intend to carry out their pledge to the Trustee Savings Bank. We know very well that a pledge was given. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was present during the consideration of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill. He also knows that an undertaking was given that steps should be taken to meet the wishes of the Trustee Savings Bank. If municipal banks are allowed to compete with a rate of interest at 3½ per cent., it will be most unfair to the Trustee Savings Bank. That is a broken pledge, and I make my protest.
Ordered,
"That Standing Order 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Deputy-Chairman.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Ways And Means
Report (14Th April)
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Consideration of Resolutions.
Second Resolution read a Second time.
I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out the word "duties" and to insert instead thereof the word "duty."
I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain one of the other Amendments on the Paper while I am dealing with this particular Amendment. The object we have in view in raising this question is to call attention to the curious fact that in the Budget, as it now stands, you have a Financial Resolution in which you are raising the duty on certain curious forms of beverages. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take advantage of this occasion to explain to the House exactly the position of the Government in regard to the beverages which are now named. As far as certain beverages are concerned some of them are of very great antiquity from an historical point of view. It will be noticed that the Resolution proposes to raise on every 36 gallons of worts not exceeding 1,215 degrees a duty of 12s.; and in the case of worts exceeding 1,215 degrees a higher duty of 14s. Then there is a provision that in the case of every description of beer other than those specified in the second Resolution for every 36 gallons where the worts were before fermentation of a specific gravity of 1,215 degrees, there is to be a duty of 3s. We can understand the 12s. for the lower strength on the first-named beverages, but we do not quite see the reasons for the 3s. on the other form of beverage. I have been tempted to try to find out precisely what these beverages are. I had never heard of them, and it seemed to be of some interest to look up the information. I may say that the word "mum" has nothing to do with the virtues of the Member for Torquay, but I find that this beverage is called after a distinguished gentleman who resided in Brunswick in the year 1487. That is according to a gentleman named Abelard, but this is severely discredited by another German at a later date, who does not think that this drink was invented by that particular individual. I discovered that, although it was very largely used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries—and those rather antique times would naturally appeal to anyone with the temperament of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose views are rather out of date—at the present time it is only mentioned in history and in Customs tariffs. Could the right hon. Gentleman give some information as to the amount of this beverage that is used at the present time, and is it really necessary to bring in a separate Resolution to deal with one or two of these beverages? Having dealt with the Brunswick beverage, I now come to the Prussian beverage, and I have found in the course of my research that this particular beverage is a very powerful diuretic. I also find that it is most useful as an anti-scorbutic, and that it was recommended at one time for scurvy and also as a stimulant; and, moreover, and this is most valuable from the Chancellor's point of view, it was recommended many years ago as a most wholesome beverage for the summer months. I have no doubt that he will require a wholesome beverage during those months to keep him cool; but I find that it is also advised that it should be taken with ginger nuts and dough nuts. That is all that I can find about this beverage in the dictionaries. Having dealt with two of these beverages and given the Chancellor some ground on which he could excuse their taxation or otherwise, I would now like to ask why one particular beverage is left out in this case. It is one in which the right hon. Gentleman has shown occasionally a rather absorbing interest. The beverages that we have been considering are mainly imported, and I am wondering if it is a sign of grace in the Chancellor that he has left out of this list a beverage which is manufactured in this country, and which some people might think ought to be included, because, after all, into the making of a part of it, at any rate, fermentation would enter. That is the beverage which the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows such coyness if anyone asks him about it—that is the Scotch beverage known as Red Biddy. Why is that left out on this occasion? It is an old friend of the right hon. Gentleman and, from that point of view, I hold that possibly the position as it now is is not quite complete. I only bring it in because I hope it will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of showing that at last the Government have done something to encourage one particular industry. I am not sure that in these days it is really necessary to bring this up year after year. Would it not be possible, in order to save time and other things dear to the hearts of many of us, to bring it up in some less complicated form? For this reason and for the others that I have mentioned I move the Amendment.I beg to second the Amendment.
Those who were Members of the 1924 Parliament will recollect that Sir Charles Wilson, who then represented Leeds, made an eloquent speech in Committee on the Finance Bill and showed why these drinks should not come under the Beer Duty at all. He pointed out that they were used largely as cordials, that they are not fermented liquor and that it is merely because they happen to be called beer that they come under the very heavy duty which is levied on alcoholic liquor. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to that speech, said the hon. Gentleman had made out a very good case, and subsequently he introduced a Clause giving a rather heavy rebate. I believe their words are more likely to appeal to him as a Yorkshireman than to me as a South countryman, because I understand it is only in Yorkshire and in the North that these drinks are consumed to any large extent. I have been extraordinarily puzzled as to why the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to include mum in the Customs Resolution. According to the Clauses which were put into the 1924 Finance Bill, there are very heavy penalties on any brewer who brews black beer, spruce and mum and mixes them with any ordinary beer. I think any brewer doing so is liable to a penalty of £50 for each offence. I do not know whether this Resolution indicates a change of heart, I am afraid a very small one but none the less welcome, and that the right hon. Gentleman is at last imposing a preferential duty in favour of home production. Presumably he found it necessary to impose penalties in 1924 in the case of any brewer who brewed these drinks and mixed them with others, so that there must be some home production. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has not thought it necessary to impose an Excise. I take it as a sign of grace that he has at last realised that it is possible to put a tax on imported goods without at the same time imposing an Excise on goods made in this country. I shall be glad if he will answer the point. Also I do not quite understand why he has found it necessary to put a duty on imported black beer. If it is possibly a protective duty I welcome it, and in that case I certainly do not desire to press the Amendment. I merely wish to ascertain what is at the back of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and to say that if it is a protective duty I for one shall do all I possibly can to assist him to pass it into law.The two speeches in which this Amendment has been moved have had little or no relation to what the effect of the Amendment would be. The Amendment, in effect, is the abolition of the increase in the duty upon imported black beer and the other kinds of beverages which are mentioned in the Resolution. As a matter of fact, there is no beverage of this character now imported, and I think that that is an answer to the later observations in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). I can assure him that there is no departure from my orthodox Free Trade principles in submitting this Resolution to the House. I would like to point out to him what would be the effect of the acceptance of this Amendment provided there were importations of these beverages. The effect would be that these beverages produced in this country would be subject to a very heavy Excise Duty while similar beverages imported from foreign countries would come into the country free from the increase of duty now proposed.
This question of black beer and the other enumerated beverages has, as the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford said, often been raised in the course of our discussions upon the Finance Bill. The incident to which he referred which arose on my Budget in 1924 simply arose out of the reduction of the Beer Duty in the preceding year. It will be remembered that the reduction took the form of a rebate upon a bulk barrel of beer. In view of the heavy gravity of black beer, and these related beverages, that worked very disadvantageously to the manufacturers of these kinds of beverages, and what I did was to give them a further rebate which would equalise their position with that of the brewers. The Customs Duty upon these beverages, if imported, is a very old one. It dates from about 1869, and it takes two forms, one for gravity slightly below 1215 degrees, and a higher duty for gravities above that figure. It is quite true that black beer is a beverage which is manufactured in Yorkshire and is mostly seen in the North of England. I well remember when I was a boy having to submit to the indignity of black beer when I happened to develop a bad cold. It was regarded as a great cure for colds. It has this other attribute, from the point of view of the revenue, that it can be very easily mixed with ordinary fermented beer. For that reason, it has always been necessary from the revenue point of view to place it in the category of beers. One hon. Member asked why there was such a heavy increase up to 12s. a barrel, in some cases, as compared with 3s. on ordinary beer of a standard gravity of 1055. The explanation is that it is not ordinary beer. The duty varies proportionately with the gravity. In some cases where beer is light the proposed increase will not amount to more than 1s. 7d. per barrel, but where the gravity runs as high as 1080 it may be 4s. or more. The ordinary gravity of black beer is about 1220 and that is why it runs up to something like 12s. I think I have dealt with all the questions put to me, certainly not so humorously as the hon. Member who is responsible for the Amendment, but at any rate I have tried to meet the points and objections raised. There is a relation, of course, between this Amendment and two subsequent Amendments, but, as this one falls to the ground, I hope that the hon. Member will not persist with the other Amendments. As a matter of fact, I am quite sure it is not the intention to press the Amendment, because the effect would be to allow imported beverages of this character to come into the country free from the increase in duty at the same time that the home-made commodity was subject to the increase.Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for which I asked?
I cannot give the exact figures of the revenue from black beer. As far as I know, there are only three firms which manufacture it.
Question, "That the word 'duties' stand part of the Resolution," put, and agreed to.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
Third Resolution read a Second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
I understand the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) and myself, in line 4 to leave out the words "either from a source external to the vehicle, or" is not quite in order. Therefore, as the Question has been put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in this Resolution," may I put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The Amendment was put on the Paper in order to elucidate exactly what this refers to. As far as my hon. and gallant Friend and I have been able to make out, there is no reference at all to it in the Budget speech. It is obviously quite a small matter, but we are not quite clear what it refers to. The heading "Licence duty on certain motor vehicles" appears to be inaccurate. In the Finance Act, 1920, Second Schedule, which is referred to in the Resolution, the heading is "Duties on mechanically - propelled vehicles," which the ordinary person would think was a more accurate description. I should have thought that a motor vehicle is not the same thing as an electrically-propelled vehicle. The phrase, "mechanically-propelled vehicle" would be the correct one. According to the Resolution, there is going to be a limited description of what is an electrically-propelled vehicle. Apparently the source must be from something external to the vehicle or that there must be an electrical storage battery, and if the vehicle gets its power from either of these two sources, I understand that the licence duty is to be chargeable according to the Finance Act of 1920 which, under the Second Schedule, is £6.
What does the Resolution exclude or, alternatively, is it intended to bring something into the Schedule that has not been there hitherto? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking power to exclude the new kind of omnibus which I understand has been invented, the petrol-electric omnibus, which gets its electricity from petrol. Messrs. Tilling-Steven, I understand, make this particular kind of vehicle. Is it intended to bring them under the ordinary charge for motor vehicles and call them motor vehicles and not electrical vehicles, or is it intended as may appear from the particular reference to "a source external to the vehicle" to bring in the trackless trolley vehicle? Does it mean that there are to be brought under the £6 standard all the vehicles that are called trackless trolley vehicles? There are many towns in which these vehicles are the means of transport, a means which has developed since 1920. I do not think that in 1920 there were any trackless trolley vehicles; there were ordinary tramways which ran along lines, but the lines have been taken up and to-day what appear to be ordinary omnibuses are actually electrical trolley vehicles, with an overhead system for getting power. It may be, I do not know, that that particular kind of vehicle is already charged as a motor vehicle, or it may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by this Resolution is making them into electrical trolley vehicles. Is he bringing into the category of electrical trolley vehicles a great number of vehicles which hitherto were called motor vehicles, or is he excluding from the electrical trolley vehicles the new kind of omnibus which gets its electrical power from petrol? The right hon. Gentleman's explanation will decide our attitude upon this occasion and on later occasions.11.0 p.m.
I shall have pleasure in trying to remove the difficulties of the hon. and gallant Member. This Resolution arises out of a decision of the Law Courts on the very class of motor vehicle to which the hon. and gallant Member referred—that is, where petrol generates electricity. In the Finance Act of 1926 a concession of 50 per cent. is given to electrically-driven vehicles on account of their lightness and other things. It was assumed that that type of motor vehicle, the petrol-electrical vehicle, would not be entitled to the concession. The firm to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred took the case to the courts, and eventually it went to the House of Lords, where it was finally decided in favour of the company. The purpose of the Resolution is to exclude that type of vehicle from the concession. The trolley vehicle is, of course, entitled to the concession, because it derives its electrical power direct.
I agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in regard to the vehicle which uses petrol in order to generate electricity as driving power, but I am sorry that he is extending the concession to the trackless trolley. Under the 1920 Act the tramcar pays 15s. per annum for licence duty, but the tramcars is responsible for maintaining its own track, and therefore any damage that it does to the track has to be paid for by tramway company or municipality. After all, the object of these duties is to repair the damage that a vehicle causes to the highways, and the payment is through the Road Fund. The trackless trolley has not a special surface on which to run, and it does at least as much damage to a roadway as a motor omnibus. The motor omnibus is liable to full taxation, and in some cases—I am speaking from memory—it has to pay as much as £70 per annum.
This discrimination in favour of the trackless trolley is unfair. It is extraordinarily difficult to argue that one vehicle does less damage to the road than the other. The only possible ground on which we should give exemption from motor taxation is that the particular vehicle which is exempted does in fact, cause less damage to the road. It seems to me that where you have a vehicle like a trackless trolley, which can be heavily loaded, which must have large wheels and tyres to carry that load, which is able to go where it pleases in the roadway, and which uses brakes and stops to avoid traffic, and thereby does damage, it is very difficult to see what case can be made out for the exemption of such a vehicle from the ordinary rate of duty. I cannot see what justification there is for giving it a privileged position as against the ordinary petrol vehicle. I agree with the object of the Resolution but I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has extended it to cover the trackless trolley.The exemption with regard to the trolley electric vehicle only extends to goods-carrying trolleys. The ordinary passenger trolley is on exactly the same footing as the ordinary vehicle.
Under the ordinary law?
If a tramway company changes from an ordinary tramway system to a trackless trolley, they have to pay the extra duty?
That I could not say.
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
I think it would suit the convenience of the House if we were to adjourn now. Considering the interruption, we have made very good progress.
Ordered, "That Consideration of the remaining Resolutions be now adjourned."—[ Mr. P. Snowden.]
Fourth and subsequent Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. T. Kennedy.]
Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.