House Of Commons
Tuesday, 27th May, 1930.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Private Bills [ Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Royal Exchange Assurance Bill [ Lords].
Sidmouth Electricity Bill [ Lords].
Llanelly District Traction Bill [ Lords].
Darlington Corporation Bill [ Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hendon Rural) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Goole and Oldham) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Rotherham Corporation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Glasgow Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
Oral Answers To Questions
Unemployment
Land Colonisation
1.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has yet sanctioned any work in connection with a scheme of land colonisation in Great Britain?
I am awaiting the result of the consideration of a Bill in another place to enable me to set men to work on land drainage which, as I have said before, could make a more substantial and immediate contribution to employment.
Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the plan of the First Commissioner of Works which he stated in my constituency over 12 months ago?
I was not in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a most valuable unemployment scheme to settle men on the land of Britain?
I believe that there are many schemes dealing with the land, but at the moment I am anxious for another place to pass a Bill which embodies the unanimous recommendations of a Commission, and, when they have passed that Bill, I can immediately get on and do some work.
Distressed Areas (New Industries)
3.
asked the Lord Privy Seal how many new factories have been opened in the distressed areas as a result of his proposals for dealing with unemployment?
I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave on the 15th April last to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), a copy of which I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member.
How many factories has the right hon. Gentleman prevented from closing down?
Does the right hon. Gentleman expect capital to be invested in new factories while his friends are continually saying that they want to do away with capitalism?
Canadian Coal Trade (New Ships)
4.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any statement to make regarding his proposals for the building of five ships to carry coal to Canada?
I presume the hon. and gallant Member did not hear my reply to a question by the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) on this subject, or see correspondence in the Press on the matter. I am therefore sending him copies.
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but did he not say that the difficulty this year was going to be to fulfil the orders for coal to Canada?
That is perfectly true, and, in answer to a later question, I shall be able to show an increase even in the last month, although that is the only period in which the St. Lawrence has been opened.
Are these ships that pass in the night?
Are they wooden ships?
Railway Wagons
5.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has had any negotiations with the railway companies regarding the use of 20-ton wagons; and, if so, with what success?
Yes, Sir; my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is in consultation with the railway companies with regard to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Mineral Transport with reference to the use of 20-ton wagons.
Did the right hon. Gentleman say, when he first took office, that this would be a thing that could immediately be done; have any wagons been built?
The hon. and gallant Member must not make a statement which is not true. I told the House that I was a member of a Committee which was considering the problem. That Committee was appointed by the late Government. Their report was submitted to this Government, and we are acting on it immediately.
May I again ask how many wagons, if any, have been built?
Post Office (Capital Works)
6.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has made representations to the Postmaster-General with a view to the Post Office finding more employment; and, if so, what amount of additional employment has been provided?
Yes, Sir. The Post Office have accelerated their programme of capital works for the current year, and this programme will reach a total of £11,600,000. It will provide a considerable volume of employment.
How much is the increased programme going to cost; the £11,600,000 is not all increase?
If the Noble Lord will put that question to the Post Office, no doubt they will answer it.
Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that on 4th November he told the House that the Post Office were going to spend £1,500,000?
Yes, and I said that it was covering an estimate of two years. That I understand is being done.
Last year—
Do you notice, Mr. Speaker, that that makes four supplementaries?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Postmaster-General, in reply to a recent question, stated that his Department were employing 1,000 fewer skilled engineers, and will he confer with his hon. Friend on that point?
It may be that the facts are as stated, but the Post Office, I hope, will be run on lines of efficiency. It may be that there is a reduction in one department, and an increase in another. No one has the right to expect the Government to run a department on less businesslike lines than anybody else.
Work Schemes
9.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the number of men actually at work under the different schemes which entail the expenditure of £95,000,000 for the relief of unemployment?
The latest returns, which relate mainly to the end of April, show about 55,000 men directly employed on roads and on schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee. About the same number are indirectly employed in connection with the preparation and transport of materials for these schemes, making 110,000. In addition, there is the employment afforded on the schemes sanctioned under Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act and the Colonial Development Act. While this is already substantial and is increasing, the precise number affected cannot be stated, as explained in the White Paper issued in December last.
Motor Industry
11.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what results have accrued as the outcome of his conferences with the motor industry respecting the export trade of motor vehicles?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 20th May to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), a copy of which I am sending to him.
With regard to the latter part of the question, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the question of the export trade of motor vehicles is very important, and cannot he say what has been done?
I am amazed to find, when I meet people who are heads of the industry to discuss their business with them, that they are not only prepared to make suggestions, but also to give effect to them, though they invariable object to people unconnected with the industry interfering with their work.
What is the exact state of the negotiations at the present time?
I am not in a position to state, for at the request of those engaged in the industry I am not prepared to answer a question across the Floor of the House on a matter which affects them. There are taking place negotiations for amalgamations, for re-organisation of the industry, and for an increase of our export trade—
Why did you not tell us so?
Because it would help foreigners who are competing, if I announced details across the Floor of the House.
rose—
The right hon. Gentleman has already given two very full answers.
Later—
May I draw attention to a matter arising out of supplementary questions that I asked earlier, on question 11?
On a point of Order. When a question has been put and answered, is an hon. Member entitled to raise it again after other questions have been put?
My intervention is on a point of Order. I asked a supplementary question on No. 11, and, in reply, the right hon. Gentleman was understood to convey that it was not the business of Members of Parliament to interfere with industry or with negotiations. I would, in that connection, refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement which he made with regard to the Consett Iron Company, which was a similar case, and, if the right hon. Gentleman calls Members of the House of Commons to account for interfering in matters affecting this industry, I want to ask him whether he agrees with the Prime Minister in having done the same thing.
rose—
I do not see that any point of Order arises.
Aged Workers (Pensions)
12.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, with a view to increasing opportunities for the employment of younger men, it is the intention of the Government to introduce proposals for pensions to industrial workers at 60 years of age subject to their retirement from employment?
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on the 8th April to the right hon Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood).
Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the statement which was made during the last Election?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply given to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) was most ambiguous, and that we did not understand it?
Ayr Burghs
39.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges in the Ayr Burghs Parliamentary area on the 30th April last, and on the same date in 1929, respectively?
At 28th April, 1930, there were 3,494 persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in the Ayr Burghs Parliamentary area, as compared with 2,559 at 29th April, 1929.
Development Work (Loan)
46.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are now prepared to consider the desirability of issuing a national loan for reconstruction and development purposes in connection with the problem of unemployment?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which the Lord Privy Seal gave to him on the 18th March, and also to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 11th March. I would remind the hon. Member that by far the greater part of the amount of approximately £100,000,000 which will be spent on development work under our programme will be financed by borrowing.
Does not the Prime Minister realise that if he were to announce a policy of that kind he would have the support of a majority of this House?
No!
Rationalisation
2.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the names of the various industries with the representatives of which he has conferred on the subject of rationalisation, and the results so far obtained?
I am in touch with most of the principal industries, but the matter is not one with which it is possible to deal satisfactorily within the limits of a Parliamentary reply.
Could the right hon. Gentleman possibly circulate a list of the various industries?
I will certainly do so.
Milling Industry
13.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the contemplated exportation to Great Britain of large quantities of flour by the Grain Stabilisation Corporation of the United States, he is taking any steps to safeguard the employment of the workers in the British milling industry?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to the hon. Member for Penrith and Cocker-mouth (Mr. Dixey) on the 14th instant, to which, at the moment, there is nothing to add.
Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman himself has consulted with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the question?
Training (Women)
40.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of women at present undergoing training under schemes for the relief of unemployment; and will she give the corresponding figure for men under training?
On the last date for which statistics are available the number of women undergoing training at centres administered or financially assisted by my Department was 933. The corresponding figure for men was 4,503.
How many of these women are undergoing training as cooks for domestic service?
British Fishing Vessels (Norwegians)
14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the signing on of Norwegians as skippers and mates, second hands, in British fishing vessels fitted out at North Shields for Greenland recently; whether he is aware that qualified and experienced British seamen were prepared to sign on; and whether he is satisfied that the law with regard to the employment of British subjects in British vessels under the Aliens Act was not broken?
I am aware that 12 fishing vessels, with a parent ship, recently sailed from North Shields for a fishing expedition to Greenland. The Board of Trade were informed that British trawler masters had declined to engage in the venture, which was considered unsuitable for British fishermen because of the long period of absence from home that would be involved and the severity of the working conditions; and that, even if British seamen were available, it would be impracticable to work satisfactorily with mixed crews of British and Norwegians. The Board of Trade therefore exercised their power under Section 78 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, to dispense with certain requirements of the Merchant Shipping Acts under the conditions set out in that Section. There is no power to exempt from the provisions of the Aliens Act, but the question of further action in respect of that Act will only arise on the return of the ships, and as at present advised I should not propose to take further action.
Was my right hon. Friend informed only by the owners, the directors of this company, that there were no suitable British fishermen available?
No, Sir. So far as I know very full inquiries were made, but the reply is really governed by the fact that there were no British men available.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is quite untrue? There were suitable and experienced British fishermen who could have undertaken much longer voyages than this, and they were turned down.
That is not my information. The facts as I have them are stated in the reply, but I will make further inquiries into the points mentioned in the supplementary questions.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect the British men were unsuitable?
No, Sir, I could not say that without notice.
Cinemas (Attendances)
17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is possible for him to give any estimate of the yearly attendance at cinemas in this country?
I regret that I am not in a position to make any reliable estimate.
Cost-Of-Living Index Figure
18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the statistics relating to the cost-of-living figure appearing in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, and especially that section of the statistics which deals with the retail prices of clothing and boots, stating that they are still 110 to 115 per cent. above the 1914 level, whereas the cost-of-living figure is 53 points only above the 1914 level; and what immediate steps he proposes to secure a readjustment in conformity with the prices of other necessaries?
Proposals for dealing with such questions are contained in the Consumers Council Bill, now before the House.
Wool Textile Industry (Dispute)
19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with reference to the Yorkshire woollen and worsted industries, the Government propose to take any action on any matters arising out of Lord Macmillan's report?
I would refer the right hon. Member to the replies given on this subject to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) on 1st April, 17th April and 1st May.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman given any further consideration to this matter with a view to proposing some course of action?
Yes, I have had this question before me. There are two inquiries in process of conclusion at the moment, and I cannot make a definite statement to the House, but, in the difficult circumstances of this controversy, it would be a little time before I could decide as to a wide inquiry.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that there would have been no dispute in the textile industry in the West Riding nor any reduction of wages if Safeguarding had been put into operation?
Safeguarding And Import Duties
Lace Industry
20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any account of his interview with the deputation from the lace trade which waited upon him recently?
No, Sir. At the request of the deputation itself the proceedings were to be treated as confidential.
Is the right hon. Gentleman cognisant of the fact that since the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Messrs. Lambert and Wood, lacemakers, of Nottingham, have had to close down and to turn away between 80 and 100 men?
Quite plainly, I should require notice in order to answer that question. It is outside the point put to me in the original question.
New Import Duties
53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will indicate with more precision the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the maintenance of the McKenna Duties?
The policy of the Government has been clearly stated on many occasions. In particular, I would refer the Noble Lord to what I said on this matter in the Budget speech.
Did not the right hon. Gentleman hear the Lord Privy Seal himself say here, on the 20th May, that unemployment had been largely aggravated by the uncertainty that prevailed in regard to this matter?
No, Sir.
Are we to understand that these industries must remain in a condition of uncertainty so long as the present Government is in office?
rose—
Mr. Mander.
Dyestuffs Act
21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the German and English dyestuffs combines, I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. and Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, are co-operating and in some instances agreeing to the allocation of markets; and whether, in view of this fact, the Government intend to renew the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act?
I understand that agreements regarding nitrogen fertilisers have been made by the Companies referred to and others, but with regard to the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on 13th May.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that those agreements defeat the whole purpose of this Act?
I have already indicated, in reply to numerous questions, that these facts and many others are precisely the material we must keep before us in arriving at a decision. As soon as a decision has been reached, it will be communicated to the House.
Is not rationalisation the policy of the Government and is not this an example of rationalisation?
That may be so, but the Dyestuffs Act raises a question of large policy concerning import prohibitions which has to be considered.
Are we to infer from the original question that the Liberal party are drifting still further away from their original principles?
Trade And Commerce
American Cotton (Imports)
22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of American cotton of under ⅞-inch staple imported into this country in the years 1928 and 1929?
I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available, as American cotton under ⅞-inch staple is not recorded separately in the trade accounts of either the United Kingdom or the United States. The bulk of American cotton ranges, I understand, from 1 inch to 1⅛inch staple.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of enlarging these classific ations?
The classification of many commodities is already very intricate; but I will look into the point put by my hon. Friend.
Export Trade (Railway Wages)
23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that since the beginning of the War an increase in wages amounting to more than £1,000,000,000 has been received by railway workers, he will state whether he has information to show what proportion of that increase has fallen directly upon the cost of production of goods for export or indirectly upon those goods through trades and industries co-operant with the exporting trades?
I have no information, nor means of obtaining information, of the kind referred to by the hon. Member.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of setting up a departmental inquiry into this matter, because it is evident these figures must have a great deal of bearing upon questions affecting our export trade?
My hon. Friend adds up these figures and proceeds to relate them to the export trade. I am afraid that without a very considerable extension of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade it would be impossible to provide all the details for which he asked; but I will see how far it may be possible to do that in any other way.
Surely this very large sum has a very important bearing on our export trade. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman look into the question?
I am afraid we can never present a complete picture to this House without having compulsory powers to get more statistical material.
Iron And Steel Industry
48 and 49.
asked the Prime Minister (1), whether he will request the sub-committee, iron and steel, of the Economic Advisory Council to investigate the uses of steel in steel-framed buildings, with the object of reviewing and revising the regulations of local authorities in relation to steel-framed buildings in so far as such regulations have become obsolete and consequently hamper the adoption of modern building methods and materials;
(2) whether he will request the subcommittee, iron and steel, of the Economic Advisory Council to examine possible extensions of the use of steel in the building industry, with the object of suggesting appropriate standardisations of size, quality, and pattern of materials to be employed in steel-framed buildings, so that by mass production costs may be reduced for the purpose of bringing about an increased use of building steel?The Iron and Steel Committee of the Economic Advisory Council are considering the general position of the industry, and investigations on points of detail such as the hon. Member suggests would be outside their terms of reference. The points raised by the hon. Member, however, are to a large extent being dealt with by the Steel Structures Research Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Clement Hindley, which has been set up by the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Particulars of this Committee are given on pages 3 and 10 of Cmd. 3471.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in revising these obsolete building Acts is holding up employment in the steel and engineering trades?
We are awaiting the Committee's report.
May I request the right hon. Gentleman to expedite that report?
British Army
Tattoos, Aldershot
27.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council retains any responsibility for the actual programme of military tattoos at Aldershot; and whether the question of giving representations of modern warfare and especially the use of poison gas in the field has been considered?
The Army Council have laid down the general principles which are to be observed in arranging programmes for military tattoos, and have given instructions that no items are to be included which portray incidents connected with British military history subsequent to the outbreak of the Great War or which introduce new and experimental methods of warfare.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the effect of this Order is that the public are shown only the historical romances of the British Army and not the horrors of modern war? Is my right hon. Friend looking into this matter?
Drake's Island, Plymouth Sound
24.
asked the Secretary of State for War what use is at present being made of the Isle of St. Nicolas (Drake's Island), in Plymouth Sound; what buildings are erected thereon; whether they are being occupied; and will he consider the advisability of leasing the island to the city council for the use and enjoyment of the public on the same terms as other War Department land is held by them?
I have called for a report on this question, and will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.
Recruiting, Lancashire
25.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of recruits for the Regular Army in Lancashire in each of the last six months and for the corresponding six months in 1928–29?
As I explained in answer to questions on 13th May last, information is not available to show by counties the number of recruits taken monthly, since the statistics are grouped not by counties but by recruiting zones. The County of Lancashire falls into the West Lancashire and East Lancashire zones, which also include, broadly speaking, the counties of Cheshire, Cumberland and Westmorland. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT comparative figures for the last six months and the corresponding six months in 1928–29 for these two recruiting zones.
Following are the figures:
| TABLE showing the total number of recruits raised in the West Lancashire and East Lancashire recruiting zones during the last six months and the corresponding six months of 1928–29. | |||||||||
| — | West Lancashire Zone. | East Lancashire Zone. | |||||||
| 1928–29. | 1929–30. | 1928–29. | 1929–30. | ||||||
| November | … | … | … | … | … | 85 | 85 | 197 | 123 |
| December | … | … | … | … | … | 64 | 63 | 118 | 112 |
| January | … | … | … | … | … | 225 | 184 | 319 | 240 |
| February | … | … | … | … | … | 99 | 100 | 136 | 105 |
| March | … | … | … | … | … | 82 | 91 | 98 | 112 |
| April | … | … | … | … | … | 101 | 86 | 125 | 136 |
| Total | … | … | … | … | 656 | 609 | 993 | 828 | |
Scotland
Agricultural Surveys
28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the districts in which agricultural surveys have been carried out during the past year by the Department of Agriculture; and when the results of those surveys will be available for the public?
Surveys have been made during the past year of certain parishes in the counties of Sutherland, Aberdeen, Perth, Argyll and Ayr, in which the conditions and methods of agriculture practised are regarded as typical of those prevailing in these districts generally. As stated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on the 22nd instant, the results of these surveys, with the omission of certain confidential particulars, will be published in series in the "Scottish Journal of Agriculture." The first of the series will appear in the Journal which will be issued in July.
River Pollution Prevention (Advisory Committee)
29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it has been decided to appoint a fresh chairman to the advisory committee on Rivers Pollution in the place of the late Sir John Findlay?
The answer is in the affirmative. I have appointed Sir William Whyte, who was Clerk to the late Middle Ward District Committee of Lanarkshire, to be Chairman of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution Prevention in room of the late Sir John Findlay. Sir William Whyte has been a member of the committee since its inception.
Is the committee at present sitting and taking any evidence?
Secondary Education
30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number and percentage of secondary school children in Scotland who receive free education?
My right hon. Friend regrets that the available statistics do not permit of an answer to the question in the exact form in which it is put. In the year ended 31st July, 1929, the average enrolment of pupils in the post-primary departments of schools conducted under the Secondary Schools (Scotland) Regulations was 79,714, of which number approximately 64,039, or 80 per cent., represents the enrolment in classes in which no school fees were exigible. A relatively small percentage falls to be added in respect of pupils enrolled in fee-paying schools who receive assistance covering outlays on school fees.
While appreciating the very high percentage, may I ask whether there is any likelihood of reaching the 100 per cent., so far as free education in secondary schools is concerned?
I am afraid that I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice.
Housing Subsidies
31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount spent in subsidising Scottish housing since May, 1912; the expenditure for this purpose since May, 1929; and the estimated expenditure from May, 1930 to May, 1931?
The total amount of State subsidies paid by the Department of Health on Scottish housing from May, 1912 to the 31st March, 1930 was £10,161,199. Of this amount £1,625,672 was paid during the financial year ended the 31st March, 1930. As regards the last part of the question, the estimated expenditure for the financial year to 31st March, 1931 is £1,772,232.
Post Office
Telephone Service (Continent)
33.
asked the Postmaster-General in how many Continental telephone services personal calls can now be effected between Great Britain and Continental States; whether any of the Continental administrations have as yet not agreed to this system; and will he give particulars?
Personal call service is available with all the 23 European countries except Switzerland with which subscribers in Great Britain have telephonic communication. Personal calls are also available on all the extra-European services available to subscribers in this country.
Can the. Postmaster-General say whether negotiations are proceeding with Switzerland for this personal service?
We have had negotiations, but, as they have no personal call service within Switzerland, they are unwilling to have an international service.
Telephone Employés' Transfer
34.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can now state the rule at present in force in the Post Office with reference to the position of employés who are members of the Communist party; what was the reason for the recent transfer of an employé previously at the foreign trunk exchange German board to another exchange; what was the loss of remuneration to such employé on account of such transfer; and whether he is taking any further action in the matter?
The rule on which I have acted is that employés of the Post Office should not be dismissed on account of their political opinions, provided that they do not interfere with the proper discharge of their duties. The officer in question was transferred to another exchange because I considered him unsuitable for the work in the trunk exchange which is of a special character. The transfer has involved the loss of an allowance, amounting to 7s. 4d. a week. No further action is proposed.
What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that he transferred this man from the foreign trunk exchange because he was not satisfied with him? Could he not trust the man there, or what was the reason why he was not suitable?
I do not propose to dismiss employés from any position in the Post Office on account of their political opinions, but there are certain positions of a very special character.
Why does the hon. Gentleman consider that this man was unsuitable for work at this particular exchange?
It was not only on account of his opinions, but because of certain disciplinary items in his record, which made it better that he should leave that particular position.
Is the work of that exchange peculiarly confidential, and is that the reason why he was not allowed to carry on?
It is the exchange which communicates with operators abroad, over whom, since they are not in this country, we have not the same supervision as we have over our own operators.
Is it not a fact that the only disciplinary item in this man's regard was the record of certain Communist activities, and, if that is so, is not the correct inference to be drawn from what has been said to-day, that the man has been transferred because he is a Communist; and, if so, may we not expect a similar kind of disciplinary action in regard to Socialists and Labour men when another kind of Government is in office?
No, Sir. The disciplinary item was quite of a different character.
Telephone Subscribers' Accounts
35.
asked the Postmaster-General for what reason the Department declines to give any particulars or explanation with regard to charges made for telegram, trunk, or toll calls in their quarterly statement unless specific details are supplied within seven days from the date on which the account was despatched; and whether a longer period than a week could be allowed to subscribers in checking accounts running over the previous three months?
The telephone accounts contain a request for payment within seven days, and it is clearly desirable that any question as to accuracy of any item should be made within that period. In practice, however, the time limit is not rigidly enforced.
Does the Postmaster-General not realise that this means going through an account extending over three months almost as soon as it is received, and does he not realise that that is very difficult for many people who are the best clients of the Post Office, and could not more time be given?
It is quite reasonable to expect any querying of an account to take place before the date by which it has to be paid, but, as I have already said, this rule is not harshly applied.
How can the account be queried until a statement giving the trunk and telegram calls has been received?
Telephone Facilities, Lee Moor
36.
asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that there is no private telephone at Lee Moor Post Office, South Devon, and private business has to be conducted in a public room, he will consider establishing a private telephone box or a kiosk at this office?
There is no accommodation available at the Lee Moor Post Office for a telephone cabinet, and I regret that the expense of providing an independent kiosk could not be justified at present.
Loss Of Steamship "St Sunniva" (Mails)
38.
asked the Postmaster-General the grounds on which he declined to take independent action to salve His Majesty's mails from the wreck of the "St. Sunniva"?
The mails were deeply submerged in the forehold of the ship, and cargo was loaded above them. In these circumstances, independent salvage of the mails in advance of any general salvage operations was impracticable, but the local officers of the Department were from the outset instructed to associate with any salvage attempts that might be made. I am informed that expert opinion has throughout regarded the prospects as unfavourable and now that the ship has broken up all question of salvage is definitely abandoned.
While realising that the Postmaster-General instructed the postmaster at this place to co-operate with any other salvor who might attempt to salve the mails, why did the Post Office not take independent action to salve the mails, or attempt to salve them after the underwriters had abandoned the wreck? I am sure that the Postmaster-General is fully aware of the large amount of mail matter involved, and the importance of the question.
The mails were covered by an enormous amount of cargo, of quite another description, and we found that it was not practical, owing to the weather and the condition of the ship to salve either the cargo or the mails.
Have the Post Office made any independent survey of the wreck, or any independent efforts to salve these mails?
Certainly. The postmaster himself was out there in a small boat.
I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, because of the importance of the subject.
If these mails were submerged, how is it that the Income Tax demands were found?
I cannot say.
Claims And Record Office, Kew
42.
asked the Minister of Labour the reason for overtime to be worked in the Claims and Record Office at Kew, bearing in mind the recent discharges of temporary ex-service men; for what particular block of work is this overtime necessary; and for what period will it be necessary for such overtime to be performed?
The overtime is being worked to overtake general arrears due to the volume of work occasioned by the abnormal increase of the Live Register. At present, it is proposed that the overtime shall be worked for two weeks, and the staff is being increased to deal with the larger volume of current work.
asked the Minister -of Labour whether, in view of the recent introduction of emergency measures in the Claims and Record Office, Kew, in connection with the issue of certificates and consequential overtime by the staff of that department, she will give instructions that any errors which may arise as the result of heavy pressure of work shall not be recorded in the personal files of the officers concerned?
I cannot undertake that errors shall not be noted, but I can assure the hon. and learned Member that, before any permanent record of them is made against any individual, all the circumstances are fully taken into account.
Land Registry
44.
asked the Attorney-General the reason why steps are not being taken to increase the number of compulsory areas of registration of property at His Majesty's Land Registry?
It rests with each county council or county borough council to take the initiative in this matter. The Act provides that no compulsory order shall be made except at the instance of these bodies until the 1st January, 1936.
Agriculture (Government Policy)
45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a day for the discussion of the agricultural policy of the Government?
I regret that, in view of pressure of Parliamentary business, I cannot find time for the purpose indicated before the Whitsuntide Recess.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say why agriculture always comes last in the consideration of the Government?
If I may give a somewhat inadequate reason, I am following a precedent made years ago.
Is not the only reason the fact that the Labour party has not an agricultural policy?
60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of a resolution unanimously passed by a mass meeting of farmers, farm labourers, and landowners on 17th May at Easingwold, Yorkshire, claiming that measures should be taken to assure the farmer a remunerative price for cereals; and whether he is able to give any assurance that such measures will figure in his agricultural policy?
My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the resolution referred to. The reply to the last part of the question is that the Government can hold out no prospect of food taxes or subsidies.
Will a guaranteed price figure in the right hon. Gentleman's policy, when introduced?
I cannot make any statement on that point.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what prospect he can hold out.
That is a different question.
61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received the resolution of the agricultural mass meeting held on 17th May at Easingwold, Yorkshire, requesting that he will receive a deputation, representing all the agricultural interests, to lay before him the serious condition of the industry in that neighbourhood; and what reply he has given to this request?
My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the resolution referred to, suggesting that a deputation be received by the Prime Minister, the Lord Privy Seal, the Minister of Labour, and my right hon. Friend. The Government has the benefit of the advice of a national agricultural conference on the condition of the industry, and my right hon. Friend does not think that the suggested deputation would add anything material to the information already available.
Does the Government propose to take the advice of the National Agricultural Conference?
The National Agricultural Conference did not give specific advice.
Did not the National Agricultural Conference come to a unanimous decision to recommend that cereal growing should be made remunerative?
That is a general recommendation. It gave no specific advice.
Are we to understand that the advice of the National Conference is not going to be followed, in spite of the answer the right hon. Gentleman gave to the question?
The National Conference passed a general resolution. That is quite different from specific advice.
Did not the National Conference also specifically advise the Government that the Forces of the Crown should be fed on home-grown meat and bread? Is not that sufficiently specific?
The impracticability of following that recommendation is demonstrated by the fact that the last Government did not follow it.
Is this Government ever going to do anything?
Hours Of Industrial Employment Bill
47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the consideration of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill during the present Session?
I regret that it is not at present possible to state when the further stages of this Bill will be taken.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think it possible for an announcement to be made before the House adjourns for the holidays?
Reparation Loan
50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether those responsible are taking steps to ensure that such reparation bonds as are to be issued under the Young plan in countries other than Britain shall not be easily negotiable in Britain and used at a critical juncture as instruments for drawing our gold stock into non-British centres?
51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reason why it has been decided that a portion of the reparation loan under the Young plan is to be issued in London, even granting that the proceeds of that portion will be paid into the British Exchequer; and will he state why the whole issue is not to be offered for subscription in countries other than Britain and the share of the total proceeds which is due to Britain thereafter paid over to the British Treasury?
57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his advisers have taken to arrange that the principal and/or interest on those bonds to be issued in countries other than Britain as part of the German reparations loan under the Young plan shall not be encashable in Britain, or in sterling, and that the terms of such bonds shall render them not easy of resale in Britain and inconvenient as instruments in the hands of foreigners by which to withdraw gold from London?
The detailed conditions of the proposed issue of reparation bonds are still under discussion between the representatives of the Governments and of the banks concerned, and I cannot yet say definitely what the precise form of the bonds will be. But I have made clear to the British representatives that I cannot agree to any modification of the provisions included in the experts' plan with a view to protecting the interests of the London market, and in particular that I would object to any arrangement under which either the principal and/or interest on the bonds of the foreign issues was payable at the option of the holder in sterling at par of exchange. Subject to this, the details of the bonds will have to be settled by agreement consistently with the plan. As regards the question put to me by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir B. Falle), it would not have been possible to ensure the success of the loan if no issue had taken place in London, and I do not think it would have been reasonable or consistent with the position of London as a financial centre to refuse an issue in London, provided that it is subject to the condition that the proceeds will be paid to the British Exchequer.
While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind the recent tendency of foreign countries to absorb gold from this country, and the possibility that at a critical time a very dangerous situation might arise?
That matter has certainly been in our minds in considering what we should do.
Is it true that the amount to be issued in London has been fixed at £10,000,000?
I cannot say.
56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any proposal has been made to him to use the cash subscribed for the British portion of the German reparations loan under the Young plan for the purpose of development and reconstruction in connection with the problem of unemployment rather than for the purpose of repaying national debt?
The answer is in the negative. The money subscribed will be applied to the redemption of debt.
Is not the policy indicated in the question supported by a large number of hon. Members behind the right hon. Gentleman?
I do not see the relevance of that. The money we require for the purpose of development and reconstruction should be raised in other ways.
Oxford University (Super-Annuation Scheme)
52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that he has approved the super-annuation scheme of Oxford University, under the provisions of Section 32 (3) (e) of the Finance Act of 1918, he will state why he has refused to approve the scheme under Section 32 of the Finance Act of 1921, both being schemes whereby a contribution to the superannuation scheme of the university is put upon the footing of a premium on a life insurance policy?
The effect of the law is not quite accurately put in the hon. Member's question, but I may explain that Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921, relates to funds established for the provision of pensions for employés. The superannuation scheme in force at Oxford University is worked by means of life insurance policies taken out with insurance companies, and the University itself has no fund for the provision of pensions for the teaching staff. The scheme in question is, therefore, wholly outside the scope of Section 32 of the Finance Act, 1921.
Bank Of International Settlements
54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the views expressed during the debate in committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations last September, he will consider the advisability of urging on the Council of the League that the report of the work of the International Bank should be considered by the appropriate organ of the League from time to time?
The Bank for International Settlements is a non-political business institution managed by a Board whose members are nominated by the central banks, and not by the Governments of the countries concerned. It may be hoped that means will be found of establishing friendly contact between the bank and the appropriate organ of the League; but it would be premature at the present time to attempt to lay down in what manner this can best be achieved.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that there is grave danger in allowing a great private body of this kind to arise, in no way subject to public control?
I think that that point is covered by the last part of my answer.
Finance Bill
55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause an explanatory White Paper to be issued giving in full the Sections of previous Acts of Parliament, and rules made under previous Acts, which are referred to in the Finance Bill; and an explanatory statement in each case showing the effect of any change which it is proposed to make?
58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will issue for use at the Committee stage of the Finance Bill a White Paper set up in parallel columns giving the explanation in plain language of each paragraph of Clauses 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the Finance Bill?
I will do my best to meet the desire that prompted these questions, but time is short. I fear I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman just what he asks for; indeed I think that in some ways it would make for complication rather than elucidation. I will issue an explanation of the Clauses mentioned by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel), and, if any hon. Members intimate to me that they find any other Clauses specially difficult, I will consider including an explanation of them also, provided that the intimation is given at once.
Can we not have a print of the actual Sections to which reference is made, seeing that it will be much easier to construe them if we have them on paper than if we have to search for them in a number of Acts of Parliament?
I will consider that matter, although, as I have said in reply to the question, I am afraid it would not lead to elucidation.
Since the Clauses referred to in my question are the most abstruse Clauses in the whole Bill, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be wise to print them in plain language and in legal language in parallel columns, so that everyone may understand them, without leaving it to the Judges to explain them?
Crown And Subject (Legal Relations)
59.
asked the Attorney-General whether it is intended to introduce legislation which will have as its object amending the present law as between the Crown and its subjects?
I regret that in the present state of public business it is not possible to make any statement on this matter.
Is it not a fact that there is a draft Bill in existence?
West Indies (British Films)
62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received satisfactory answers to the inquiries he made from British film producers for the purpose of furnishing a regular supply of British films for circulation throughout the West Indies; can he state whether the terms and conditions supplied to his Department have been forwarded to the various colonies; and can he give particulars of the colonies that have agreed to introduce legislation providing for the compulsory inclusion of a moderate quota of British films and cinematograph programmes?
The question of the supply of British films to the Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories including the West Indies has recently been under consideration by the Colonial Films Committee, the report of which will be available in the course of the next few weeks, and I understand that the matter to which the hon. Member refers will be dealt with in the report. In regard to quota legislation, I have nothing to add to my reply to him of 14th May.
Did not the British film producers state in reply to inquiries whether they could rent films to our Colonies otherwise than selling them?
I am unable to trace exactly what the hon. Member means by those recommendations.
If I send the hon. Gentleman particulars of the inquiry, will he look into it?
I shall be delighted.
Housing (Ex-Service Men, Irish Free State)
63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the ex-service men tenants on the Killester Estate under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust are being charged rents of 10s., 9s., and 7s. 6d. for the three types of cottages there in addition to rates at 14s. in the £; and whether, seeing that there are several tenants who are unable to pay these rents, he will look into the charges made for these houses?
I have ascertained from the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust that the rents of the cottages on the Killester Estate are as stated in the question, and that the rates average about 1s. a week for each cottage. I am informed that the rents are much lower than those originally accepted by the tenants when they were first selected in competition with other candidates. The Secretary of State is satisfied that there is no case for asking the Trust to consider the possibility of further reductions in the rent of these cottages.
Is it not the case that these rents only cover the cost of maintenance and administration, and does not the hon. Gentleman think, under these circumstances, that they are very high?
I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is now referring to the next question.
64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, seeing that the rent of the houses provided for ex-service men in Mullingar, under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust, cover the cost of maintenance and administration only, and are only 4d. per week less than the council houses in that town, he can give the reasons for the fact that the maintenance and administration expenses of the Trust are four times greater than those of the council, which have to meet the loan charges on the council houses, whereas the entire erection of the trust houses was met by a free grant?
According to the information in my possession, the average rent of the houses provided for ex-service men in the Mullingar Rural District by the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust is 4s. 5d. a week, whereas the average rent charged for similar post-war houses by the Mullingar Town Commissioners is 6s. 4d. a week; the difference is thus 1s. 11d. a week, not 4d. as stated. I am not in a position to give any information with regard to the maintenance and administration expenses of the Council or the basis on which the rent of the council houses is arrived at.
Will not the hon. Gentleman inquire as to the reason why the maintenance and administration costs are so high as compared with the other council houses?
The question of maintenance and administration of the council houses is a question for the Irish Free State Government; it is not a question for this Government.
Is it not the case with regard to the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Trust?
I could perhaps ascertain that information regarding the Trust, but I could not give a comparison with the council houses.
Chairmen's Panel
reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. James Gardner to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Consumers' Council Bill); and Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Rabbits Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.
Stockport Corporation Bill
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Message From The Lords
That they have agreed to,—
Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Bill, with an Amendment.
Newport Corporation (No. 1) Bill (Certified Bill),
Newport Corporation (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Scottish Central Electric Power Bill [ Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision for the health, local government, and improvement of the borough of Bootle; to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough to borrow money by means of bonds; and for other purposes." [Bootle Corporation Bill [ Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Hastings Tramways Company to run trolley vehicles on additional routes; and for other purposes" [Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Bill [ Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision in regard to the tramway, gas, electricity, and markets undertakings of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Southport; and for the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Southport Corporation Bill [ Lords.]
Newport Corporation (No 1) Bill (Certified Bill)
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.
Bootle Corporation Bill Lords
Hastings Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Bill Lords
Southport Corporation Bill Lords
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Orders Of The Day
Finance Bill
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Clause 1—Increased Excise Duty On Beer
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out"£5 3s. 0d." and to insert instead thereof"£4 0s. 0d."
I desire to offer my sincere apologies to the Committee for daring, at a time when we are about to consider high financial questions which are to be brought before the country, to discuss such a subject as beer. I desire also to apologise to the Committee for the apparent imperfection of the manner in which I happen to pronounce that most delightful name. I will, as far as this afternoon is concerned, attempt to remedy that defect. I also want to apologise to the Committee for introducing a discussion on this great question of beer at a time when hon. Members on that side and on this side are anxious to go and drink some tea. I want also to improve my position with my friends the brewers, for unfortunately, when I was referring to this subject last week, I seem inadvertently to have made enemies of those who I like to be my friends. I trust that when they realise the purpose of the Amendment which I am now moving all enmity will be removed. The object of the Amendment, which stands in my name and in the name of three other hon. Members, is to reduce the taxation on that delightful beverage. Sub-section (1) of the Clause reads:"In lieu of the duty of excise payable in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom there shall, as from the fifteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty, be charged, levied, and paid 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 | 5 | 3 | 0" |
The hon. Member must not elaborate on the question of beer on this Amendment which is to make a reduction from one figure to another.
I was only trying to show that owing to the high Excise Duty which is paid there is some justification in asking for a reduction. In asking for a reduction of taxation in the present financial position of the country I quite realise that it must be a reduction on necessities rather than on luxuries. The point we have to decide is whether beer is a necessity or a luxury.
Both!
The question whether beer is a necessity or a luxury does not arise. The only question is whether the duty is to be £5 3s. or £4. We cannot spend the whole afternoon discussing the question as to whether beer is a luxury or a necessity.
Surely that question is very material in considering whether the duty is to be £5 3s. or £4. If it is a luxury it does not matter so much if £5 is the charge, whereas if it is not a luxury but a necessity surely it makes a difference?
I am asking the Committee to make a reduction in the Excise upon a certain article and I am endeavouring to give the reasons why. If I considered that beer was a luxury I should not make the application, and it is because I consider it to be a necessity to a certain extent that I am moving this reduction. I should like to know whether I can give the reasons why I think beer is a necessity and why, therefore, there should be a reduction in the Excise Duty?
It is not proper to make Second Reading speeches in Committee on a question as to whether a thing is necessary or unnecessary. The point is whether the duty shall be as stated in the Bill or be reduced.
Surely it is in order—
On a point of Order.
I want to say to hon. Members that the Ruling of the Chair must be obeyed.
Surely we are entitled under the Rules of the House to give reasons for moving a reduction, and I should like to press that point as being most important to the Opposition in regard to moving Amendments to the Finance Bill.
The hon. Member has given his reason; it is because he believes it is a necessity that he is moving this reduction.
There are, of course, a great many hon. Members who look upon it as a luxury. I look upon it as a stimulant. There are certain schools of thought who look upon all stimulants as harmful and vicious.
The hon. Member is not confining himself to his Amendment. We are not discussing the question whether beer is a necessity or a stimulant, but what the taxation shall be in relation to it.
Is not the hon. Member justified in putting forward reasons why he thinks a certain article should be more lightly taxed than another, according to the degree of necessity of the article?
I do not think that is permissible in Committee stage. It has already been discussed in the House. The question as to whether beer is a necessity or a luxury cannot be discussed now.
Your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, makes it extremely difficult to give reasons why the Committee should accede to my request. All I can do is to baldly say that I desire to reduce the Excise Duty upon beer from £5 3s. to £4. It is rather difficult to see in what way I can give my reasons why the Committee should do so. As far as I am concerned, I would like to point out that to certain classes of workers, brain workers, tea is a stimulant, and that is why ladies particularly—
I must warn the hon. Member that if he does not keep to his Amendment, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
May I ask how often it is necessary to call a Member to order?
4.0 p.m.
On a point of Order. If your Ruling, Mr. Young; must be taken quite literally, Debate in Committee would mean a series of assertions without any reason being given for those assertions. I hope that hon. Members will be allowed some latitude, to the extent at least of giving their reasons for an assertion which they make to the Committee; otherwise there can be no debate ever in this House.
I am not attempting to confine the debate at all. I am pointing out that, upon a simple Amendment of this sort, it is not necessary to enter into the question of whether beer is a necessity or not.
These duties on spirits, beer and other liquors are higher on those which are considered to be articles of greater luxury, and lower on those which are articles of less luxury, and considerably more in common use. From that point of view, is not the kind of argument used by the hon. Member strictly relevant to the degree of taxation?
I must insist upon my Ruling that we cannot widen out this Amendment into a Second Reading debate. I am afraid the tendency to make Second Reading speeches in Committee is growing on the part of some hon. Members. I do not debar the hon. Member from giving reasons for his Amendment.
On that point, there are quite a number of Members on both sides of this Committee who are endeavouring to make up their minds on the merits of this question. My hon. Friend is trying to show the difference between a necessity and a luxury. If he can convince me and other hon. Members of the Committee that this is a necessity in regard to which my hon. Friend is moving an Amendment, and if I am convinced that it is a necessity, I shall certainly vote for the Amendment. On the other hand, if I am not so convinced, I am bound to hear, and I hope that I shall hear, my hon. Friend's arguments in support of his contention that this is a necessity.
I thought myself that when the hon. Member was addressing the Committee, he was leaving the Amendment and entering into the merits of beer and enlarging the scope of the discussion.
I had no intention of going into the merits or demerits of luxuries or necessities. The sole point of my argument is that to the manual worker beer is a necessity in his life, and he has had to pay, since the War, a heavy rate of taxation. It is in the interests of the manual worker that I want to see some reduction of the tax. I appeal for the workers—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may not believe it, but I myself am not a beer-drinker at all. I say that any man who leads a sedentary occupation would not dare to be a consumer of beer, if he had any thought whatsoever for his own figure. I am pointing out that it is a necessity for the manual worker, and since hon. Members opposite, as students of Karl Marx, hold that it is the manual worker who produces the wealth of the country, I ask them to join with me to see that the manual worker gets fair play in the consumption of his natural and proper beverage, that is, good old English beer.
I shall certainly not incur your displeasure, Mr. Young, by wandering outside the narrow confines of this Amendment. The hon. Member has rightly stated that the purpose of this Amendment is to reduce the Beer Duty to a figure below even what it stood at before it was put up to £5 3s., namely, to £4 per standard barrel. It is quite true, as the hon. Member has said, that there has been a very high increase in the rate of duty on beer resulting from the need of taxation to meet the expenses of the War. Only one reduction in the Beer Duty has taken place, and that was made by a Conservative Government in 1923. We have had five Conservative Budgets during the last five years, and in none of those Budgets has any proposal been made for a reduction of what the hon. Member called "this onerous burden" upon the working man, and I have been unable to find any trace of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member or any of his Friends to any one of those five Budgets.
The hon. Member has proposed this Amendment, he tells us, in the interests of the working man beer-drinker, and he said that if his Amendment were carried, it would be welcomed by everybody. I am quite sure that it would not be welcomed by men whose interests the hon. Member says he is advocating, when they discover what the effect of this Amendment would be, because it is quite certain that such an Amendment would not, except in a comparatively small number of cases, be passed on to the working man. The average reduction would be three-farthings a pint. It would vary from a little under a halfpenny to just over a penny according to the strength of the beer. I do not know whether those for whom the hon. Member claims to speak buy it in pints. I think it is much more likely that they buy it in half pints, and, therefore, if it were bought in half pints, it would be quite impossible that such a reduction as this should be passed on to the consumer. Therefore, the effect would be simply an increase in the already high profits made by the brewers. But there is, of course, one reason which, whatever arguments might be urged in support of this Amendment, would be conclusive from my point of view, and that is the cost of the reduction. The cost would be £20,000,000. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that I could not make such a concession as that. The hon. Member said that certain observations he made upon an Amendment about beer on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution did not meet with the unanimous approval of his political friends in this House, and I doubt very much whether this Amendment will. I remember a speech made by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) during the course of the general debate on the Budget in which he expressed his regret that I had not, indeed, put a figure on beer that would have removed the necessity of increasing the rate of Income Tax. That is all I can say. I said that I should confine myself to the Amendment, and my two main reasons for rejecting it are, that it would not carry out the object which the hon. Member has in view, and the cost of it makes it quite impossible for that concession to be made.May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question upon the points he raised? Is it not a fact that in this Amendment I propose to reduce the duty by £1 3s. and is not that 276 pence, and there being 288 pints in a 36-gallon barrel, would not that mean reducing it by 1d. a pint on the lightest kind of beer, and even more than a penny a pint on the stronger beer?
The hon. Member may rest, assured that the figures I have given are quite correct. The average would be three-farthings a pint. On the stronger beer it would be over a penny a pint, and upon light beers about a half-penny. In the very lightest beers it would be a fraction below that, and I should think—I do not know; I am no authority on this matter—the working man drinks as a rule the lighter beer, and, therefore, he would not get any advantage from the reduced price.
I desire to thank most heartily hon. Members opposite who are so enthusiastic in support of the working classes who drink beer. After 10 years they have opened up. They have discovered that the man who buys beer is buying the Empire—and the Trocadero. If they drink beer themselves as the ordinary working men do, I could understand their sympathy with us. I am a beer drinker, because it is the best drink we have—when it is good. But the people who sell it to us do not make it good. They try to make it pay, which is a different proposition. We are paying for an inferior article to-day more than we ought to be called upon to pay, and, in spite of all the protests of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, people are doing better now out of the sale of bad beer than they used to do by selling decent beer. The profits of the brewer have gone up and the wages of the worker have gone down. Now you want to make beer cheaper. I hope you will.
The only thing that will happen will be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to find money from somewhere. Where is he going to find it? I know where it ought to be found. I know where he can find it, and some right hon. and hon. Members opposite know where it is, because they are taking very great care, as far as they possibly can, to transport it to other countries to escape taxation in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] It may not be in order, but it is true. I represent a constituency where the dockers, the chemical workers and the general labourers like to have their beer when they can get it, and they will not take any dictation from anybody as to whether they shall or shall not have it. But we are not going to oppose the Budget because we cannot get beer under the conditions laid down by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. That Amendment would mean a loss of revenue at a time when we are not able to find money to run the country as we would like to run it. I would like to see the people who brew beer—and there are some of them opposite—having to pay as much as the workman has to pay.The hon. Member at this stage must speak to the text as closely as possible. He is now going into another matter.
The text is beer and the relationship between the man who makes it and the man who buys it. As one of the buyers of beer I think I have a right to suggest, in this connection, that the taxation on brewers ought to be higher than the taxation upon other people who are not doing so well. All our other industries are supposed to be down and out. Cotton, coal, iron and steel and all the great industries of the country are in a parlous condition.
I must point out to the hon. Member that we are not now discussing the question of taxation as between one industry and another or one individual and another. We are confined strictly to the Amendment which is before us.
I am only pointing out the difference between those other great industries and the particular industry to which this Amendment applies. This industry is prosperous but it is the first to grumble about taxation, while there are other industries not so well placed, and heavily taxed, who are not in a position to use influence in the House of Commons with the object of getting their own way. I object to paying 4½d. for a half pint of beer as much as any hon. Member opposite. I suppose they do not object at all because they do not drink beer in the majority of cases at all events. I do not care what they drink as long as they drink it quietly; but they have no right to throw bricks at me, and I am going down to my constituents to tell them that although taxation is heavy we are willing to bear our share. I might remind hon. Members opposite that 66 per cent. of the total taxation of this country is paid by the workers on the things they use. [Interruption.] Where do we get it from? Of course you give it to us, but if we did not work for it, you would give us nothing, and you are doing your best to rob us by means of all your new policies. The bait may be hung in front of us but
and the majority of workers are not going to be "led up the garden" by this policy of reducing the price of beer and increasing the price of everything else. That is what the proposal means and, on behalf of those who drink beer like myself, I enter a caveat against it."in vain is the net spread in the sight of the bird,"
The hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), in his references to hon. Members on this side of the Committee was somewhat irrelevant, but, in any case, there is one matter in which the hon. Member can commend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This Budget, in fact, does increase taxation upon those who brew beer and the hon. Member's wish in that respect is being carried out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not going to ask the Committee to listen to any long arguments in favour of this Amendment. We who brew beer would be very glad indeed if the present Government or any Government saw their way to reduce taxation on beer, because it is undoubtedly a very heavy burden on those who are engaged in the trade, but it is quite hopeless, with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the majority behind him to hope for any such concession. The Government are spending money, and they need money, and under those conditions they will probably increase and not reduce taxation. Therefore, the Amendment is not likely to be accepted, and I rise merely to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the irrelevance of the first reason which he gave for objecting to this reduction.
The right hon. Gentleman said it would not be passed on to the consumer. May I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a previous Chancellor did reduce the taxation upon beer by 20s. per standard barrel, with the result that the price of beer was reduced all round by one penny per pint. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that the brewers themselves would absorb all the reduction of taxation and not pass it on to the consumer? If any brewers did so, their business would be ruined. They would have to conform to the general action of the trade, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be a little more careful and a little more serious in the arguments which he uses in regard to that matter. At any rate, his second argument—that the Government which he represents is spending money, and wants more money to be raised instead of less—is one which cannot be gainsaid, and, in view of that fact, this reduction of taxation, desirable as it is in the interests of the consumers of beer, and in the interests also, I venture to think, of the country generally, is quite impassible. The right hon. Gentleman is bound to resist it with all the force behind him.I am not at all surprised at the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), but he knows perfectly well that, no matter how you try to reduce the price of beer, the brewers' profits grow larger and larger every year. That is one of the problems of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. How can he, even if he wants to do so, reduce the price of beer without giving enormous profits to the brewers who have been gaining steadily in profits ever since before the War. I am disappointed, however, in the reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not accepting the Amendment. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is one of the stalwarts of the temperance movement in this country, and yet his reasons for rejecting the Amendment are, first, because of the cost to the country and, second, because it would not have the effect of reducing the price of beer. I am beginning to see that no matter what Chancellor of the Exchequer we have, they are all afraid of the drink trade, and that is to me a very disappointing thing. Nor am I surprised to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Silver-town (Mr. J. Jones). We know that those who have an interest in drink are not confined to any section of the House of Commons, but are to be found in all sections, and we know perfectly well that the reason why this Amendment was put forward was that if the beer duty was reduced more of it would be consumed. How anybody who has an interest in the country at this critical time can desire to see more beer consumed I cannot conceive.
The hon. Member who moved the Amendment talked about manual workers and brain workers and production. Every person who is fundamentally interested in production knows that during the War we had to control beer because of production, and the country needs increased production now as much as it did during the War. I am tired of all the nonsense that is talked about beer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, and I would ask these Empire-builders who say "hear, hear" to look at what the rest of the Empire are doing about drink. I am disappointed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have given a lead to the country on this matter when asked seriously to reduce the price of beer so that more might be consumed. The men may want that, and the hon. Member for Silvertown may want it, but I can guarantee that the women do not want it.Thank you very much!
The hon. Member for Silvertown—
On a point of Order. Has the Noble Lady got special permission to insult me every time she speaks?
The Noble Lady made a reference to the hon. Member, but I did not think that it was insulting.
The hon. Member for Silvertown is not the only Member of the House of Commons who drinks beer, but he said he wanted a reduction in the cost and that means more consumption—
Nothing of the kind. I want better quality.
This is a very mischievous Amendment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right in saying that no Conservative Government would accept such an Amendment, because when they tried to reduce the price of beer they found that the advantage all went to the brewers. Hon. Members on this side know that in any case the women of the country would not stand it, and I say, frankly, that it is not only the women of the party opposite, but the women of all parties who take that view. I do not think that hon. Members would dare to propose to reduce the price of beer. We sometimes forget that there is a new electorate and that women, at any rate, do not want an increased consumption of drink. I only wish, as I say, that the Chancellor had given a lead and had told the real reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. It is because the country cannot afford to have a higher consumption of beer at this time, in the interests of production. This question of drink cuts across all parties. I have often been laughed at for belonging to the Conservative party which is said to be in favour of drink, but any party when it is in power has its wet section, just as well as the Conservative party, and the only thing is that the Members of our section are more foolish and bring in these ridiculous Amendments.
I think the Noble Lady and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) would not have made the statements which they did make as to my observations on the passing on of the proposed reduction if they had listened a little more attentively to what I said. I never said that a reduction could not be made upon certain classes of beer. My observations were directed to the lighter beers, and I pointed out that in that case the beer was sold in half-pints, and that it would be quite impossible to pass on the reduction.
What I said was that I was disappointed in the Chancellor's reasons for rejecting the Amendment, first, that the country could not afford the amount of the reduction, and, second, that it would not reduce the price of beer very much. I expected the right hon. Gentleman to give a real temperance lead to the country.
In spite of the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the appeal made by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), I think we are fully justified in proceeding with our Amendment. After all, as the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) pointed out, this is a matter in which enormous numbers of people throughout the country are concerned, and it is right that the Opposition, when considering the finances of the year, should place definitely before the country and before the House the main incidents in our financial system and should year after year state the case for the reduction of certain taxes which are heavy burdens upon the public. Year by year we have heard the party opposite, in bygone years, discuss the taxation of tea, sugar and other burdens upon public commodities, and I think we should make a mistake if we allowed ourselves to be deterred from discussing freely the question of reduction in the cost of beer to the consumer or moving Amendments which would have the effect of giving expression to that view. I know the Noble Lady's views—we have been made very familiar with them—but what astonishes me is that she should proceed with unabated, and I might almost say unabashed, vigour in the reiteration of those views, in face of the ghastly muddle which has been made in her own country in the treatment of the liquor problem.
This is not a question of Prohibition—I am not a prohibitionist—but a question of the reduction of the Beer Duty, which has nothing to do with Prohibition.
On a point of Order. Is it in order on this Amendment to discuss the way in which America is dealing with the drink problem? If so, the debate becomes very wide, and there are many sides to this question, and if the whole question of temperance is to be opened up, we shall be debating it all day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not shrink from the issue, but I submit that this is not a suitable occasion on which to raise the whole question.
On that point of Order. I submit that I am following the course of the debate. Once the topic had been definitely raised and admitted to the Floor as part of the discussion, it is intolerable that some Members, on one side or the other, should have a right to air their views and that others should be prohibited from making the necessary reply.
At the beginning of the debate I did my best to intimate to Members that Amendments must be dealt with on their merits, and that the debate must not be unduly widened. This is not the occasion for debating temperance or cognate questions in relation to temperance. However, the remark of the right hon. Gentleman came up, and I do not say, if he goes no further than that, that he is out of order.
I shall go no further than that, but, in reply to the speech of the Noble Lady, I must draw your attention to the fact that upon this question she has told us that whenever there is a decrease in the taxation upon beer, the profits are placed in the pockets of the brewers. I think it fair to say two things about that. First of all, it is not true. It certainly was not the case when the present Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1923 made a substantial reduction in the Beer Duty. There the whole cost, and more than the cost, of the remission was passed on to the consumer. The reduction in the cost of beer to the consumer was substantially larger than would have been warranted by the loss to the Exchequer. In fact, the right hon. Member for Bewdley, as is well known, made an arrangement with the brewers—the same kind of friendly arrangement as the Chancellor of the Exchequer boasted to us he had made in connection with this Budget—whereby, in consideration of a reduction of the national burden, they made a contribution from their own profits in order to give the maximum relief in the cost of beer to the general consumer. Therefore, the Noble Lady is entirely wrong, absolutely wrong—I mean, as wrong as is the difference between night and day—in her statement of facts; but even if it were true that the brewers gained the profits by reductions in the charges put upon beer, it is far preferable that they should get the profit than that the profit should be reaped, as it is in another country, to which I have already referred, by the bootleggers.
At any rate, I must say, from whomsoever we take our guidance on this question, I do not think we ought to take it from the Noble Lady. I do not think she represents at all the point of view which is so definitely expressed and held by the people of this island. The Noble Lady tells us that although the men wish to drink beer and would be glad of some relief in the taxation on beer, the women would be against it. I am not at all sure about that, because my experience has been, in what I have seen and noticed—and here I am entirely in the hands of the Committee, who can judge for themselves as well as I can—that the women do not separate themselves by sex into an entirely different camp from the men, that they are glad sometimes to see that their menfolk are gratified in minor ways, and that it is quite possible that a friendly word from a husband to a wife about gratification for some reduction in the Beer Duty would weigh just as much with a woman as the most enthusiastic temperance speech from the Noble Lady herself. Nothing constitutes a more false view of British society at the present time than the idea that all the women voters are now banded together in order to take up a fundamentally different position on this question from all the men voters. Such an idea is manifestly absurd, and the sooner the Noble Lady clears her mind when she is fundamentally wrong in her conceptions, the sooner will she be able to take not only an engaging but a useful and well-informed part in our debates. On the general question, it has always been considered the right and duty of the Opposition to voice the grievances of the public against—[Interruption]—I am ready to give way, if the Noble Lady wishes to say something.I want to point out that I was right over the Betting Duty, and the right hon. Gentleman was wrong!
I must, on a point of Order, ask your ruling, Mr. Young, as to whether I should be permitted to reply to that intervention.
I am afraid I cannot be responsible for all these interjections. The right hon. Gentleman must not be drawn from the Amendment.
I will forbear. But let me say that it is not only the right, but the duty of the Opposition parties in the House to present to the Government of the day their objections and the grievances which are felt in the country about the burden of taxes of various kinds. This is one which is felt by very large numbers of persons, and we should fail altogether in our duty if we did not join issue upon it. It is not the responsibility of the Opposition to suggest alternative forms of taxation. That is the responsibility of the Government of the day and the majority. The responsibility of the Opposition is to voice public grievances, and there is not the slightest doubt that this is a very great public grievance among great masses of those hard-working, manual labourers upon whose strong sinews and constant, faithful efforts the structure and foundation of this State depend. Those who take the view of the First Commissioner of Works that the first thing anybody ought to do is to run away from manual labour—those who take that sort of view—
The right hon. Gentleman never did a day's hard manual work for his daily bread in his life, and I have done many a thousand. [Interruption.] I may say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as distinct from himself, I have worked, and worked very hard, at manual labour, and what I said the other night was that I did not object to rationalisation, because I wanted hard manual labour to be abolished, and that every man who had the chance always left manual labour in order to follow an occupation that did not involve manual labour.
The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the statement, with some modifications.
No.
He introduced the word "hard."
No.
I have the passage in my mind, but be that as it may, we can quite see why he has no sympathy with the Amendment, which does appeal to the people who are engaged in manual labour.
No. I represent—
Order!
We cannot have this conversation across the Table of the House.
I represent a Division that is made up of manual labourers more than of any other sort of person, and I have never been asked by a manual worker to vote for a reduction in the Beer Duty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have never been asked by a workman to vote for a reduction of this Beer Duty. My constituents want less beer drinking, not more, and would be very glad indeed to see this industry taxed off the face of the earth.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting intervention in our discussion, and naturally I shall observe a very reasonable limitation in following him there, but he has endeavoured to justify the doctrine which he put forward the other night, that it was a right and proper thing for a Cabinet Minister to say he ran away from manual labour at the earliest possible moment. [Interruption.] On the contrary, I have earned my living all my life.
So have I.
And I have never shirked manual work or physical labour.
Have you ever worked for your daily bread?
Certainly, I have.
I am sure the whole Committee will think that this is very unbecoming.
Naturally, I am in the fullest accord with all that you say about the unbecoming manner in which the First Commissioner of Works is conducting himself.
The right hon. Gentleman should not misquote me.
It is not likely to abbreviate our discussions if the First Commissioner of Works imparts so much heat into them.
You are responsible. You are insolent.
If the right hon. Gentleman is so angry, as he clearly is, it is because the remark that he made is one that he knows he ought not to have made.
Not at all.
In the hope of cooling the right hon. Gentleman, let us get back to the impost upon beer. I was endeavouring to conclude when the right hon. Gentleman fell upon me so fiercely. If he likes to come down to the House to delay the progress of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Finance Bill, we cannot be blamed. One of the real and definite grievances of large masses of the people is the way in which the cost of beer has steadily gone up and the quality has steadily declined. It is not true to regard this entirely as a man's question. There are a great many cases where if there were a reduction in the cost of beer no more beer would be drunk by the individual but more money would be taken home and would be available for household expenses. In many cases, that would be so; therefore, the women have an interest as well as the men in this matter.
Moreover, there is an immense improvement towards practical temperance which makes it all the more necessary to reduce the Beer Duty. Anyone who reads the criminal statistics of this country in regard to convictions for drunkenness, fines for drunkenness, crimes resulting from drunkenness and diseases arising from drunkenness, and compares them with the statistics of another country, to which I do not intend further to refer, they will see how thoroughly justified we have been and why there is a steady movement towards the practice of temperance throughout these islands. The cases of drunkenness have been halved since before the War. [Interruption.] I do not agree that it is only lack of money that prevents the working class from getting drunk twice as often as they would do otherwise. I think that is a very wrong reflection upon the character of our work- ing-class population. I agree that the cost of beer and the regulations have something to do with the reduction of consumption, but in the main it is the new interest, the better outlook upon life, the improving education, and the general change in the habits of the community that has had this effect. We have achieved this very important result by departing entirely from the kind of policy of which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division is so keen an advocate. Now that there is this great improvement in the general habits of the people we have an additional reason why the burden upon beer should be reduced as far as possible. I do not believe that any eloquent arguments which the right hon. Member far Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) is likely to use about the cold water cure will alter the facts of the situation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite wrong in his suggestion. If I cannot plume myself upon having reduced the burden upon beer by the reduction of the brewers' credit, on the contrary I recovered £10,000,000, which has been a complete withdrawal from the profits of the brewers.Hear, hear.
The Noble Lady agrees.
Yes, with that.
She is pleased at that. I think she also ought to pay some tribute of gratitude to the brewers who co-operated with the late Government—
The right hon. Gentleman might let me have the benefit of hearing his remarks.
I beg your pardon. I was saying that the Noble Lady might pay some tribute of gratitude to the brewers who co-operated with the late Administration in paying this heavy additional sum into the Exchequer. It was very convenient when it came in. [Interruption.] I raised £10,000,000 in two years. It did not come from the consumer; it was not passed on, because there was no increase in the price. It did not come from heaven; that is quite clear. Where did it come from? It clearly came from the brewing trade, just in the same way that the right hon. Gentleman is now obtaining a large concession from them in the increased tax that he is putting on. Where does he suggest that the money comes from? If you are a brewer and you are going to get something in a particular year to which you have long looked forward, and it is taken away from you by a change in the law, and you have to make good the deficit to yourself, surely that is just as much taxation as an addition to the Income Tax. There is a fundamental vice among many Socialists regarding finance. The right hon Gentleman, apparently, believes that he is going to get this money from nowhere; something for nothing.
As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman has entered into an arrangement with the brewers, very rightly and very properly, following the example of preceding Conservative and capitalist Governments. He has entered into an arrangement with the trade, and is securing from them a contribution in duty towards his Budget, unaccompanied by any passing on of the charge to the public to effect either quantity, quality or price. Thereby, he has established another point of resemblance in method and in outlook which one Chancellor of the Exchequer's policy bears to another. I shall give my vote in favour of the reduction in the price of beer. This is one of the objectives which should be held out in front of the people of this country—a reduction in the price of beer. I would not be afraid to say that on any platform, anywhere, except before some highly selected body of extreme temperance advocates. Reduction in the price of beer is a perfectly legitimate aim and object, and when that reduction is compared with some of the other reductions which the right hon. Gentleman has in view our Amendment is all the more justified, because not only are we proposing something which is greatly desired by very large numbers of people, but we are proposing to give relief to a commodity already far too highly taxed, and we are proposing a relief which, apart from its merits, should be given priority over the £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 of reduction in taxation which the right hon Gentleman has already promised to remit.I do not rise for the purpose of following the right hon. Gentleman in his general remarks upon the temperance question, nor to discuss with him the general aspects of the case, although I remember well that when the right hon. Gentleman stood upon our alliance platform some years ago he did not advocate cheap beer. I rise to deal with the Amendment. The question whether beer is the foundation of the British State is one upon which the right hon. Gentleman has had different opinions at different stages of his career. He professed to tell the Committee the exact truth about what happened in 1923, when the taxation was taken off beer and the price of beer was reduced to the consumer, but he did not tell the whole truth, because although beer was somewhat cheapened to the consumer the brewers saw to it that their profits increased. I do not blame them for it. I am not complaining that the brewers are making their profit, but I suggest to the people of this country that they are unwise to make these large profits for the brewers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he is considering how to raise his revenue, is well entitled to take into consideration the fact that, no matter how high the taxation has been upon beer, the profits of the brewers have been steadily increasing in the post-War years. At the present time, while other trades are notoriously not increasing their profits the brewers, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may do, very consistently make larger and larger profits. This Amendment is definitely to increase the profits of the brewers. I understand that something like an agreement has been reached that the increased Duty is to come out of the profits made by the brewers, and is not to be passed on to the consumers. Therefore, if the increased charge is not to be passed on to the consumers the Amendment seems to me to be unnecessary, and it would serve simply to relieve the brewers. In the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment there was the usual nonsense about beer and the working man. When serious men consider that problem they realise that that is not the sort of talk that the people of this country ought to take into account. The effect and the purpose of the Amendment is to relieve the brewers, and it would have that effect. I have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer on temperance and financial questions. He is unwavering in his views upon this subject, and there is no need for him in every speech that he makes to repeat the whole of his reasons for his attitude towards the liquor traffic. He gave us to-day the financial reasons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot afford to do without the £20,000,000 that he expects to get from this source. Indeed, the criticism I would address to the Chancellor is that he has not increased the tax more. I think he might very well have put it back to where it was before 1923. The revenue did not suffer, the drinkers did not suffer, and the brewers profits were steadily enlarged. 5.0 p.m. I am a little surprised at the attitude taken by the Opposition, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman who has changed the views he held in 1908 when he spoke from the Alliance platform. I rejoice with him at the growing sobriety of the country, and I should have thought he would have recognised it was not only the right and the sensible course, but even the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the tax on these intoxicating liquors as high as he can without injuring the revenge. I suggest this was the attitude Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past took in regard to drink. It is tremendously heavy taxation, but why is it tolerated? [Interruption.] I do not pay this tax. I grow rich by saving up and paying Income Tax. It is because the general sense of the country recognises it is desirable to limit as far as you can the consumption of these liquors. That has been the policy of the country through generations and even centuries, and this high taxation on spirits and liquors is only tolerated, because the general sense of the community recognises you are doing no harm to anybody by these high taxes. I am bound to regret this discussion this afternoon. When it is made the subject of mirth and laughter it is very painful to us who have faced this problem for a long time and who know the bad part drink plays in the social life of the country. I do ask the House of Commons to treat the matter seriously and to realise that this Amendment is not seriously facing the problem. I do not want to get money out of drink, but it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make this tax as high as he can without injuring his revenue, and I think he might have gone even further. I hope there will be no doubt that the Committee will support the Chancellor.I will not enter into the merits of beer drinking, but I support this Amendment. I cannot drink beer, I am not a brewer, and I have no brewery shares. I support the Amendment, which theoretically should commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it upholds a sound principle of taxation, with which I think the Chancellor would agree, that it is desirable to raise as much money as possible with as little hardship as possible to the general populace. The right hon. Gentleman who last sat down mentioned the possibility that the tax might be so high that the revenue would suffer. I suggest to the Chancellor that that is already the case. He may well take a leaf out of the book of industry and realise that profits are got out of a large turnover. In this case, he gets his revenue out of a large output, or should I say input, and should apply the well-known motto of "reduction on taking a quantity." As a financial purist, the Chancellor should have no concern in using taxation as a measure of social reform. He has told us it is his business to provide money for the objects which Parliament has outlined, and for no other purpose. If so, I suggest that this Amendment is worthy of a good deal more consideration than he has given to it, because it is highly probable that far more money would be obtained in revenue were the price of beer cheaper than can possibly be obtained when the price is so high that consumption declines.
It is a point of principle in taxation that the Chancellor should avoid as far as possible hardship to the people. I remember in his Budget speech he said, "I look first to beer." After a hard day's work, there are quite a number of people, very decent citizens, who look first to beer. Last year £76,000,000 was raised from beer. I imagine the number of beer drinkers is about 20,000,000, and they probably pay nearly £4 a year each in duty on beer, which is very excessive from the paint of view of the low-paid workers. I would remind the Chancellor that in the case of an agricultural community where there are no amusements, no cinemas, no relaxation, it is hard luck on a man when he goes down to what is his club in the evening to find that his wages allow him perhaps no more than two pints of beer a week. An hon. Friend of mine said in a previous debate that beer was made up of three things, tax, science, and water, and the greatest of these was tax. I believe it would be worth while the Chancellor making investigations in order to find out whether the revenue would not benefit far more by lowering the price of beer and by allowing people to have what is a harm-lees beverage at a, reasonable price instead of endeavouring by a side-wind to produce what is little less than Prohibition. I want to refer the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the opinions of some of his own friends. This Amendment was raised in practically the same form in the 1922 Budget when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that case, the hon. Gentleman who sits close behind the Chancellor, the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson), in supporting practically the same Amendment as is now being moved, said:At the end of his speech, in a pathetic note, he said:"In 1914 the standard barrel of beer was subject to a duty of 7s. 9d. per barrel; to-day, because of the War, that has been raised to £5 per standard barrel. In the ordinary finance of the working-man that means that the tax on a pint of beer has been raised frfom 0.72d. to no less than 4.16d., and let the Committee reflect what that means. It means that the man who consumes only one pint of beer per day will at the end of the year have paid a tax on it to the sum of no less than £1 13s., and surely, in view of the unemployment and dire distress that are obtaining throughout the country, some relief ought to be given him. This is the workers' Income Tax, and, if relief can be given in respect Of the Income Tax of one class of the community, surely something ought to be done for the working people."
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), in the same debate, said:"If one man meets another and says, 'Are you going to have a glass of beer?' the other has to say, 'I will have one, but I cannot afford to pay for two,' and consequently I must go by myself.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1922; cols. 1996–1998, Vol. 155.]
Another Member of the Socialist party who then sat for Norwich and had been Minister of Labour during the War (Mr. G. Roberts), made this point:"The most important statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made was that if this reduction of 1d. per pint, which the Amendment seeks to bring about, took place, the consumption of beer would only go up 10 per cent. This means that you are going to relieve the beer drinkers of this country, who are, after all, in the great majority manual labourers, of a taxation of nearly nine-tenths of £22,000,000 a year. Where is the mony going to which will be lost to the Exchequer in taxation on beer? It is going to be spent by them more largely on their families."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1922; col. 2022, Vol. 155.]
I will trouble the Chancellor with one more quotation from his friends, a quotation from the speech of the hon. Member who sits for Nottingham West (Mr. Hayday). He said:"While serving as Minister of Labour, it was frequently represented to me by both employers and trade union leaders that one of the great causes of industrial unrest was the high cost of beer in the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1922; col. 2007, Vol. 155.]
Those are speeches from hon. Gentlemen who sit behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not from Members on this side. In the present state of embarrassment in his party, I should have thought that he could ill afford to have made any more malcontents. I therefore suggest to him that a reduction of this tax will be far more likely to bring him an increase of the revenue he wants than an increase and making the price of beer so high. For these reasons, I suggest that he should accept the Amendment."Most of us here perform sedentary duties, but I would ask the Committee to remember the case of the men engaged in the heavy and hot trades of the country. They have been subject to the greatest reductions in wages. In the iron and steel industry, men working about the furnaces have had their wages reduced to almost pre-War level. It is not a sin for a man to confess that three pints of beer a day, according to his inclination, are not more than is sufficient to enable him to get through a day's hard, heavy work in front of the furnaces or down the mine. When, as a reasonable man, that citizen finds himself confronted with the almost impossible price of beer, his discontent does begin to show itself, whether it be in the home circle or at work."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 27th June, 1922; col. 2015, Vol. 155.]
This reduction is calculated on a figure that will undoubtedly be passed on to the consumer. It goes to the consumer, every penny of it; and the consumer in the main is the hard manual labourer. It is a curious thing in this country that the wealthy classes who have sedentary occupations can in the main, without feeling any hardship, be total abstainers. Very few of them are. But the man who is perspiring at his job sweats out certain essential salts which require replacing, and that is why, when a man comes off the ship or from the pit, he wants normally a glass of beer. It is no use saying this would add to the profits of the brewers, because they make very small profits. It is one of the strange things that high taxation seems to add to profits of manufacture. It was not until prohibitive taxation came that brewers made large profits. The same thing happened to the tobacco manufacturers, which illustrates what the Chancellor said, that high taxation stimulates business. It does certainly stimulate profits in excisable liquors. But there was one respect in which that did not happen. That was in the Spirits Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer lost a great deal of money because he came up against the Scots, who were so thrifty that they drank less. The real trouble of high taxation is that it falls so inequitably.
The right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) has really no interest in this matter. In legal circles, if a man raises an action and has no interest in the cause of action, he is thrown out. In the same way, the arguments of the right hon. Member for Camborne should have
Division No. 304.]
| AYES.
| [5.18 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Buchanan, G. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Burgess, F. G. | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Egan, W. H. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Foot, Isaac |
| Alpass, J. H. | Caine, Derwent Hall- | Forgan, Dr. Robert |
| Ammon, Charles George | Cameron, A. G. | Freeman, Peter |
| Arnott, John | Cape, Thomas | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Charieton, H. C. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Chater, Daniel | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) |
| Ayles, Walter | Church, Major A. G. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Clarke, J. S. | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Cluse, W. S. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Gill, T. H. |
| Barr, James | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Gillett, George M. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Glassey, A. E. |
| Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Compton, Joseph | Gossling, A. G. |
| Benson, G. | Cove, William G. | Gould, F. |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Cowan, D. M. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) |
| Blindell, James | Daggar, George | Gray, Milner |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Dalton, Hugh | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) |
| Bowarmah, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Day, Harry | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Dickson, T. | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Bromfield, William | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Brooke, W. | Dukes, C. | Hall, G. H. Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Brothers, M. | Duncan, Charles | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Ede, James Chuter | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Edge, Sir William | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Edmunds, J. E. | Hardie, George D. |
no bearing, as he has no interest in the question because he does not drink beer. He frankly confesses that he gets rich by drinking none, and pays Income Tax instead; I should have thought that he ought to pay Super-Tax as well. It is an unjust tax if a man, by taking no drink, should be in a position to amass wealth; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should seriously consider whether those gentlemen who evade the burden that falls on the poorest classes should be called upon to pay some form of abstention tax. Everyone who does not drink should have to pay £7 or £8 a year for the virtue upon which they pride themselves so much. Then the Chancellor would probably be able to give the unfortunate labouring man who likes his pint of beer some reduction in price. This is a tax which is obviously directed to the consumer, and it is a great hardship. Possibly the Chancellor's arrangements will not allow him to make the reduction this year, but it should be kept in mind, so that the labouring man should be allowed to have this thoroughly sound refreshment.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 169.
| Harris, Percy A. | McShane, John James | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Shield, George William |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mansfield, W. | Shield, Dr. Drummond |
| Haycock, A. W. | March, S. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Marcus, M. | Shinwell, E. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Markham, S. F. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Marley, J. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Marshall, Fred | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Mathers, George | Sinkinson, George |
| Herriotts, J. | Maxton, James | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Melville, Sir James | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Messer, Fred | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Middleton, G. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Hollins, A. | Mills, J. E. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Montague, Frederick | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Morley, Ralph | Snell, Harry |
| Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Isaacs, George | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Sorensen, R. |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Johnston, Thomas | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint) | Mort, D. L. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Moses, J. J. H. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne) | Maylor, T. E. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Oldfield, J. R. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Toole, Joseph |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Townend, A. E. |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Kinley, J. | Palin, John Henry. | Turner, B. |
| Kirkwood, D. | Paling, Wilfrid | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Knight, Holford | Palmer, E. T. | Viant, S. P. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Walker, J. |
| Lang, Gordon | Perry, S. F. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Lathan, G. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Law, A (Rossendale) | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Pole, Major D. G. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Lawson, John James | Potts, John S. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Price, M. P. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Leach, W. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Rathbone, Eleanor | West, F. R. |
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Richards, R. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Lees, J. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Ritson, J. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Romeril, H. G. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Longden, F. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Rowson, Guy | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Lunn, William | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Wise, E. F. |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| McElwee, A. | Sanders, W. S. | |
| McEntee, V. L. | Sandham, E. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Sawyer, G. F. | Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. T. |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Scurr, John | Henderson. |
| Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Sexton, James |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Boyce, H. L. | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Albery, Irving James | Bracken, B. | Colfox, Major William Philip |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Colman, N. C. D. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Brass, Captain Sir William | Colville, Major D. J. |
| Atkinson, C. | Briscoe, Richard George | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. |
| Balniel, Lord | Buchan, John | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Beaumont M. W. | Butler, R. A. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. |
| Berry, Sir George | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holbern) | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. M. (Edgbaston) | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croff | Chapman, Sir S. | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Christie, J. A. | Duckworth, G. A. V. |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Erakine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Savery, S. S. |
| Fermay, Lord | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hoe. Godfrey | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Fielden, E. B. | Long, Major Eric | Skelton, A. N. |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Lymington, Viscount | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis, E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Macquisten, F. A. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Mailtland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Grace, John | Mond, Hon. Henry | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Sueter Rear-Admiral M. P. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Muirhead, A. J. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | O'Neill, Sir H. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hanbury, C. | Peake, Capt. Osbert | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur B. | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Power, Sir John Cecil | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Withers, Sir John James |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter | Purbrick, R. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Ramsbotham, H. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Remer, John R. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. | |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Sir George Penny and Captain |
| Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennall | Wallace. |
| King, Commedore, Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Ress, Major Ronald D. |
Question put accordingly, "That '£5 3s. 0d.' stand part of the Clause."
Division No. 305.]
| AYES.
| [5.28 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gillett, George M. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Charieton, H. C. | Glassey, A. E. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Chater, Daniel | Gossling, A. G. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Church, Major A. G. | Gould, F. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Clarke, J. S. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Capt.) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Cluss, W. S. | Gray, Milner |
| Arnott, John | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Asks, Sir Robert | Cocks, Frederick Seymous | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) |
| Astor, Viscountees | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenook) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Compton, Joseph | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Ayles, Walter | Cove, William G. | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Cowan, D. M. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Daggar, George | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Dalton, Hugh | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Barr, James | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Day, Harry | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hardie, George D. |
| Benson, G. | Dickson, T. | Harris, Percy A. |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Blindell, James | Dukes, C. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Duncan, Charles | Haycock, A. W. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Ede, James Chuter | Hayday, Arthur |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Edge, Sir William | Hayes, John Henry |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Edmunds, J. E. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Bromfield, William | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Brooke, W. | Egan, W. H. | Herriotts, J. |
| Brothers, M. | Foot, Isaac | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Forgan, Dr. Robert | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Freeman, Peter | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton) | Hollins, A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Burgess, F. G. | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Hunter, Dr. Joseph |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Gibbins, Joseph | Isaacs, George |
| Cameron, A. G. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Cape, Thomas | Gill, T. H. | Johnston, Thomas |
The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 175.
| Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint) | Mills, J. E. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Montague, Frederick | Simmons, C. J. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Morley, Ralph | Sinkinson, George |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Mort, D. L. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Moses, J. J. H. | Smith, Tom (pontefract) |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Kinley, J. | Naylor, T. E. | Snell, Harry |
| Kirkwood, D. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Knight, Holford | Noel Baker, P. J. | Sorensen, R. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Oldfield, J. R. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Lang, Gordon | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Lathan, G. | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Palin, John Henry | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Paling, Wilfrid | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Palmer, E. T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Lawson, John James | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Perry, S. F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Leach, W. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Toole, Joseph |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Townend, A. E. |
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Lees, J. | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Turner, B. |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Pole, Major D. G. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Potts, John S. | Viant, S. P. |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Price, M. P. | Walker, J. |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Pybus, Percy John | Wallace, H. W. |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Longden, F. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Watkins, F. C. |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Richards, R. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
| Lowth, Thomas | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Lunn, William | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Ritson, J. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| McElwee, A. | Romeril, H. G. | West, F. R. |
| McEntee, V. L. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Westwood, Joseph |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Rowson, Guy | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| McShane, John James | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly) |
| Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Mansfield, W. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| March, S. | Sanders, W. S. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Marcus, M. | Sandham, E. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Markham, S. F. | Sawyer, G. F. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Marley, J. | Scurr, John | Wise, E. F. |
| Marshall, Fred | Sexton, James | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Mathers, George | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Maxton, James | Shield, George William | |
| Melville, Sir James | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Messer, Fred | Shillaker, J. F. | Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. |
| Middleton, G. | Shinwell, E. | T. Henderson. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Albery, Irving James | Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Buchan, John | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Davies, Dr. Vernon |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Butler, R. A. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) |
| Atkinson, C. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Dawson, Sir Philip |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Duckworth, G. A. V. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. |
| Balniel, Lord | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Berry, Sir George | Chapman, Sir S. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.) |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Christie, J. A. | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fermoy, Lord |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Colfox, Major William Philip | Fielden, E. B. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Colman, N. C. D. | Fison, F. G. Clavering |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Colville, Major D. J. | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Cranborne, Viscount | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton |
| Boyce, H. L. | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) |
| Bracken, B. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Grace, John |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Savery, S. S. |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Meller, R. J. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Mond, Hon. Henry | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Hanbury, C. | Muirhead, A. J. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Nleid, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South) |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | O'Neill, Sir H. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Peake, Capt. Osbert | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Penny, Sir George | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Pilditch, Sir Philip | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer | Power, Sir John Cecil | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Purbrick, R. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Ramsbotham, H. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Lamb, Sir J. O. | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Remer, John R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Llewellin, Major J. J. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Long, Major Eric | Ross, Major Ronald D. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Lymington, Viscount | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | |
| Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Salmon, Major I. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Macquisten, F. A. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Captain Wallace and Sir Victor |
| Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Warrender. |
The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir E. SHEPPBRSON:
In page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
"Provided that a rebate of 10 per cent. is allowed when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Inland Revenue that only British-grown malt and hops were used."
May I ask whether it is your intention to call a later Amendment on almost similar lines?
I am calling the next Amendment, and then selecting one standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul).
My Amendment brings us back directly and at once to our old friend, pure beer. I wish to know whether I have the permission of the Chair to make a slight alteration in the wording of the Amendment. I wish to alter it, so that it would read:
"Provided that a rebate of 10 per cent. is allowed when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Inland Revenue that only malt and hops grown, made and produced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland were used."
That Amendment is not the same as the one which has been handed to me.
In the circumstances, I will proceed with my original Amendment.
Would it be in order if the hon. Member proceeded with his original Amendment and at a later stage were to move an Amendment to the Amendment making the alteration which he has suggested?
I have no objection to allowing the alteration. But the Amendment, as the hon. Member read it out, is not quite in the same form in which it has been handed to me. If he will hand me a corrected copy, I will consider it.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
This Amendment brings us back to the great question of pure beer. The purpose of it is to give a 10 per cent. rebate of duty on all beer manufactured from British-grown malt and hops. As the Committee knows, this is the third time on which I have made this appeal on behalf of the great beverage which we hope to obtain, pure beer. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer is getting very weary of my repeated requests, but I have to assure him that I have no intention of ceasing them, because I have always understood that you only obtain what you want in this life by importunity. Therefore I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall continue my efforts. Like the boy in the soap advertisement, I shall not be happy till I get it. My object is the establishment of a pure beer industry in this country, and the method I have always adopted is that of appealing to the Chancellor to give a slight discount, a slight financial stimulus, to brewers to manufacture beer from these ingredients. The last Amendment was lost, as I expected it would be lost, because its acceptance would have cost the Exchequer a great deal of money. Here I am asking for only a 10 per cent. discount to be allowed on a very small quantity, possibly, that will be brewed in this manner, and therefore the financial consideration to the Exchequer is not very great. By giving this financial advantage to the brewers we are peacefully persuading them to manufacture this beer. This is not the establishment of a new industry; I am moving this Amendment with the object of reviving an old British industry, the making of pure beer from malt and hops. My friends in this House who are brewers, and I have several of them, say to me, "Your scheme is no good. The public would not drink the beer if it were made." My reply to them is, "Just give the public the chance." The reason why it cannot be applied is that in olden times they made beer from malt and hops only, and that was the time when we had pure beer. My reply to that argument is that as far as my experience goes beer is stuff which is made to drink and not to look at. If the brewers are right in their contention that the public do not want pure beer, then I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that no harm would be done, because, if the people would not drink it, the brewers would not brew it, and there would be no loss to the revenue. We have been told that an Amendment of this kind would cost something like £20,000,000 to the revenue, but I do not think it would cost anything like that amount. It seems to me rather strange that whenever we advocate doing something that will give an advantage to British agriculture we are always up against the argument that this cannot be done on account of our foreign trade agreements, which always seem to be made against the interests of this country. I think the Government ought to make a point of studying British industries more closely when making these trade agreements. My first object in moving this Amendment is to secure a good beverage for the consumer. I want to secure what the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) desires, and that is a better beer. My main consideration, in moving the Amendment, is to help British agriculture. When we are consuming a luxury like this so largely, surely we should arrange to do it in such a way as will do as much good as possible to the industries of the country. If a larger quantity of beer were made from British malt and hops, I am sure that it would be a very great help to the agricultural industry, and more especially to arable farming. Since I spoke on this matter last week, I have received a letter from a well-known brewer saying that, if the British farmer would only produce a better quality of barley, he would have no difficulty in selling it to the brewer. I want to increase the demand for the barley which is grown in this country, because it is admitted that so long as we are manufacturing our beer mainly from imported barley and hops we are doing no good whatever to our own people. I contend that the adoption of my Amendment would give a stimulus to British-grown barley and hops. It is deplorable to read of the state of things in the Eastern Counties where arable land is going out of cultivation because barley cannot be sold at a profit. I think the people in our agricultural areas have a distinct grievance against the Government for not taking some steps to deal with this matter. In the interests of the consumers of beer and agriculture generally, I desire to see this Amendment accepted. My proposal simply allows a 10 per cent. discount in order to stimulate the manufacture of beer from British-grown malt and hops. If it turns out that my Amendment would not have the effect which I claim for it, then it will not cost the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer anything. For these reasons, I have great pleasure in asking the Committee to accept the Amendment."Provided that a rebate of ten per cent. is allowed when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Inland Revenue that only malt and hops grown, made and produced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland were used."
We had a long debate upon this question on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution, and, on that occasion, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied at considerable length to the arguments that were put forward. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) says that one of the objects which he has in view in submitting this Amendment is to stimulate British agriculture in the production of barley and hops. May I point out that that is not a revenue reason. I have been criticised during the past two weeks from the other side of the House for imposing taxation with other purposes in mind than purely revenue ones. I think the hon. Member for Leominster rather exaggerates what might be the effect of the adoption of his Amendment in stimulating British industry. There are reasons, though I cannot speak of my own knowledge, which would in any case prevent the brewers using a much larger proportion of British malt and hops than they do at the present time. I understand that there is more sweetness in malt which has been malted from imported barley, and, in order to get the flavour to which beer drinkers are accustomed, it is necessary to use a certain proportion of foreign hops. But, quite apart from that, there is an insuperable obstacle in the way of the adoption of this Amendment, and that is the existence of commercial treaties which in a previous discussion were dealt with at length by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the existence of those commercial treaties makes it impossible for such a proposal as that which is contained in this Amendment to be adopted.
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could he not enlarge a little upon those commercial treaties? Will he tell us with what countries the Government have made those treaties, and what provisions do they contain which restrict our freedom in this matter? Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell us what steps would be necessary in order to terminate those treaties if we so desire?
As I have already stated, that matter was debated at very great length when this subject was before the House during the Report stage of the Budget Resolution, on which occasion my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave a very full account of the special provisions which prevented the adoption of such an Amendment as that which is now before the Committee. I am anxious to oblige the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) as far as possible, and to give all the information which is in our possession on this point. Perhaps I might illustrate my argument by quoting the clause from our treaty with Germany which I believe is a model of similar clauses in treaties with other countries where the same matter is dealt with. It is Article 14 of the German Treaty which provides that:
It is quite evident that the suggestion contained in the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Leominster would be contrary to the terms of the Clause which I have just, read. The hon. Member for Leominster has said more than once that his Amendment would not cost anything to the revenue, but he is quite wrong in that argument, because a very substantial amount of revenue would be involved. The same hon. Member made a speech on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution in support of a proposal to make a reduction of 3s. per barrel where British hops were used in the manufacture of beer and an estimate of the cost was given on that occasion. This Amendment would of course cost more and the best calculation we can make is that the cost to the revenue of this Amendment would be about £5,000,000. Of course, that makes the Amendment quite prohibitive from my point of view."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."
Is that estimate of £5,000,000 based on the assumption that the whole of the beer would be made from British malt and hops? I suggest that in the experimental stages at this proposal only a very small propor- tion of the beer would be made from British malt and hops and, therefore, the cost would not be very much.
6.0 p.m.
Naturally, the amount would depend on the quantity of British malting barley and hops that was used. If the hon. Member's Amendment effected the object at which it aims, it would, I suppose, apply to practically all the beer brewed.
That would mean that nothing but beer made from British materials would be tolerated.
Of course, it is extremely difficult, as the hon. Member knows, to make an exact calculation, because you can take many different bases for the calculation. The maximum cost would probably be about £5,000,000.
There is another very great difficulty in the way, and that is the administrative difficulty. I am advised that it would be quite impossible to carry out this proposal in practice. When the matter was raised in the debate to which I have already alluded, there were Members on the other side who made very light of the administrative difficulties, but I think that on reflection they will agree as to the impossibility of tracing the malt back. It would have to be traced back from the brewer to the maltster, and then from the maltster to the farmer, and probably it would also have passed through the hands of a considerable number of agents and others. I am advised by the Customs and Excise, who, as hon. Members know, have great experience in these matters, that the administrative difficulties would make the working of the proposal impossible. The three reasons why the hon. Member's Amendment cannot be accepted are, first of all, its prohibition by our obligations under commercial treaties; secondly, the cost—and even if it only cost £1,000,000, that is a sum that I could not possibly afford to give up; and, thirdly, the administrative difficulties. For all these reasons I regret that I am not able to accept the Amendment.I think the Committee must have been very interested in the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this Amendment. I may say quite frankly that, if we were going to help the agricultural industry in this country in regard to barley and hops, I would prefer another method. That, however, is not possible, because, under our system, we are not permitted to make any fresh charges, and this is one of the few methods by which His Majesty's Government, with the assent of Parliament, could give assistance to British agriculture. For that reason, even though it may only be a small help, I think it is desirable that we should consider it.
The chief point made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really on the question of commercial treaties, and I think that Members of the Committee must be very much impressed by the fact that apparently, under those treaties, we can give no rebate to any goods or commodities made in this country. That appears to me to be an extraordinary position, deserving the consideration of Parliament as to whether such a state of affairs should not be altered at the earliest possible moment, especially when we see the culminating effect of all our Continental competitors in the matter of cereals, and especially of malting barley. We have seen export subsidies on cereals from different countries, and I believe I am right in saying that at this very moment the Parliament of Czechoslovakia is bringing in an export subsidy on barley, which is going to be still another great competitor with the growing of barley in this country. For that reason I suggest that we should consider the alteration of the whole basis of these treaties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it would be very difficult to carry out any proposal of this kind, and we have heard that argument, not only from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, but from his predecessors in other Governments. I do hope that the Committee will get rid of this idea of administrative difficulties. The whole number of people concerned in the industry of brewing and malting in this country is very small. I have heard this argument so often in the past that I want the Committee to realise that it is grotesque. If it were decided that it was advisable, for some reason or other, to stimulate the percentage of British material used in the brewing industry, the administrative difficulties would not be very great, because the whole of the barley and hops used is bought through, comparatively speaking, very few channels. There may be possibly 1,000 altogether, though I think the number is not nearly so many, but more like 200, while the total number of consumers of these goods, namely the breweries, is also comparatively small. If you can trust the whole of the Income Tax payers of this country to give returns, and when you know that you can check any materials going into the breweries through the limited number of maltsters and hop merchants in this country, I submit that it is really no argument to say that there would be any grave administrative difficulty, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell his advisers that really there is not any. I think that the difficulty has been gravely exaggerated. With regard to the amount of revenue that the right hon. Gentleman might lose, I personally think it is very doubtful, at any rate for some considerable period, whether any large section of the trade would be got to adopt this policy. It would be gradual. In the first place, it would help certain small breweries away in the country, which do not go in for the bottling trade and so on, and which are directly in touch with agriculturists. A few of these would make this attempt for the sake of the advantage that it would bring them. A figure of £5,000,000 is one which we cannot possibly contemplate at the present moment, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly pointed out, most modern brewers find it essential to use a proportion of the sun-dried stuff which comes from hot climates. On the other hand, the new burden imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to be a very serious one for the small breweries scattered about the country. We have heard this afternoon the profits of some of these concerns, but I think that perhaps it may have been forgotten that there have been enormous amalgamations going on, and that these profits are the combined profits of many breweries which have been brought together in this way. It is the rationalisation of which the right hon. Gentleman would approve, and it accounts for a large part of these profits. The share capital of some of these concerns is very similar to what it was at the end of the long period of depression just before the War. Surely, if we can do anything to, shall I say, transfer from the foreigner the custom of the British trade to British agriculturists—barley growers and hop growers—it must assist this country, and ultimately assist the revenue, about which the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned. Agriculture is suffering at the present moment, and, as we learned last week, the Government have no other proposals, so far as I can understand, to deal with the tragic situation of the industry. I urge that this small advantage should be given to British agriculture. If the smaller scattered breweries in the country find that it is successful, it might lead to a great movement for an increased consumption of British products.I rise to support this Amendment in its appeal to the, one might almost say, iron ears of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for help for agriculture, since any efforts from this side to spur on his colleague the Minister of Agriculture have fallen on barren, stony and absolutely unfertile ground. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has envisaged the possibility of this 10 per cent. remission of duty costing £5,000,000, but, if that be so, surely there can be no better argument for passing this Amendment as it stands, because there could be no better proof of the good that it would do to the British agricultural position in regard to malting barley and hops, and it would probably be far cheaper than any subsidy of another sort. If the right hon. Gentleman's calculations are correct, no matter how small the extra benefit to agriculture might be, the loss falling on the Exchequer might easily be made up in increased returns from taxes on agricultural land. I am not at all certain that, if this 10 per cent. were remitted in the case of beer, and put instead on to a tax on the entertainment value which debates on beer in this House appear to afford, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not do equally well.
I cannot help feeling that anything which will help the worker on the land, which will give some chance of the thin end of the wedge in helping to encourage a real effort to brew British beer, is well worth doing. We see the decline in the acreage under wheat, and, while that decline is going on, the acreage under barley is declining also. That shows the depth of the depression. It seems to me to be a very poor argument continually to sit down behind foreign treaties when any effort is made in this direction. I cannot help feeling that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unable to accede to a memorandum put forward by his colleagues, and to thaw the frozen credits of hon. Members whom we see sitting in serried ranks below the Gangway, he might at least gain by throwing liquid assets to the land.I rise because we on these benches are dissatisfied with the treaty position which is so holding back the future advance of British agriculture. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is here this afternoon, and we appreciate his presence, because I am sure it foreshadows his taking part in this debate. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will rise and, in his usual lucid way, will give us an interesting account of the international legal position in connection with these treaties, quoting eminent jurists and international lawyers, and telling us the occasions in the history of jurisprudence in the international sphere when—
I am afraid I do not see any connection between the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the Amendment before the Committee.
I was attempting to point out that, on every occasion on which we ask for something for British agriculture, we are informed from the benches opposite that there is some treaty which stops it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer adduced, as his principal reason for his inability to accept this Amendment, the fact that there were international treaties and conventions which stopped us from achieving our objective, and I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade would be the first to agree with that, because he must be painfully aware that our position is hedged around against our own producers by international conventions and treaties. I think that this is a very suitable occasion, if I may say so, to appeal to the benches opposite for some definite pronouncement as to the occasions on which treaties have been abrogated in the past by foreign nations as between one and another, as I believe, from my studies of international law, that it is possible, if necessary, to revise the treaty position of any particular country with a view to improving the position of the producer at home.
I do not remember since I have been in the House a single occasion when a really comprehensive account has been given of the possibility of the repeal of a Convention, or a Treaty. This is a peculiarly good opportunity for doing so, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will avail himself of it. The other reason adduced for not accepting the Amendment was that the taste of the British beer drinker did not like beer made entirely from British malt and hops. The right hon. Gentleman is, perhaps, not the best person to judge what is the taste of the British beer drinker. I do not think we can look on information coming from that source as reliable. If he would refer to those who are accustomed to drink beer brewed from British malt and hops, he would realise not only that their outlook on the world is healthier but their general complacency is even greater. Those were the reasons adduced by the Chancellor for his inability to accede to our request. I want to bring forward one or two rather important reasons why I think it is essential that something should be done under this head for the producer. The producer on agricultural land has not benefited at all from the Budget, and this is a unique opportunity to introduce a small piece of legislation to assist him. One thing has been brought forward in the monthly notes of the Temperance League, which the right hon. Gentleman is probably in the habit of perusing every month. They refer to the fact that many maltsters are now saying that the effect of this extra taxation upon beer will be that they will have to pay. I have heard from many farmers in the country that the effect of this extra tax will be passed on in reduced prices to the producers, and the producers on arable land are going to suffer by getting an even lower price for their barley. The average price of barley this year was 9s. 11d. a cwt. as against 11s last year, and the average price in November was 8s. 8d., as against 10s. 2d. the year before. There has actually been a drop of 5.5 per cent. in the acreage of 65,000 acres and one can see that the situation is extremely serious. It is the lowest acreage for barley this century with the exception of 1927, which was practically the same. These are extremely serious facts. They would not be so serious if we were offered a policy for wheat growing, but we are not and, therefore, we are obliged to take every opportunity to ask for some slight encouragement. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this very important Amendment.In supporting the Amendment, I disagree strongly with some remarks of my hon. Friend. I do not think I, as a teetotaller, could admit that those who do not indulge in any liquor take a less cheerful and less tranquil view of life. I understand that the consumption of beer is rapidly declining, and the revenue is going down each year. I am very glad. I believe, if there were no liquor or spirits of any kind drunk, we should be a happier, a richer, and a more prosperous nation. In spite of that, I desire to support the Amendment. One remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it necessary for me to intervene in the debate. Whenever we ask for any slight concession to an industry we are told we cannot be met because of some foreign treaty. We are tired of that argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said that the President of the Board of Trade was more conversant with the details of those treaties than he was, and we naturally thought the right hon. Gentleman was not answering the point because he was relying on the President of the Board of Trade to do it. The question we want to ask is, how are we benefited by these trade agreements? In every debate that arises on this question we are told that it would act to the disadvantage of trade and industry, and we should very much like to know how any of these trade agreements that tie our hands act for the benefit of trade and industry.
I was not in when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his speech, but we certainly cannot discuss the relative merits of the treaties referred to. If the right hon. Gentleman adduces as a reason for not doing certain things, the existence of treaties, there it must be left. We cannot discuss the merits of the treaties.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that this branch of his reply dealing with commercial treaties was one that lay within the province of the President of the Board of Trade. We were very pleased to see him in his place, and the impression was universal that we should have an explanation, no doubt very brief, of the difficulties, if any, which would obstruct denunciation of the treaties. I hope we are not going to be disappointed in receiving that statement after our expectations were aroused.
I cannot hold myself responsible for any expectations that the right hon. Gentleman entertains. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly entitled to give the existence of treaties as a reason for not making a concession, but it would obviously be out of order to discuss the merits of the treaties in a debate of this kind.
We are not seeking to discuss the merits of the treaties. We were going to ask the right hon. Gentleman as to the steps it would be possible to take, and the difficulties that would have to be surmounted if we were to sweep away any obstacle imposed by the treaties. That was the point on which we hoped we should get enlightenment from the President of the Board of Trade.
I shall have to watch that very carefully and prevent the right hon. Gentleman if he responds from trespassing too far. I must adhere to my ruling that the merits of the treaty and other things pertaining to it are not in order on this Amendment.
I intervened only to support my hon. Friend's plea that the President of the Board of Trade would meet the general wish. I am sure hon. Members opposite are as eager to hear him as we are. We are entitled to ask for a little further explanation of the manner in which the clauses in the commercial Treaty work, and, if possible, what arrangements could be come to, and how long it would take, to break the Treaties so as to enable us to put ourselves in the position of asking the Chancellor to do something which was possible and which would not run counter to any clause in any commercial Treaty.
I, also, wish to support the Amendment, chiefly with the view to according some help to agriculture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave three reasons against accepting it. The first had to deal with the question of flavour. I certainly cannot feel convinced by that argument. I believe there is nothing produced for consumption which you cannot find some way of flavouring to suit the taste of the public. I would also suggest, as I know the Chancellor is not in favour of any large measure of beer drinking, that, if they are unable to flavour the beer in a sufficiently attractive manner to cause its consumption to be continued, at any rate, he will have the consolation of seeing a very rapid decline of beer-drinking. His second argument had to do with trade Treaties. I can only hope that someone who is versed in the subject will have something to say and, if it is a fact that present-day Treaties prevent the Amendment being accepted, I still hope there may be some other way of conferring the advantage that is sought upon the agricultural industry. I should like to ask where the £3,000,000 which the Chancellor is getting from the brewers comes from. Directly, he gets it from the brewers, but where does he get it from indirectly—I was going to say in reality? It really comes from the agricultural industry. The reason the brewers are able to hand over this large sum of money is that the agricultural industry in this and other countries has been going through such a bad time, and getting such low prices for their produce, that the brewers have been able to make an increased profit.
Therefore, this already depressed industry is really providing the wherewithal of the Chancellor's Budget, and I submit that it is a very cogent reason why he should view this Amendment in a more favourable light. I am sure that hon. Members who sit behind him, some of whom represent agricultural constituencies, will not like to go back to their constituencies and have it explained that £3,000,000, or a considerable proportion of it, comes not out of the brewers' pockets, except indirectly, but out of the pockets of the depressed industry which has been going through bad times for many years. All that the Amendment really asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do is to put back a little of that money indirectly—as it has been taken indirectly—into the agricultural industry. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the matter in that light, and perhaps he will tell us that the matter will be further considered and that he will find whether there is any other way, if he cannot do this, of returning to the agricultural industry this money which has, in fact, been wrung from them.I desire to support this Amendment. The situation of agriculture is serious, and of all the branches of agriculture, the situation of the arable side is the most serious. Indeed, it might be described as becoming desperate. This Amendment would give some small help. The farmer is coming to the end of his resources. Unemployment is increasing very considerably in agricultural districts. There are villages in Lincolnshire and other counties where unemployment has been unknown for years but is now appearing. Therefore, I urge that anything that this Committee can do in order to be of some assistance to the arable districts of agriculture should be done. I should like to add my protest to the protests which have been made by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee in regard to the Treaties. Time and again we come forward with most reasonable proposals which would do a little to help on the industry and we are met by the fact that a Treaty makes it impossible. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be carried, and then we shall be able to realise what the word "impossible" really means. I cannot help feeling that if that were the case, things which we are told are impossible could really be accomplished.
Another reason why I support this Amendment is that it might, in the rural districts, cause a certain reduction in the price of beer. In considering the duty on beer, I have on more than one occasion drawn the attention of the House to the fact that it is a duty which falls with unequal effect on those who have to pay it. It is a tax which falls on all alike whether their earnings are large or whether they are small. It is the way, combined with the Tobacco Duty, in which the working classes make their contributions to the revenue. If you take the case of a man who is earning £4 a week and the case of a man who is earning £2 a week, it is obvious that if they consume the same quantities of beer one will be paying proportionately very considerably more than the other. It is not a fair way of taxing, if one considers the variation in incomes of the working classes. The class on whom it falls most severely are the agricultural labourers in the country districts. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said that it would, in particular, affect the small country brewery, who would be much more likely to take advantage of the concession than the larger brewers who brew for the general taste and who have asserted that it would not make the slightest difference. If we look at it from the point of view of these small country breweries it might result in the agricultural worker—the man who is receiving, perhaps, 32s. or 35s. a week—getting a healthier and a slightly cheaper form of beer. That agricultural labourer is at the moment being unfairly taxed in comparison with the working classes in the towns. A slight cheapening of the price of beer would help to remedy that injustice, and I desire very strongly to support this Amendment.I wish to support the Amendment from two or three points of view. I want to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer first in regard to the cost. One appreciates the fact that, like all Chancellors of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman must look at the question of cost. We are told that it would cost £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year, and I would suggest that the beer drinkers of this country are grossly overtaxed. The tax on beer to-day is ten times what it was in 1914. He should look around and see what tax he could place upon the non-beer drinkers in order to balance that account.
The hon. and gallant Member must keep to the Amendment. This Amendment is both clear and specific. It is whether or not there should be an exemption or a rebate upon home-grown malt and hops, and we must keep to that particular phase.
I accept your ruling, Mr. Dunnico. I will now refer to the question of administration. I believe every brewer has a book in which he enters the different materials he uses in brewing, and, therefore, I presume, he would have to enter different classes of malt. If he did that he would have no difficulty in being able to give a reduction upon the amount of English barley or malt used in the brewing. I am very much interested in hops, the reason being that I represent a constituency where a large quantity of hops is grown. I am interested naturally in the fact that we should like to see much more beer drunk than at the present time.
Oh!
Beer is a very wholesome drink, doing, in the aggregate, no harm to anyone.
If we are going to get this Bill through Committee we must keep ourselves to the specific Amendments before the Committee at any given time. The issue is a very simple one, whether there is to be a rebate upon home-grown malt and hops or not.
I will obey your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico. I should like to take a further point with regard to the effect of the duty upon agriculture. It has been expressed in this Committee to-day that barley growing has decreased because it does not pay, just as in the case of wheat. Barley for brewing has a special claim, because it is necessary that it should be of the very first quality. Ordinary feeding barley which farmers employ for poultry feeding is not suitable for brewing. If a reduction of 10 per cent. is given to the brewers who use English barley, it will be bound to affect the barley growers in this country. I agree that it is necessary, in order to produce the present light ales, to use a certain quantity of foreign malt. One brewer informed me that if the foreign barley was three times the price of English barley, he would have to use it in order to get the proper drainage and character of his beer. At the same time, it is possible to use more English barley if the quality grown is sufficiently good for the purposes of the brewers. Although 10 per cent. may appear to be a very small amount—our ultimate object being a reduction of at least 75 per cent.—it is an instalment which, I hope, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give to us. I am confident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could very easily make up the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 of which he will be short if this Amendment is passed.
Whenever any question of barley is debated in this House, we are always told that the position of the barley grower would be very much better if something was done for wheat. It has been said in this debate that the acreage under barley has gone down very considerably of late years, but it is rather a significant fact that in the county from which I come and have the honour to represent here—Norfolk—our barley acreage has hardly gone down at all. I will explain to the Committee the reason for it still retaining its former acreage. It is a very simple one. There is a great deal of land there which is incapable of growing wheat and it can only successfully grow, among the more valuable cereals, a crop of barley. Therefore, this Amendment to assist the barley grower is of great importance indeed to the Norfolk farmer. All these objections, such as the Treaties and the administrative difficulties, seem to be so petty when one considers the case of the Norfolk farmer. I have lived in Norfolk all my life, and when I go home every week-end I hear that some other good man has gone down and is going bankrupt. It is the most pitiful tale that one can imagine. I come back here and hear speeches from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which suggest that these ills can be cured by canning plums or something of that sort. This is all very well. There is going to be a most serious state of affairs. Here is a chance where the right hon. Gentleman can do a little to show his sympathy for a very small and tried body of men. I hope that he will get away from this question of putting it off because of Treaties and of administrative difficulties, and will really show the country that he sympathises with these poor farmers by making this small concession.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must admit, has dealt with this Amendment in a calm and courteous manner, which gave pleasure to those who heard him and is an encouragement to us from the point of view of our relations during the discussion of this lengthy and complicated Bill. I hope that he will persist in this great improvement on previous examples which he has given. But if the right hon. Gentleman's speech was an improvement in manner, he fell into errors of logic which were really quite painful. First of all, he fell a victim to the desire to use all the arguments on all sides of a subject at once. What were the two main arguments he put forward against this proposal? The first argument was that the flavour of the beer would be so prejudicially affected, although in this matter he was careful to tell us that he could only speak from hearsay evidence, that it would not be consumed to any extent and that the brewers, consequently, would not avail themselves of the facilities given by the Amendment.
That was his first argument, a perfectly solid argument. But the next moment he told us that the total cost of this concession to the revenue would be no less than £5,000,000 a year, so that apparently a change of which very few people would take advantage would inflict this enormous injury to the revenue. We, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the basis of his estimate of £5,000,000, and he proceeded to say that he was taking the entire consumption of beer at its present rate of consumption, which was being manufactured from purely British materials, and that then the loss would be £5,000,000. A few sentences before he told us that owing to the deterioration in the flavour the concession would hardly be utilised at all. Really, the right hon. Gentleman must not lose hold of the firm foothold of logical argument at this early stage in our discussions and attempt to use two contradictory arguments at once. However benevolently represented in his speech it does not lead to clarity in our debates. The other argument he used against this Amendment left me comparatively calm. He spoke of the administrative difficulties. We have heard of these administrative difficulties until we are sick and tired of them. I remember the days, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman does also, when first I came into this House that it was the custom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it was administratively impossible to graduate the Income Tax. I remember well how I was shown sure and definite reasons, statements and arguments of the highest authority to prove that it had been found impossible to impose a duty on silk. Events have shown by actual experience and practice that when these difficulties are boldly faced and vigorously tackled, the administrative obstacles are often surmounted. The flexibility and experience of the Customs Department is extraordinary. I do not know any branch in which the officials are more capable of addressing themselves to new situations and assisting their political chiefs in finding a solution. I cannot for a moment accept the theory that the administrative difficulties are in themselves sufficient to turn down this proposal, even if it were desirable upon other grounds. At any rate, I am quite sure that the administrative difficulties which stand in the path of this Amendment are incomparably less than the administrative difficulties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to face in the land legislation he proposes to introduce. What is the remaining argument of the right hon. Gentleman? It is the old argument of the Treaties. That argument may perfectly well be adduced by the Government for not accepting the Amendment, but it cannot be adduced as any reason why we should not move the Amendment, and our moving this Amendment implies that we desire the Government to take all the necessary steps to give effect to it, including, as a sequence, an alteration or modification of such Treaties as exist. The right hon. Gentleman read a Clause from the Anglo-German Treaty. I presume it was the Treaty for which we were responsible. It was framed by the last Labour Government, which we took up and carried through the moment we accepted office five years ago. On the face of it, that Clause would seem very sweeping, but it may well be found that it does not cover all the points. At any rate, we discriminated against the foreigner in respect of home-grown sugar, and we discriminated against the foreigner in regard to home-grown tobacco, to Empire-grown tobacco and to Irish tobacco; and very great benefits have followed from it. The consumption of this cheaper Colonial tobacco has enabled poorer people who never smoked them before to smoke cigarettes, and it may turn out that British beer produced from British materials, if given the advantage of this rebate, would be cheaper than any other beer brewed in this country, and that, in consequence, some of the poorest people who now buy a glass of beer would be able to obtain it for a lesser sum and have a larger proportion of their weekly wage to take home. It has worked out in regard to Empire tobacco, and I do not see why the same principle should not be applied to beer produced from home-grown materials. The President of the Board of Trade is in his place at the moment, and I trust that he will explain why it is that if we are able to make this discrimination in respect of tobacco and sugar we are not able to make a similar discrimination in the case of the materials for home grown beer? This is just the occasion for the President of the Board of Trade to make one of those excellent speeches, very long, very careful and very lucid speeches, delivered without a note and often without a point. His talents could not be better employed than in illuminating this matter. This is a modest proposal but, nevertheless, a serious one, and I cannot see why it should be brushed aside. Unquestionably, the barley growers would gain a benefit. It would not be large, and would not cost the revenue very much, but they would gain a benefit. It would also be an encouragement to a large number of agriculturists, for the Government would thus take their first step, a small one, towards showing that they recognise that an agricultural problem exists in this country and that they are well disposed towards the rural community. The only conceivable sufferers would be the revenue in the event of it succeeding, but, as has been pointed out already, in proportion as the policy of the Amendment succeeded in that very proportion there would be a revival of barley growing which would more than compensate for any loss to the Exchequer. I will not stand any longer between the Committee and the President of the Board of Trade, whom, I am sure, we are all desirous of hearing.I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted by the Committee. It is not designed to help the barley growers. Hon. Members who have supported it are much more concerned about the beer interest. If they really thought about agriculture they would tell the farmers in which way they can really make money, that is by going in for dairy farming and fruit farming. I know something about dairy farming, perhaps rather more than some hon. Members in the Committee who are interrupting—
On a point of Order. May I say that I am the proud possessor of a dairy farm.
And I am interested in a dairy farm which is second in the production of Grade A milk in England. If hon. Members had any real interest in agriculture they would encourage farmers to go in for dairy farming and fruit farming on a larger scale. In going through Kent I have noticed how many hop fields are being turned into fruit-growing fields. Hon. Members are not thinking about agriculture, but about beer, more beer, and cheap beer. I shall vote against the Amendment. I do not think it is an honest attempt to help the farming industry, but an attempt to get more beer and cheap beer. [An HON. MEMBER: "And British beer!"]
Division No. 306.]
| AYES.
| [7.0 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Foot, Isaac |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Forgan, Dr. Robert |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Caine, Derwent Hall- | Freeman, Peter |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Cameron, A. G. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Cape, Thomas | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) |
| Arnott, John | Charieton, H. C. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Chater, Daniel | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Church, Major A. G. | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Ayles, Walter | Clarke, J. S. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Cluse, W. S. | Gill, T. H. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Gillett, George M. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Glassey, A. E. |
| Barr, James | Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock) | Gossling, A. G. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Compton, Joseph | Gould, F. |
| Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Cowan, D. M. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) |
| Benson, G. | Daggar, George | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Dalton, Hugh | Granville, E. |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Gray, Milner |
| Blindell, James | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Day, Harry | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Dickson, T. | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Dukes, C. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Bromfield, William | Duncan, Charles | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bromley, J. | Ede, James Chuter | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Brooke, W. | Edge, Sir William | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
| Brothers, M. | Edmunds, J. E. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Badwellty) | Harbord, A. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hardie, George D. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Egan, W. H. | Harris, Percy A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Elmley, Viscount | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Burgess, F. G. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
We should do everything we can to encourage farming which will help the country as a whole, and not one particular section of the industry. The Amendment asks the Government to encourage the one thing upon which it has to pass restrictive legislation.
We cannot discuss that topic on this Amendment.
We have heard a great deal about it to-day.
We cannot discuss that aspect of the question at this moment on this Amendment.
I accept your ruling, but I am a little disappointed that hon. Members who know a great deal about agriculture should bring forward an Amendment like this which has really nothing to do with agriculture and is solely in the interest of the brewing industry.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided Ayes, 292; Noes, 166.
| Haycock, A. W. | March, S. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Hayday, Arthur | Marcus, M. | Shinwell, E. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Markham, S. F. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Marley, J. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Marshall, Fred | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mathers, George | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Matters, L. W. | Sinkinson, George |
| Herriotts, J. | Maxton, James | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth) | Melville, Sir James | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Messer, Fred | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Millar, J. D. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Hollins, A. | Montague, Frederick | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Morley, Ralph | Snell, Harry |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Sorensen, R. |
| Isaacs, George | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Stephen, Campbell |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Molt, D. L. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) | Moses, J. J. H. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Muff, G. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Naylor, T. E. | Sullivan, J. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Oldfield, J. R. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Athford) | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Palin, John Henry | Toole, Joseph |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Palmer, E. T. | Townend, A. E. |
| Kinley, J. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Kirkwood, D. | Perry, S. F. | Turner, B. |
| Knight, Holford | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Lang, Gordon | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Viant, S. P. |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Walkden, A. G. |
| Lathan, G. | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Walker, J. |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Pole, Major D. G. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Potts, John S. | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Lawrence, Susan | Price, M. P. | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor |
| Lawson, John James | Pybus, Percy John | Watkins, F. C. |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Leach, W. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Richards, R. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Lees, J. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Ritson, J. | West, F. R. |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Romeril, H. G. | White, H. G. |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Longden, F. | Rowson, Guy | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Lowth, Thomas | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Lunn, William | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Sanders, W. S. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Sandham, E. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| McElwee, A. | Sawyer, G. F. | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| McEntee, V. L. | Scurr, John | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Sexton, James | |
| Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. |
| Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Shield, George William | Paling. |
| Mansfield, W. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Brass, Captain Sir William | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer |
| Albery, Irving James | Briscoe, Richard George | Cobb, Sir Cyril |
| Atkinson, C. | Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Colfox, Major William Philip |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Buchan, John | Colman, N. C. D. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Buckingham, Sir H. | Colville, Major D. J. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Courtauld, Major J. S. |
| Balniel, Lord | Burton, Colonel H. W. | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Butler, R. A. | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Castle Stewart, Earl of | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cazalet, Captain victor A. | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey |
| Boyce, H. L. | Chapman, Sir S. | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) |
| Bracken, B. | Christie, J. A. | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hurd, Percy A. | Savery, S. S. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Lamb, Sir J. O. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Somerset, Thomas |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Long, Major Eric | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Lymington, Viscount | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Mond, Hon. Henry | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Muirhead, A. J. | Train, J. |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Grace, John | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'tld) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Peake, Capt. Osbert | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Purbrick, R. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Ramsbotham, H. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Withers, Sir John James |
| Haslam, Henry C. | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Remer, John R. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | |
| Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Ross, Major Ronald D. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Sir George Penny and Sir Victor |
| Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Warrender. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
Division No. 307.]
| AYES.
| [7.10 p.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Albery, Irving James | Colfox, Major William Philip | Grace, John |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Colman, N. C. D. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Atkinson, C. | Colville, Major D. J. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cranborne, Viscount | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) |
| Balniel, Lord | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Dalkeith, Earl of | Haslam, Henry C. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) |
| Boyce, H. L. | Davies, Dr. Vernon | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Bracken, B. | Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Dawson, Sir Philip | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Hurd, Percy A. |
| Buchan, John | Eden, Captain Anthony | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Elliot, Major Walter E. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Lamb, Sir J. O. |
| Butler, R. A. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Lambert, Rt. Hen. George (S. Molton) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Fielden, E. B. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Leighton, Major B. E. P. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Long, Major Eric |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Ganzoni, Sir John | Lymington, Viscount |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) |
| Chapman, Sir S. | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Macquisten, F. A. |
| Christie, J. A. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. |
The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes 285.
| Marjoribanks, E. C. | Ross, Major Ronald D. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Rothschild, J. de | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Mond, Hon. Henry | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Train, J. |
| Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Muirhead, A. J. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Savery, S. S. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Skelton, A. N. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Peake, Capt. Osbert | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Penny, Sir George | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Smithers, Waldron | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Somerset, Thomas | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Pownall, Sir Assheton | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) | Withers, Sir John James |
| Purbrick, R. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Pybus, Percy John | Southby, Commander A. R. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Ramsbotham, H. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Rawson, Sir Cooper | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Reid, David D. (County Down) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) | |
| Remer, John R. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Captain Margesson and Captain |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. | Wallace. |
| Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Thomson, Sir F. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Duncan, Charles | Isaacs, George |
| Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Ede, James Chuter | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Edge, Sir William | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Edmunds, J. E. | Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) |
| Arnott, John | Egan, W. H. | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Elmley, Viscount | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Ayles, Walter | Foot, Isaac | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Forgan, Dr. Robert | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Freeman, Peter | Kennedy, Thomas |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. |
| Barr, James | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Kinley, J. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Kirkwood, D. |
| Bellamy, Albert | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn) | Knight, Holford |
| Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lang, Gordon |
| Benson, G. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Gibbins, Joseph | Lathan, G. |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Blindell, James | Gill, T. H. | Law, A. (Rossendale) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Gillett, George M. | Lawrence, Susan |
| Bowen, J. W. | Glassey, A. E. | Lawson, John James |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gossling, A. G. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Gould, F. | Leach, W. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Bromfield, William | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
| Bromley, J. | Gray, Milner | Lees, J. |
| Brooke, W. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Brothers, M. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Groves, Thomas E. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Longden, F. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Lowth, Thomas |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Lunn, William |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Cameron, A. G. | Harbord, A. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Cape, Thomas | Hardie, George D. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Harris, Percy A. | McElwee, A. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | McEntee, V. L. |
| Chater, Daniel | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Church, Major A. G. | Haycock, A. W. | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Hayday, Arthur | MacNeill-Weir, L. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hayes, John Henry | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) | Mansfield, W. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.) | March, S. |
| Compton, Joseph | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Marcus, M. |
| Cowan, D. M. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Markham, S. F. |
| Daggar, George | Herriotts, J. | Marley, J. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Marshall, Fred |
| Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Mathers, George |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hoffman, P. C. | Matters, L. W. |
| Day, Harry | Hollins, A. | Maxton, James |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hopkin, Daniel | Melville, Sir James |
| Dickson, T. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Messer, Fred |
| Dukes, C. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Montague, Frederick |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Morley, Ralph | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Toole, Joseph |
| Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Sanders, W. S. | Townend, A. E. |
| Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sandham, E. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Mort, D. L. | Sawyer, G. F. | Turner, B. |
| Moses, J. J. H. | Scurr, John | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Muff, G. | Sexton, James | Viant, S. P. |
| Naylor, T. E. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Walkden, A. G. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Walker, J. |
| Oldfield, J. R. | Sherwood, G. H. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Shield, George William | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Watkins, F. C. |
| Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Shillaker, J. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline). |
| Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | Shinwell, E. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Palin, John Henry | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Palmer, E. T. | Simmons, C. J. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Perry, S. F. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Sinkinson, George | West, F. R. |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Phillips, Dr. Marion | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | White, H. G. |
| Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Pole, Major D. G. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Potts, John S. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Price, M. P. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Snell, Harry | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Rathbone, Eleanor | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Richards, R. | Sorensen, R. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Stamford, Thomas W. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Stephen, Campbell | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Ritson, J. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Strauss, G. R. | |
| Romeril, H. G. | Sullivan, J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Sutton, J. E. | Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. |
| Rowson, Guy | Taylor, H. A. (Lincoln) | Paling. |
| Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, amicably but pointedly, does he really suppose that he will facilitate and abbreviate the passage of this Bill by moving the Closure, as he has moved it, at a time when we were expecting to hear from the President of the Board of Trade a statement on the matter under discussion, when we had every reason to believe that the President of the Board of Trade was willing to take part in the discussion, and when my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Labour, who had not taken part in the discussion, had risen for the purpose of addressing the Committee? It would not be in order to say anything which would reflect upon the decision to which the Committee came, or to which you, Mr. Dunnico, came, but it is distinctly in order for me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does he really imagine that he can succeed by these methods with this enormous Bill, with its 50 or 60 complicated Clauses, presenting hundreds of opportunities on which the opinion of the Committee may be obtained by Division and may be compelled to be obtained only by Division? Does he really imagine that he can get this Measure through by proceeding, from the very beginning, with fixed bayonets against its opponents? I paid the right hon. Gentleman a compliment but, I fear, I was precipitate, because he very rapidly, after some smooth words, relapsed to the roughest manner of treatment and he has carried his programme, so far, by means of the Closure. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that even at this stage it would be well to realise that patience and tact are indispensable qualities in a Minister when debating great legislative proposals. I have always held that no man can be responsible for the conduct of a great legislative Measure through the House of Commons, without revealing to Parliament his strength and his weakness, his character and his limitations. The right hon. Gentleman is now at the beginning of one of the most controversial Budgets ever introduced in this Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly, because class legislation and vote-catching opportunism of the most flagrant character represent the spirit of this legislation. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to help himself by this display of petulance and impatience which leads him to intervene with the brute force of a majority? Anyone who possesses a majority can use it against their political opponents. That is quite true, but never do I remember an occasion when I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in charge of a debate of this kind, practically snubbed and brushed aside my own colleague the President of the Board of Trade and prevented him from addressing the Committee on a point on which the Committee were most anxious to hear his views. It is as a protest against the action of the right hon. Gentleman in preventing us from hearing the explanation of the President of the Board of Trade, and in closuring my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), that I move this Motion.It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair whether to accept such a Motion or not. I propose to put the Question because it may be conducive to good feeling, and promote a friendly understanding, as far as possible, between all sections of the Committee. But I must in the interests of the Chair make it plain that the Closure can be moved by any Member of the Committee, but the acceptance of the Closure is exclusively the responsibility of the Chair. Therefore, while I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to say what he has said because I take it that no reflection was intended or cast upon the Chair, I desire to have a proper understanding, and to make it perfectly clear that the sole responsibility for the acceptance of the Closure in these debates rests with the Chair.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has taken a most unprecedented course. He must, indeed, have a very short memory if he thinks that the action taken by me this afternoon is something unprecedented, in view of the tyranny which we had to suffer under from 1924 onwards. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I value his commendation and his compliments, just as much as I regard and value his criticism. I attach just as much importance to the one as to the other. The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade had not responded to his request that he should explain the full operation and the provisions and conditions attaching to certain Duties. I gave all the explanation that was necessary in regard to that matter, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was not called upon to intervene in the debate.
In regard to the question of moving the Closure, may I remind the Committee that we have now been sitting for nearly four hours, and we have discussed only two Amendments, both of which were repetitions of Amendments debated at great length and decided by the Whole House during the Report stage of the Financial Resolutions of the Budget. I am anxious to carry with me at all times the good will of the Committee, but I am obliged to use the resources that are available to me for making progress with the Bill. The Committee knows that the time that we can give to a Finance Bill on the Floor of the House is very limited, and that certain stages must be passed by prescribed dates under Act of Parliament, and we have always to bear that important consideration in mind. The right hon. Gentleman complained that I moved the Closure when the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) was upon his feet. The hon. Member who had just sat down rose, with only one other speaker, and it had become quite evident that the debate was coming to a conclusion. As a matter of fact, I did not see the right hon. Member for Tamworth rise to speak. I do not know that I can say anything more in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to use the Closure more than is necessary, but I must say, with regard to the rate of progress this afternoon upon two Amendments, which had been discussed previously for hours, that if we are not going to make better progress than that, I do not see how I shall be able to get my Bill through before the statutory time elapses.I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the discussions on the Resolutions on which the Finance Bill or any other Bill is founded are to limit the discussions in Committee on that Bill. The Resolutions are intended to limit the scope of the Bill, to fix a limit beyond which it cannot go in the expenditure of money or the imposition of taxation, but they were never intended, and never has it been pleaded before, that they should be used as a reason for burking proper and full discussion of a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is equally mistaken in supposing that he is following a normal course or that he can cite precedents. I doubt if he can cite a single precedent for his conduct on this Bill this afternoon. Of all Bills before the House, responsible Ministers have been most reluctant to closure Budget Bills, for the obvious reasons that they impose charges and that it is the right and the duty of this House to examine fully and carefully the incidence of such charges.
It is, of course, true that in spite of that reluctance the Closure has often been moved, that Ministers have found it necessary, or have thought it necessary, to move the Closure on a particular Amendment, but can the right hon. Gentleman find any one of his predecessors who has celebrated the first day's discussion in Committee by moving the Closure on the first two Amendments? If that be taken as a sample of the consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has for the rights of this Committee and of the temper in which he is going to conduct this lengthy and intricate Bill, I think my right hon. Friend beside me was speaking sound doctrine and giving, if I may say so, good and even friendly advice to the Chancellor when he appealed to him to be a little more patient and not so hasty to have recourse to the club with which to beat us over our heads. He complains that this tyranny—I use his own word—has been used before. We shall know that it is in further pursuance of the same tyranny, and that it is in pursuance of a policy of tyranny, if the right hon. Gentleman rises to move the Closure again. He admits that it is tyranny—it is his own word—but he pleads that the time necessitates its use. He says that certain dates are fixed by Statute for the Budget, but that has
Division No. 308.]
| AYES.
| [7.40 p.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel. | Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Betterton, Sir Henry B. |
| Albery, Irving James | Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Boothby, R. J. G. |
| Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Balniel, Lord | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft |
| Astor, Viscountess | Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart |
| Atkinson, C. | Beaumont, M. W. | Boyce, H. L. |
applied to all Budgets for many years past, and not one of his predecessors has thought it necessary to open the discussion as he has done to-day; and they have not been sufferers on that account. The right hon. Gentleman is under no greater necessity than they were.
It has been the custom, with a reasonable limit of time after the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, to take the Committee stage de die in diem, generally three, at least two or three, days a week. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to put it down for one day, and then to adjourn further discussions till the next week or for a fortnight, he can plead the dates of the Statute with greater force still, and if he delays discussions until immediately before the first of those dates, he can then appeal to the necessities of the Statute, say that he must have the whole Budget that night, and proceed to move the Closure without limit and without discussion. Really, that is not a wise way of proceeding. It is not the way which promotes or preserves good feeling in the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, of all men, having regard to what has passed, needs to show some consideration for his opponents if he hopes for a smooth or reasonable passage for his Bill. If he sets out at the very opening of the discussion to prove that he intends to ride roughshod over the feelings of the minority, that minority will take the course which is open to them to resist the tyranny which it is the avowed purpose of the right hon. Gentleman to practise. I call the attention of the Committee again to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately set out on a policy which he himself describes as tyranny, and I say that that is an abuse of the forms of the House.
Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 280.
| Bracken, B. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Purbrick, R. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Han. Sir John | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gower, Sir Robert | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Grace, John | Remer, John R. |
| Buchan, John | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Butler, R. A. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Cattle Stewart, Earl of | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Haslam, Henry C. | Savery, S. S. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Smithers, Waldron |
| Christie, J. A. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Hurd, Percy A. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Train, J. |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Long, Major Eric | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Macquisten, F. A. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Making, Brigadier-General E. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Wintorton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Muirhead, A. J. | Withers, Sir John James |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Womersley, W. J. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Peake, Capt. Osbert | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | |
| Forestler-Walker, Sir L. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Captain Margesson and Captain |
| Wallace. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Caine, Derwent Hall- | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Cameron, A. G. | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Cape, Thomas | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gill, T. H. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Charieton, H. C. | Gillett, George M. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Chater, Daniel | Glassey, A. E. |
| Arnott, John | Clarke, J. S. | Gossling, A. G. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Cluse, W. S. | Gould, F. |
| Ayles, Walter | Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.) |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley | Compton, Joseph | Granville, E. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Cowan, D. M. | Gray, Milner |
| Barr, James | Daggar, George | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Dalton, Hugh | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) |
| Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Benson, G. | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Day, Harry | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Blindell, James | Dickson, T. | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Dukes, C. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Duncan, Charles | Harbord, A. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Ede, James Chuter | Hardie, George D. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Edge, Sir William | Harris, Percy A. |
| Bromfield, William | Edmunds, J. E. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Bromley, J. | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville |
| Brooke, W. | Egan, W. H. | Haycock, A. W. |
| Brothers, M. | Elmley, Viscount | Hayday, Arthur |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Foot, Isaac | Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.) |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Forgan, Dr. Robert | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Buchanan, G. | Freeman, Peter | Herriotts, J. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth) |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Hollins, A. | Matters, L. W. | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Maxton, James | Sinkinson, George |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Melville, Sir James | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Messer, Fred | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Montague, Frederick | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Isaacs, George | Morley, Ralph | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Snell, Harry |
| Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Sorensen, R. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Mort, D. L. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Moses, J. J. H. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Muff, G. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Oldfield, J. R. | Sullivan, J. |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Kinley, J. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Kirkwood, D. | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Knight, Holford | Palin, John Henry | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Paling, Wilfrid | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow) |
| Lang, Gordon | Perry, S. F. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Lathan, G. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Toole, Joseph |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Phillips, Dr. Marion | Townend, A. E. |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Lawrence, Susan | Pole, Major D. G. | Turner, B. |
| Lawson, John James | Potts, John S. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Price, M. P. | Viant, S. P. |
| Leach, W. | Pybus, Percy John | Walkden, A. G. |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Walker, J. |
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Richards, R. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lees, J. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wellhead, Richard C. |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Ritson, J. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Romeril, H. G. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Longden, F. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Rothschild, J. de | West, F. R. |
| Lowth, Thomas | Rowson, Guy | Westwood, Joseph |
| Lunn, William | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) | White, H. G. |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Sanders, W. S. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| McElwee, A. | Sandham, E. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| McEntee, V. L. | Sawyer, G. F. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| MacLaren, Andrew | Scurr, John | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Sexton, James | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| MacNeill-Weir, L. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Mander, Geoffrey le M. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Mansfield, W. | Sherwood, G. H. | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| March, S. | Shield, George William | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Marcus, M. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | |
| Markham, S. F. | Shillaker, J. F. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Marley, J. | Shinwell, E. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles |
| Marshall, Fred | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) | Edwards. |
| Mathers, George | Simmons, C. J. |
I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
I cannot pretend that this Amendment is likely to give rise to any of the interesting and exciting topics for discussion which arose on the previous Amendments. Nevertheless, it deals with a matter of considerable substance and importance. I frankly confess that I move the omission of this Sub-section primarily for the purpose of getting a detailed explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the Sub-section is necessary. It depends on whether that explanation is forthcoming and is satisfactory whether it will be necessary to press the Amendment to a Division. I want to utter a protest, not for the first time, against the increasing practice of legislation by reference. We have in this Sub-section a somewhat glaring example of legislation by reference, because it reads as follows:On turning to Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1925, I find that it is a very long and complicated Section, occupying the best part of two pages in the Statute. It is a very technical and complicated Section in many respects. Surely, it is not suggested that the whole of Section 7 of the Act of 1925 is applicable to this particular Sub-section in the present Finance Bill. If it is only certain parts of Section 7 which it is desired to incorporate in the Finance Bill, I submit that it is an outstanding example of very loose and careless drafting that the particular portions of Section 7 should not be set out in this Bill, in order that we may know what it is proposed to incorporate. This Sub-section is only a single reference, but in other Clauses of the Bill there are many instances of similar legislation by reference. In some instances there are two references in the same Clause. I would call the attention of the Financial Secretary to Clause 10, which begins:"Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section seven of the Finance Act, 1925, with respect to the additional excise drawback to be allowed in respect of beer under the said section."
There, we have a double reference. In the present case it is undesirable that a long and complicated Section, which was passed several years ago, should be incorporated without giving any indication as to the particular point which it is desired to bring in. All my colleagues who happen to belong to the legal profession, no matter on which side of the House they sit, will deprecate this growing practice of legislation by reference, however profitable it may be to individual lawyers in their professional capacity. Four lines of this Sub-section brings in a Section of the Act of 1925 which covers over 1½ pages of the Statute. Would it not be possible to consider the advisability of issuing a White Paper setting out in some details the position in regard to this Clause in the Bill, where there is a desire to bring in parts of a previous Act of Parliament, in order that we may know the exact necessity for it and be able to study the matter more at our leisure? This Subsection deals with the additional excise drawbacks to be allowed in respect of beer, while Section 7—the entire purpose of the Sub-section is to bring in Section 7—does not deal with excise drawbacks in respect of beer but with Customs Duty on imported hops and consequential modifications of the Beer Duty and drawbacks. The primary purpose of Section 7 is in regard to Customs Duties on hops whereas this Sub-section deals with respect to the Excise Duties in respect of beer. That seems to me to be a totally different matter, and I cannot understand the necessity for this rather complicated reference to a previous Act. Why should not the particular part of the Section in the Act of 1925 be specified and set out? I agree that hops and beer are, or ought to be, inseparable. Here, I should like to ask whether the Hop Duties are still in operation and what is the position in regard to them? They are brought in by the four lines of this Sub-section. I would call the attention of the Financial Secretary to Section 7 (1) of the Act of 1925, which says:"Section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1918 (which relates to relief from tax in respect of life insurance premiums), shall, as amended by the Finance Act, 1920, have effect, etc."
That four years period expired on the 16th August, 1929. Have those duties been revived, renewed or reimposed in some way, and what is the exact position between the 16th August last year, with the automatic expiration of the particular Sub-section to which I just referred, and the present day? The Committee will be interested to know whether these Hop Duties are imposed for revenue or protective purposes. If they are imposed for the latter purpose it is a little difficult to reconcile them with the well known views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we delve further into this complicated Section 7 we find, in Subsection (3) another anomaly:"During a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, there shall be charged, levied and paid on the following goods, &c."
Will the Financial Secretary explain why in the first Sub-section the period is four years from 16th August, 1925, and in Sub-section (3) the period is four years beginning on 16th November, 1925? Subsection (3) proceeds:"During a period of four years beginning on the sixteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, there shall, in addition to the Excise drawback payable at the commencement of this Act, be allowed and paid—"
The Committee would be interested to know what these terms imply. What is the definition or limitation that is placed upon the words "merchandise" or "shipped for use as stores." Section 7 (4) says:"in respect of beer exported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland as merchandise or shipped for use as stores, an additional dawback.…"
How is that varied proportion determined? It must be an extremely difficult matter, and it is surely laid down somewhere as to what principles are to be applied. I venture to put these points, which are, I think, of some importance, for information and for elucidation, and it is really for that reason and to persuade the Financial Secretary to give us a full explanation with regard to the various questions I have raised that I am moving the Amendment to omit the Sub-section."In the case of beer which is not of the gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, the duty or the drawback under this section, as the case may be, shall be varied proportionately."
8.0 p.m.
I gladly respond to the invitation of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment to give an explanation regarding the purpose and results of this Subsection. First of all, if I may trespass beyond the strict bounds of order so as to answer a question, I was asked whether so far as the various points in the Finance Bill were concerned, we would issue an explanatory memorandum to enable the House to be seized of all questions involved. I would point out to the hon. Member that at Question Time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) with regard to certain particular Clauses, and the answer of my right hon. Friend was that so far as the particular Clauses to which the hon. Member for Farnham referred were concerned a Paper would be issued which would explain them in detail and that, if hon. Members felt any special difficulty about other Clauses and sent in a desire forthwith that there should be explanations, my right hon. Friend would see what he could do to explain anything about which there was obscurity.
Might I ask that wherever there is in the Finance Bill a reference to some previous Act of Parliament a short explanation should be given as to why that is necessary and desirable. I should like that to be considered.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he referred to the matter, said that he could not undertake to do that in every case, but where there were special reasons he would endeavour to meet the wishes of the House in the matter. I believe a White Paper of some sort is to be published, and, if that should prove to be inadequate, Members may make further representations.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul)—I do not know whether it was with a view to drawing me in the explanation—seemed to me to get near to appreciating the real point involved in this Sub-section and yet never quite to do so. He seemed to have found all the essential points, but did not integrate them in a way that would enable him to understand. There would have been a great deal of unnecessary verbiage if we had to repeat in the present Finance Act all the points summed up by reference in the short Sub-section with which we are dealing. What are the facts? In the Finance Act of 1925 this duty on imported hops was imposed. That is in the first Sub-section of Clause 7 of the Finance Act of that year. If that had stood alone, the British brewer who wanted to export his beer would have been subjected to an injury, because he would have to pay more for the imported hops, and he would have got no greater drawback than before. Therefore, owing to the fact that duty had been put on some of the ingredients which the brewer uses, an additional drawback was allowed to him in respect of beer he exported so that he should not be at a disadvantage. As my right hon. Friend pointed out earlier, brewers use a certain amount of British hops and a certain proportion of foreign hops and in order to arrive at a suitable addition to the drawback the average amount of foreign hops employed in brewing beer in this country was taken into account. The amount of 10d. was decided upon as being a suitable drawback to give, and that is the amount allowed in Subsection (3) to which the hon. Member has referred. There were two points with regard to that that troubled him. One was that the date for the drawback was not precisely coterminous with the date for the duty. I understand that the date of the drawback was fixed later because it takes time to brew beer, and therefore hops imported on one date became exported beer some months later. That is the explanation. The hon. Member seemed to be troubled about the phrase "merchandise shipped or used for stores." That is all embracing. Those are the purposes for which beer would be exported. Exported as merchandise or consumed on the ship. Sub-section (4) is merely the usual rule with regard to duties on beer. Beer has different gravities, and the duty is imposed as on beer of a certain gravity 1,055 degrees. Lighter beer pays a smaller duty and heavier beer a heavier duty, and in the same way the drawback has to be lighter or heavier according to gravity, but it is all worked out to be fair to all parties concerned. That was all done in 1925, and these drawback duties were put on for four years in the Finance Act of 1925. They were extended for a further period of four years, and therefore the duties on imported hops and the drawbacks which correspond to them are continuing at the present time. The object of this Sub-section is that the earlier part of Clause 1 should not have the effect of terminating drawback conferred originally by the Finance Act of 1925 and continued by the Finance Act of 1929. Having now given an explanation regarding this Sub-section, I feel that my hon. Friend would not wish to press his Amendment, for to do so, were it carried, would have this effect. It would impose an hindrance to British manufactured beer for export, it would injure British beer, it would be a kind of inverted protection, it would penalise not merely the brewer who used foreign but the brewer who did not use foreign hops but used British hops, for when he came to export his beer he would suffer by not securing the drawback he had hitherto obtained. Therefore, I am sure that it would be an effect which the hon. Member would not wish to bring about. In the circumstances, I anticipate that the Amendment will be withdrawn. If it is not, we shall vote against it.I have listened to the explanation with interest, but I am bound to say that what has happened reinforces strongly the point we put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Question Time to-day. There was not only the request for an explanation of certain specific Clauses, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked if we might have a White Paper giving us Clauses to which references were made and also giving a short explanation of what was being done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been) pressed for more than he was willing to give. He said he understood that legislation by reference was a most undesirable thing where it could be avoided, and he indicated that he would give help where required, but when it came to the fact then, apparently, all he was willing to give was not the quotation of the Clauses wanted, but an explanation of the three or four specific Clauses mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel). What has happened on this Clause shows conclusively how necessary it is to give it and give it with regard to the Bill as a whole rather than merely with regard to these Clauses mentioned by the hon. Member for Farnham.
I am sure that what the Financial Secretary said in reply to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Sir G. Rentoul) was not meant to reflect on his powers of mental analysis. The Financial Secretary would be the last person to make such a reflection, but what he said was that the hon. Member had got all the points but had failed to integrate them. I am not sure what he meant by that, but really what it amounts to, I think, is that my hon. Friend who is accustomed by reason of his profession to know the law and consider Acts of Parliament, not having all the apparatus and conveniences at the disposal of the Government, had not completely gathered what was meant by this point in Clause 7. It is obvious that anybody does find it extraordinarily difficult. The Financial Secretary himself had occasion in the course of my hon. Friend's speech to refresh his own acquaintance with the Clause. I want to ask now whether we cannot have a White Paper giving us the information for which we ask. I was a sinner, as the Secretary of State for War knows well. We were both sinners in our time in introducing legislation by reference in regard to another subject. We were then convicted of sin, and said that we were forced to do it, but, when I was asked, I issued a White Paper quoting the actual Clauses for guidance, so that people might be able to understand them quickly. That is what we ask the hon. Gentleman to do. It is too late as regards Clause 7, but when we take important Clauses like Clause 10 and subsequent Clauses, it would be for the good of everybody because we should be able to understand better the results of the Measures which we are asked to pass. There are two points that I should like to ask the Financial Secretary in regard to this Clause. If it is clear that to omit this Sub-section will remove the compensation that is given to any exporter, and will institute a kind of inverted protection, and be to the disadvantage of our own traders and to the advantage of their competitors in any other country then obviously we do not propose to press it. The hon. Gentleman said that the Hop Duty was continued by that Clause for four years from 1925.I said that it was put on in the Act of 1925 for four years, and it was repeated in the Act of 1929 and continued for a further four years. All that this particular Subsection does is to say that, so far as the rest of Clause 1 is concerned, it does not do anything to stop it.
It was probably a slip of the Financial Secretary. I listened carefully, and I thought that I heard him say that it was continued by the Act of 1925—
1929.
I quite agree. I realise that it had not been instituted before 1925; it was instituted then, and continued in 1929. I think that I am right that in that Clause there is an extra drawback of 10d.
It is the 10d.
Precisely, it is the 10d. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman if this 10d. is on the basis of the taxation that existed. When you have an addition of 3s. to the Excise Duty on beer, as under the earlier lines of this same Clause—
Compensation for the Hop Duty.
I understand that, but the hon. Gentleman has not let me finish my point. It is compensation for the Hop Duty; it is 10d., but has that 10d. any relation to the rest of the taxation on beer, or only on the computed extra cost of hops owing to the Hop Duty?
indicated dissent.
I understand that it has no relation to the rest of the Duty. That is all I wish to ask, but I would sincerely impress on the hon. Gentleman that we would like to have a good deal more information than was promised this afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We would press to have what is very easy for him to give us, a quotation of the Clauses or parts of Clauses to which reference is made, because when we come to the House in order to look them up in the Library, there is naturally a run on Acts of Parliament, and it is often impossible to get from the Library just those Acts to which reference is made.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
No!
This is really one of the very worst instances of legislation by reference, and the marginal note is not intelligible. There is one matter which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not notice. There is a Customs charge on imported beer of 10d. per gallon in order to put imported beer on the same footing as beer made in this country which has used imported hops, and the drawback is the same in the case of imported beer which is re-exported and in the case of beer which is brewed in this country and exported. The matter is very complicated, and I doubt if more than two or three Members know anything about it. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be prevailed upon to look at the drafting of this Subsection, and to make an intelligible marginal note.
This is the first time in this Bill that legislation by reference occurs, and I am glad that this point has been raised at this stage. Legislation by reference has always been undesirable, and it is more than usually undesirable in this Budget because of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the first time in the history of this country, has over-stepped the line which divides taxation from confiscation. Therefore it is very necessary for the Committee which has to decide—
On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to use the word "confiscation" in the sense in which he is using it?
The hon. Member would be in order to expressing an opinion on the Budget, but he is not in order on this Amendment.
On that point of Order. We are asking on this Sub-section for more information to be given by the Treasury, and is not my hon. Friend right, in pointing out the reason that makes him desirous of information in order that he may not assent to proposals being passed in silence to which he may abject, or in order that he may assent to proposals which he may not wish to delay?
The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the general principle of the Budget on a particular Amendment. There will be other opportunities on which that can be done. If it were permitted on every Amendment, then there would be a deadlock in the Committee's work.
As I have pointed out, this is the first time that legislation by reference occurs in this Bill and I was trying to show why, in my opinion, it was more important than ever that we should find out what legislation is being referred to, because of the presence of a Socialist Government. I would draw attention to the fact that Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 and Sub-section (5) of Clause 2 are really the same except, that one refers to the Excise and one to the Customs, and so if I may I will let my remark apply to both those Clauses. I have spoken about it to you, Mr. Dunnico, privately, and you said you did not propose to call the second Amendment.
The Amendment now before the Committee deals with Clause 1 and it does not deal with Clause 2.
But the arguments for and against are exactly the same, the only difference being that one deals with the Excise and the other with the Customs.
The hon. Member must not try to get round the Rules of Procedure. I told the hon. Member that I did not propose to call the Amendment on Clause 2. But it is not in order to discuss Clause 2 on an Amendment dealing with Clause 1.
I wish to point out that they are the same arguments. May I call the attention of the Financial Secretary to the fact that the drafting of the Clause gives no indication of what part of the Sub-clause of Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1925 is applicable? Does it apply to Sub-clause (1) of Clause 7? That deals with hops, and I represent a constituency where they grow hops, and it is most important that we should know whether this legislation proposes to diminish or add anything to the hop duties.
I have already given an answer.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Before we part with this Clause there is one matter I wish to raise which has considerable bearing on the amount of revenue derived from the Beer Duties. The matter was touched on lightly in the earlier part of the debate by the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson). He pointed out that before the War something like 36,000,000 standard barrels of beer were brewed every year. The present figure is in the neighbourhood of 20,000,000 standard barrels. What my hon. Friend did not point out was that the pre-War total number of bulk barrels was somewhere in the neighbourhood—I am speaking from memory—of 37,500,000 or 38,000,000, which is an increase of about 8 per cent. on the number of standard barrels. The standard barrel of beer is one of 36 gallons, with beer of a specific gravity of 1,055. The lighter beers, the lager beers and beers of that sort, actually bulk more than the standard barrel, and therefore two barrels of a lager beer will represent, perhaps,1¼ barrels of standard beer and pay a lighter duty. Before the War the difference between the number of standard barrels brewed and the number of bulk barrels brewed was very small—a difference, I think, of about 8 or 9 per cent. At present we brew something like 20,000,000 barrels and we sell in this country rather more than 25,000,000 bulk barrels. Whereas before the War there was a difference of about 8 per cent. between the number of standard barrels brewed and the number of barrels of beer sold, we now find the difference amounts to about 25 per cent. To my mind this must affect the revenue and affect it seriously.
It is difficult to make an exact comparison between the pre-War and the present figures, because in the interval the Irish Free State has ceased to be part of the United Kingdom and has its own arrangements in regard to Customs and Excise. Guinness's brewery is in the Irish Free State and its output, which used to be reckoned amongst the beer brewed in this country, is now included in the beer imported. Nevertheless the discrepancy between the bulk barrels and the standard barrels has tended rather to increase ever since the War. One of the serious effects from the point of view of home production is that the watering down of the beer necessitates the use of more foreign materials to produce a brighter beer; and, secondly, the revenue loses, obviously a certain amount of money. I believe that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a small reduction, or even a larger reduction, in the Beer Duty, if it were coupled with an undertaking from the brewers that they would give back the benefit to the public in the shape of beer with an increased specific gravity, the revenue would in the end gain rather than lose and consumers as a whole would be very much more content. The pre-War difference was almost exclusively accounted for by the importation, and also the manufacture in this country, of certain lager beers. They are beers which are brewed on a different principle from the ordinary beers brewed here. One requires bottom instead of top fermentation. I suggest that the ordinary beer, the beer to which we are accustomed in this country and which we have had in this country for many hundreds of years, should be brought back to a specific gravity which would ensure that it was bright and clear and palatable. The heavy taxation which has resulted in a large increase in the discrepancy between the standard and the bulk barrels is not doing good to anybody, and I think the change I have suggested is one which might well be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.I wish to ask one question of the Financial Secretary. He will probably reply that I ought to know, but I can assure him that I do not. In line 6, on page 2, it is stated that the duty on every standard barrel is £5 3s., and the drawback is £5 3s. 3d., which is 3d. more than the duty. Would he kindly explain that difference of 3d.?
There is one rather important point which I do not think has been mentioned in these debates, and that has reference to the incidence of the extra £3,000,000 which is to come from the Beer Duty. In opening his Budget on the 14th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the increase would prove ineffective as a revenue instrument if it led to a drop in gravities, and he also said that the increase was too small to justify any alteration in retail prices. He said he had received assurances from the brewers and did not anticipate either reduced gravities or increased prices. What I wish to know is whether he got an assurance from the brewers that, while they would not pass the increase on to the public, they themselves were going to pay it, or is it the case that they are going to ask their customers, the tied houses and the licensed grocers, to pay part of this £3,000,000? That is a very important point.
It is common knowledge in this House that, many of the big firms of brewers have been doing very well in recent years. That fact is borne out by their balance-sheets, but I have always understood that the country brewers have not done anything like so well as the big firms. I know a good deal about the details of this trade, and, owing to the decrease in the consumption of beer, the retail dealers in beer have not been in such a good position as the large brewers since the War. I want to know whether the £3,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to raise by this proposal is going to be borne by the brewers, or is it going to be borne in part by the retailers of beer, who, I understand, will not be allowed to pass on an extra charge to the public. What proportion of the £3,000,000 is going to be borne by the brewers, and what proportion by the retailers, who may have to pay an increased wholesale price to the brewer for their beer and who will be debarred from charging the duty by means of raising the price of beer? Before we pass this Clause, I ask the Financial Secretary to enlighten the Committee with more details about the assurances given by the brewers with regard to this particular Measure.We have heard a good many arguments as to the various effects of this duty. We have heard arguments as to its effect from the agricultural standpoint and in other directions. May I remind the Committee of a statement once made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if one-tenth of the money spent on beer was spent on cotton goods, there would not be a single spindle idle to-day in Lancashire. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer could easily find other plans of raising the revenue if he could only get rid of this particular trouble which now affects the country. The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) has admitted that the large brewers have been making very large profits. As against that, I am sure the hon. Member is ready to acknowledge, as the Committee must acknowledge, that our legitimate industries are lying paralysed.
How does that come about? Reference has been made to the fact that the working classes, who happen to indulge in this habit of consuming beer, are being taxed too heavily. I agree with that argument when you are dealing with a legitimate commodity. I agree that, if we were dealing with a legitimate commodity, Chancellors of the Exchequer would be doing a gross injustice to the great body of the people who consider this to be a reasonable refreshment. If, on the other hand, it is not a legitimate commodity—a statement which the right hon. Gentleman supported by his deli- verance at Cambridge in January, 1928—then unquestionably we are wrong in exacting this revenue from such a source, and we are proceeding upon wrong lines. Appeals are being made very strongly with regard to unemployment, and the Board of Trade figures show that unemployment is getting worse. It is rather remarkable that, at a time when legitimate industry is so severely hampered, we are persisting in a course of supporting in other ways an industry which makes the poorest demand upon the unemployment element of the country. Our Employment Exchanges are unable to find work for those on the register, and the Government, from that standpoint, are finding great difficulty in meeting the unemployment question; but here is something which all parties understand perfectly well, and there is no dubiety at all about it. The facts are strongly against any other conception, and yet the Government and various parties are persisting in sustaining a method of obtaining revenue, which can only be defended on the ground that it is a dangerous business. If we are dealing with a legitimate business, then it ought to be perfectly open and free, and I ought to be free to open a public house if I desired to do so. Any man or woman ought to be able to do so, but there is a barrier set up against any one of us doing that, unless we first of all go through the procedure of getting a licence, which, under the present system, enables a very small number to exercise the power of a monopoly backed up by the Government.The hon. Member is widening out the discussion very considerably. We are dealing with a Clause which deals with the increased excise duties. The hon. Member is in order in speaking against the Clause, but he must confine himself to what is in the Clause.
I realise the difficulty when we are dealing with specific Amendments, but, when we are dealing with the Clause as a whole, I think that involves the question of the exaction of the duty—
This Clause does not deal in any way with the question of licences.
I have not said that. What I say is that you cannot supply the beer upon which the duty is being exacted unless you have a licence. That is the only point that I was making, and it is to that point that I am directing the attention of the Committee. I know that it is only taxation with which we are dealing now. By this system of drawing revenue from this production, we are sustaining a force which we find from the Board of Trade figures to be one of the direct explanations of the unemployment which prevails. It makes the poorest demand upon the employment market in the numbers required in relation to the very large profits that are being made. I want to urge that those who, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, take up on other platforms a very definite position of criticism, when they come to the House of Commons and become Chancellors of the Exchequer or Members of a Government, at once completely surrender the principles upon which they have been making their deliverances on our platforms. If this thing is wrong from the standpoint of affecting unemployment in the country, then we are decidedly on immoral lines in taking revenue into the National Exchequer from this source. I simply wanted to make clear my own position, and my refusal to vote upon any such proposal.
I have listened very closely to this discussion up to about an hour ago, and there was one point which seemed to me particularly to need elucidating, but the discussion has become so discursive that it even included a heated debate as to whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had ever been an agricultural labourer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) raised a point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not properly answered, and it has now again been raised by the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall). I want to substantiate an observation which the hon. Member for East Lewisham made just now, and I can do so if I can get the leave of the Committee to read a very short letter which was written to a retailer by a very well known firm of brewers. It is to this effect:
I think that that brewer must be rather optimistic—"With regard to the increased Duty imposed by the Budget, our object has been to supply to the public with beers, brewed from the finest qualities of malt and hops, at a reasonable price. In order, therefore, to maintain these high qualities of beers as supplied hitherto, it will not be possible for us to bear the whole of the additional burden imposed by the Budget. We therefore regret that we must revise our prices charged to you as from Monday, 12th May, and trust that the moderate difference proposed will not interfere with the good relations which have existed between us."
Did he refer to hops in that letter?
No. I think that this brewer must be rather optimistic, as I imagine that the good relations that have hitherto existed will not continue. After what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to the effect that the increase of 1d. per gallon was too small to justify any alteration in retail prices—in other words, that the increase in price was not going to be passed on to the consumer—I should like to know exactly who is going to pay the increase. That is the point that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton, and I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered it satisfactorily. I am in no way connected with the trade, either as brewer or retailer, and I am so moderate a consumer that I think I can call myself a perfectly impartial critic. As a matter of justice we are entitled to know what is the answer to that point, and I think the Financial Secretary should enlighten us. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that I am not putting up any factious opposition. The point is one of some substance, and the Committee is entitled to an answer upon it.
Like my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I also have listened to the majority of the arguments on this Clause, and, before we part with the Clause, I wish to raise two points which have been mentioned before. The first is as to who is going to pay for this rise in the Excise Duty. I should very much like to hear from the Financial Secretary whether it is the producer who is going to pay. I mentioned once before that, in the Report of the Temperance League, which may be well known, as I said before, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is in the Monthly Notes a reference to the effect that it is quite likely that maltsters will pay, and, had I the opportunity, I could read letters from producers of barley and maltsters in exactly the same terms as the one which my hon. Friend has already read. There is a very great apprehension among barley growers in the depressed districts that they are going to have the increase passed on to them, and that this money is to come from the producer.
In order to show that I am not obstructing in any way, I will leave on one side any question of whether we are going to get a rebate on home-brewed beer, because we have voted on the subject and we have been informed that nothing is coming from the Government in that direction. I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether he can give an assurance to the producers of home-grown barley that they are not going to have to pay this increase. There is a very great apprehension on that subject in East Anglia in particular, and I have received many communications in regard to it. It is a subject upon which we should like an assurance from those responsible in the Government that the producers are not going to have to pay this amount. That is the least that the Government can do. They are not paying the slightest attention to our request for a rebate, and, in fact, there has been a feeling that we have been merely obstructing; but many of us who represent probably the most depressed sections of the population of England have specially come down to press this point. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear that we on this side and those whom we represent will be extremely disappointed if we do not get an assurance that this increase is not going to be put on the producer, especially after the Government have failed to give any assurance that they will help the producer by a rebate on home-brewed beer. I was the Member who raised the point that the President of the Board of Trade should make a comprehensive speech on the treaty position. I see that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to the House with a large file, and I feel convinced that it is the preface to an epoch-making speech on this extremely difficult position. I see that he is studying the file, and I hope that he is going to introduced a new precedent, and will this time speak to us with notes. I am sure that, if he reads his brief, he will be able to give us a comprehensive reply on the treaty position as regards home-brewed beer. The other point I consider to be extremely important, and I hope that we shall receive from the Treasury Bench an assurance that the producer will not have to suffer. Now that we have had no assurance that the producer will get a little benefit, we want an assurance that he will not suffer, and I think that that is a very legitimate request.I think the time has come when I should endeavour to reply to the points which have been put in the debate, and to the questions which have been definitely addressed to me. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) made several points, one of which was with regard to the producer. There has been no suggestion that the brewers will put this increase back on to the producer. Barley is a commodity which has many uses, and the idea that the brewers can force down the price of barley because a particular tax has been put on by the Government seems to me to be entirely without foundation. The hon. Member also appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to make clear the position with regard to these commercial treaties. There is, however, no need to do that at all, because the position has already been made perfectly clear, both during the present debate and on the earlier occasion when this matter came before the House on the Report stage of the Financial Resolution. It was then, and has been again to-day, made perfectly clear that there are Clauses in several commercial treaties—the one with Germany is a particular instance, and the important Clause has been read out, both to-day and on the previous occasion—in which it is set out that goods used in manufacture in the country cannot be differentiated against because they are imported goods. It has been agreed between certain nations and ourselves that, when we employ goods in manufactures, there shall not be a discrimination, as far as the manufactured article is concerned, as to whether the goods were originally of home or foreign origin, and it was pointed out that we should lose very seriously if we were to abrogate those treaties because, if foreign nations were to disregard the corresponding obligation on them, in many cases we should suffer very heavily. The point is shown by the fact that, not only the present Government when in office before, but the late Government saw the great advantage of these treaties and both took part in bringing them into effect.
The hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) and the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) dealt with the question of the brewers passing the tax on to any houses for which they are responsible. Free houses, of course, can buy their beer anywhere and, therefore, if a brewer chooses to try to extort additional money from them they have the remedy of going to another brewer, and we can leave them to look after them-selves. The tied houses have no such remedy. If it were true that the brewers were to pass the tax on to the tied houses in the shape of price, that would be a very serious breach of the proposals that the Chancellor adumbrated. In regard to that, we have his letter, which has been read out already, which was received from the Brewers' Society, signed by the chairman:That applies to the tied tenants. Further, I understand that the particular firm to which the hon. Member for Finchley referred is not in the Brewers' Society which, generally speaking, embraces the great bulk of the brewery trade and, therefore, in the main, in so far as its extent goes, the point my right hon. Friend refers to is assured. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) asked why there was the additional 3d. drawback as against the Excise Duty. The reason is to cover the brewers' licence. That is the equivalent of the additional 3d. A rather vague point was put by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). I am not quite sure what it was. The reason why the bulk barrels are larger in number than the standard barrels is that the beer is not brewed universally at the standard gravity. In fact it is on the average of a lighter gravity than the standard. I suppose, if the price has gone up, the tendency has been since pre-War to reduce the gravity of the beer sold. That is the only fair way of dealing with it."I am pleased to be able to give the assurance that the society will use all its influence to prevent any drop in the existing gravities and any rise in retail prices. It is also the intention that there should be no increase in the price to the brewery tenants."
9.0 p.m.
The Financial Secretary dealt with the case of those treaties to which we on this side of the Committee take objection as bearing very hardly—
The effect of the treaties was explained in answer to a question in connection with this Clause. We cannot discuss the treaties at this stage.
The treaties have played quite a large part in this debate, and I would submit that a reply to the brief remarks that have been made by the Government would seem to be in order.
As far as I heard it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked a question about the treaties to show how they were affecting the Clause. He pointed out exactly how they would affect it, but we cannot discuss the treaties. He gave the explanation in response to a query.
On a point of Order. We cannot go into the treaties, it is true, but they have been referred to on one or two occasions and the Financial Secretary has told us that, if we abrogate them, the effect would be very harmful to us. We do not want to go into the matter of any particular treaty but, as the President of the Board of Trade is here, it would be helpful and perhaps you could see your way, Sir, to allow him to explain—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion explained what the treaties meant, and today he has replied to a question seeking information in relation to the Amendment. He did not enter into the pros and cons, neither would it be in order to do so.
I protest against these treaties.
This is not the time to protest against the treaties.
In that case, I will recur to a point which I raised earlier in the evening. I believe these taxes on beer to be an essentially unfair way of raising money from the working classes. They are at a flat rate. Every one who consumes beer pays in accordance with the quantity he consumes. That is very unfair, and it presses unduly on the lower-paid workers. The worker who has a wage of from 30s. to 40s. pays precisely the same tax, provided he consumes the same amount, as a man who earns double or treble that wage. That is the point I desire to bring before this Committee, because it is most unfair. In regard to Income Tax, this House has been engaged for the last quarter of a century in graduating the tax in order to make its incidence fair between one individual and another. The Beer Duty and the Tobacco Duty are the two main ways in which taxation is levied upon the working classes of this country.
I submit that it is a fair argument against this duty to say that it cannot be graduated properly. It is graduated simply in accordance with the amount an individual consumes, and not in accordance with his income. It presses with undue harshness on the lower-paid workers, and more particularly upon the lower-paid workers in the agricultural districts. It is generally agreed that the workers who are engaged in heavy manual labour require beer to a greater extent than those who are engaged in light occupations. This is especially true of those engaged in agriculture. The working man in the town with an income of three, four or even five pounds a week is only paying identically the same duty as the agricultural worker earning 32s. a week. It has been calculated by an hon. Friend of mine that this duty might amount, if the worker consumes a moderate amount, to something like 18 per cent. of the worker's income. If a man consumes a pint of beer a day—this is not a great deal for an agricultural worker engaged in heavy manual labour—it will amount to something like 12 per cent. of his income. That is a very heavy burden for such a man to bear. It is an unfair burden. A worker in the town who may be engaged in a sedentary occupation may not find that this liquid is in any way necessary to his health, or he may not desire it, and he will, therefore, escape the duty altogether. If we look on this duty from a revenue producing point of view, and as a duty placed upon the working people of this country, I submit that it is an unfair duty, that it should be reduced, and that a better way should be found of causing the working class to make their fair contribution to the revenue. I have raised this subject on previous occasions, and I make no apology whatever for raising it on this occasion. I hope that the Committee will take that point of view into consideration.While the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was dealing with the commercial Treaty with Germany and the impossibility of denouncing that Treaty, I wished to put a simple question to him which he could have answered in two words, but he did not give way to me. I should like to know whether I can put that question to him now. Is that Treaty for a term of years, and, if so, when does that term expire?
There is only one thing I want to point out. When we first heard about this increased duty we were told that it was a duty which would fall upon the brewers. It is now as plain as daylight that there was no justification for that statement. There is not a word in the Bill to secure that the incidence of this duty shall fall upon the brewers. We now know that nothing has been said or done in any way to attempt to tie their hands as to reducing the price of the raw materials which they use in the manufacture of their beers. They are absolutely free. Whatever undertaking they give as to retail prices will be worth nothing, because they do not sell retail. There is no undertaking of any kind as to the prices which they charge to tied tenants or to free tenants. There was an expression in a letter as to their intention, but it was not even a promise. As far as this Bill and the duty are concerned, there is nothing in the wide world to prevent any brewer raising the price of the beer he sells to the tied or to the free tenant, and there is nothing to prevent the retailer from raising the price, if he can get it, and nothing to prevent the brewers combining as a whole to reduce the prices of the raw materials they buy. The fiction that this is a duty which falls upon the brewers ought to be exploded and cleared out of the way as soon as possible.
Division No. 309.]
| AYES.
| [9.12 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gossling, A. G. | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Gould, F. | Mansfield, W. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | March, S. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Marcus, M. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Gray, Milner | Markham, S. F. |
| Ammon, Charles George | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Marley, J. |
| Arnott, John | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Marshall, Fred |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Mathers, George |
| Ayles, Walter | Groves, Thomas E. | Matters, L. W. |
| Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Melville, Sir James |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Messer, Fred |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Middleton, G. |
| Barr, James | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Montague, Frederick |
| Batey, Joseph | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Morley, Ralph |
| Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Harbord, A. | Morris, Rhys Hopkins |
| Benson, G. | Hardie, George D. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Harris, Percy A. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Mort, D. L. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Haycock, A. W. | Moses, J. J. H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hayday, Arthur | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.) | Muff, G. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Naylor, T. E. |
| Bromfield, William | Herriotts, J. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Bromley, J. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Brooke, W. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Brothers, M. | Hoffman, P. C. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Hollins, A. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hopkin, Daniel | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Horrabin, J. F. | Palin, John Henry |
| Buchanan, G. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Burgess, F. G. | Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Perry, S. F. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Peters, Dr. Sidney John |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland) | Isaacs, George | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Phillips, Dr. Marion |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Pole, Major D. G. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) | Potts, John S. |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Price, M. P. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Pybus, Percy John |
| Charieton, H. C. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Chater, Daniel | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Richards, R. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, Thomas | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Cowan, D. M. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Ritson, J. |
| Daggar, George | Kinley, J. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Kirkwood, D. | Romeril, H. G. |
| Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Knight, Holford | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Lang, Gordon | Rowson, Guy |
| Day, Harry | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lathan, G. | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Dickson, T. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Dukes, C. | Lawrence, Susan | Sanders, W. S. |
| Duncan, Charles | Lawson, John James | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Scurr, John |
| Edge, Sir William | Leach, W. | Sexton, James |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lees, J. | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Egan, W. H. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shield, George William |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lindley, Fred W. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Foot, Isaac | Logan, David Gilbert | Shinwell, E. |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Longbottom, A. W. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Freeman, Peter | Longden, F. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington) |
| Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lowth, Thomas | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lunn, William | Sinkinson, George |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | McElwee, A. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Gill, T. H. | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley) |
| Gillett, George M. | MacLaren, Andrew | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
Question put "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 143.
| Smith, W. H. (Norwich) | Townend, A. E. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Snell, Harry | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | White, H. G. |
| Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Turner, B. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Stamford, Thomas W. | Vaughan, D. J. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Stephen, Campbell | Viant, S. P. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Walkden, A. G. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Sullivan, J. | Walker, J. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Sutton, J. E. | Wallace, H. W. | Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Wallhead, Richard C. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) | Watkins, F. C. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Thurtle, Ernest | Wellock, Wilfred | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Tillett, Ben | Welsh, James (Paisley) | |
| Tinker, John Joseph | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Toole, Joseph | West, F. R. | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. |
| William Whiteley. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Fielden, E. B. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Albery, Irving James | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Purbrick, R. |
| Atkinson, C. | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Balniel, Lord | Gower, Sir Robert | Remer, John R. |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Grace, John | Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Greene, W. P. Crawlord | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Boyce, H. L. | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Bracken, B. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hammersley, S. S. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Butler, R. A. | Haslam, Henry C. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Savery, S. S. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Christie, J. A. | Hudson, Capt A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hurd, Percy A. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Train, J. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Leigh, Sir John (Clapham) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Long, Major Eric | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Lymington, Viscount | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Macquisten, F. A. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Withers, Sir John James |
| Dawson, Sir Philip | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Muirhead, A. J. | |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Sir Frederick Thomson and Major |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | O'Neill, Sir H. | The Marquess of Titchfield, |
Clause 2—(Increased Customs Duties On Beer)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out the word "mum."
I do not object to the word "mum," but I want an explanation as to what is meant by "mum, spruce or black beer, or Berlin white beer." Any beer which can bear a Duty which works out at 1s. 8d. per pint must be beer of a rather curious sort, and any beer which reaches a degree of gravity of 1,215 is rather potent. I have made inquiries, as far as I am able, but I have not been able to ascertain that we produce any beer in this country which approaches a gravity of 1,215 degrees, and I want to know whether we import any beer as strong as this and, if so, how much. Will the Financial Secretary tell us where it comes from, and, above all, how it comes about that with his fiscal beliefs there is in this Bill a Clause with such tremendous protection as this? The beer produced in this country pays £5 16s. per barrel on a specific gravity of 1,215 degrees, but this imported beer is to pay £24 5s. Will he let me know for my own information and the information of the Committee where this beer comes from, how much we import, and whether I am right in thinking that this tremendous protective duty is designed to protect the people of this country or the producers of beer in this country, and whether we, in fact, produce any of this beer in England?The hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) has not shown the usual courtesy, when putting in a manuscript Amendment, of supplying me with the Amendment in advance, and, therefore, he cannot complain if my answer is somewhat brief. It is usual in the case of a manuscript Amendment to supply to the Minister who is in charge a copy of it so that he may be prepared, but I will answer briefly the points he has raised. At the present time, there is no beer being imported under the description "mum," but there has been in the past a special kind of German beer called mum, which came into this country and which was of the same category as the black beer manufactured in this country. The form of beer which is covered by this description is not a beverage in the ordinary sense, but is of the same character as beer, and is used partly as a medicine. It has been for many years included under the Beer Duty, and it is not the intention of the Government to change the practice adopted all this time.
The reason why the word "mum" is continued is because, though actually at the present time no mum is being imported, we have to be prepared in case it should be imported, in which case, if the Amendment were carried, it would be very unfair to British producers, and would be the exact reverse of a protective duty. For that reason, I cannot accept the Amendment, and I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite who are rather in favour of protecting home-grown produce, and certainly not in favour of protecting foreign produce, will not wish to press the Amendment.If the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) wishes to carry his researches a little further, and will turn to Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1924, he will find the following Subsection:
so that German black beer appears to be white beer, as far as I can make out—"In this section the expression 'black beer' means beer of the descriptions called or similar to black beer, mum, spruce or Berlin white beer"—
The beginning of the Clause in that Act reads:"and any other preparations, whether fermented or not, of a similar character, and for the purposes of this section the specific gravity of a fermented preparation shall be taken to be the specific gravity of the worts thereof before fermentation."
I do not know whether it is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes from that great county Yorkshire, but I believe it is the fact that the only part of the country where this black beer is brewed is Yorkshire, and it is a very interesting thing that in my researches into this matter I have found that the only time we have had this raised in the last few years was in the Budget of 1924, for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible. If the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester likes to borrow this copy of the Act I shall be very glad to let him have it. I believe the reason why this word is wanted here is because if it were not there it might be more easily possible for the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester and his friends to import Berlin white beer, which is really black."In the case of black beer of a specific gravity of one thousand two hundred degrees or upwards, the rebate from the Excise duty to be allowed under Section two of the Finance Act, 1923, and the rebate from the Customs Duty to be allowed under Section three of that Act, shall, subject as hereinafter provided, instead of being calculated at the rates for which provision is made by those sections respectively, be in each case calculated at the rate of five pounds, for every thirty-six gallons of beer of a specific gravity of one thousand two hundred and twenty degrees, and so in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity."
The Financial Secretary, in purporting to give an explanation of the Clause, first complained that my hon. Friend did not give him notice of a manuscript Amendment, and he seemed to treat that as a great crime.
No.
Of course, it is not my hon. Friend who is responsible for this Bill. The Government are responsible for it, and speakers on behalf of the Government ought to know their own Bill. They ought not to complain when my hon. Friend asks a perfectly reasonable question, and asks the representative of the Government to explain the Clause.
I have no objection to the question being asked as to an explanation. I think it will be borne out by anyone who has conducted a Bill that it is the usual practice, when a manuscript Amendment is handed in, for the Minister in charge of the Bill to have notice of it before it is moved. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will bear that out.
The hon. Gentleman has either got a ground for complaint or he has not. As I understood him, he made the complaint that he was taken by surprise, and that notice ought to have been given of an Amendment which was, perhaps, for the very purpose of asking him what he meant by his own Bill. Apparently he resented that so much that he did not answer at all, and had to rely upon his ally or one of his old allies—I am not quite sure whether he is now an ally, or late ally, or perhaps a future ally—to explain what this Bill really meant.
Not at all.
He did not tell us that this was introduced for the first time in 1924, and that it was an emanation from his own party and was following a precedent set, apparently, by his own party in the Finance Bill of 1924. I am perfectly ignorant on this subject, and I very much want to know what this means. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said that black beer was white beer, and the hon. Gentle- man in charge of the Bill appears to agree that black beer is white beer.
No, white beer is black beer.
It is very confusing to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite has been asked a perfectly reasonable question, but has not answered it. The question is, what is mum? The Section which the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has quoted says that in the case of black beer of a specific gravity of 1,200 degrees or upwards the rebate from the Excise Duty and the Customs Duty shall, in any case, be calculated at £5 for every 36 gallons of beer of a certain specific gravity. If you turn a little further you will see:
The point which the hon. Gentleman made was that black beer was white beer. I do not think he is treating the Committee fairly when he simply talks of mum as though we knew what mum meant. I do not know what mum means, and I think the Committee ought to be told. It is not fair to rebuke my hon. Friend, who has asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question, namely, what mum is. The President of the Board of Trade is now in his place. The right hon. Gentleman was shy on a previous occasion or was closured by his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, but now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present he might imitate the little mice when the cat is away. He might play. He might tell us what spruce and mum and black beer and Berlin white beer are?"In this section the expression 'black beer' means beer of the descriptions called or similar to black beer, mum, spruce or Berlin white beer."
I wish to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the word "spruce" and thus to make the Amendment have the effect of leaving out the words "mum" and "spruce" instead of leaving out the word "mum" only. We have had some attempt at an explanation of the meaning of the word "mum" although the matter does not appear to be quite clear yet to everybody in the Committee. We have also had references to white beer and black beer which we understand are somewhat similar in character but nobody has attempted to explain the meaning of "spruce."
I cannot help thinking that the intervention of the hon. Member below the Gangway coupled with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), have left the Committee in a state of doubt as to what is meant by these various descriptions in Clause 2 of the Bill. We have heard from the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that black beer is white beer.
No, white beer is black beer.
Then I gather from my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's that in his opinion mum is also black beer or white beer. I would ask the Financial Secretary to put the minds of the Committee at rest by telling us clearly and plainly what is mum. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Member for Leith has been less than fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been badly served by one who may, perhaps, be described as his gallant little ally below the Gangway. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that when this question arose on a previous occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us that he had personal knowledge of the taste and the uses of black beer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were he in his place now, might be able to inform the Committee whether when he had black beer in his childhood, as he said he had, it was administered as white beer or as mum. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman opposite was quite right when he mentioned that it was administered as a medicine. The words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion must have remained in the hon. Gentleman's mind because the Chancellor of the Exchequer then informed us that in his early youth he had had the experience of having this black beer administered to him as a medicine—a medicine from which I understand he benefited considerably. My hon. Friend below the Gangway has not been given the information for which he asked, namely, where does black beer come from, and I would ask the Financial Secretary if he can tell us now whether black beer, spruce beer or mum are manufactured in England at the present time, and whether black beer is still manufactured in Yorkshire, and whether it is administered as a beverage, a medicine or a corrective. I think we are entitled to fuller information from the hon. Gentleman opposite.
I am rather in doubt about this Clause, and I happen to be interested purely as a consumer in knowing if Berlin white beer and Pilsener beer are usually the same in this country?
I do not know whether mum is Pilsner beer or not, but it is mum with which we are dealing.
I wish to save hon. Members the trouble of putting down a fresh Amendment by asking a question on a further point. The Finance Act of 1924 contains the following:
I would like to know what repercussions that proviso has in this matter. I would also like to know, if black beer and white beer are blended, is the result brown beer and is brown ever mum?"Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply to black beer brewed on the premises of a brewer for sale who brews on or sends out from the same premises any beer other than black beer."
I think we require a little more explanation on this point. The hon. Gentleman has told us that this mum is medicine. If so it is a question on which we ought to have the opinion of the Minister of Health as to whether a Duty should be imposed on a medicine which may be very valuable to the people of this country. The hon. Member for Leith pointed out that it was only in the Finance Bill of 1924 when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was in office, and again in this Finance Bill, that any protective Duty has been put upon this article which happens, so we are informed, to be manufactured in the county from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes. It seems to me that while in other directions the right hon. Gentleman is sweeping away Duties to the great detriment of trade and industry, he should be very careful in putting highly protective Duties on an article of this kind.
Was I in order in moving an Amendment to the Amendment, and what is the Question now before the Committee?
The Question before the Committee is "That the word 'mum' stand part of the Clause."
Was I not in order in moving to leave out also the word "spruce"?
I did not accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
Will the hon. Gentleman explain for the benefit of such persons as myself who are not skilled in the process of brewing how this Duty is to be ascertained? This proposal deals with beer imported into the United Kingdom and provides that the Duty shall be ascertained by the specific gravity of the worts before fermentation. That, ex hypothesi is a process carried out outside the United Kingdom. I can understand that in the case of beer brewed inside the United Kingdom it is possible for the Excise to keep track of it at every stage of production and arrive at a proper conclusion, but will the hon. Gentleman explain how in the case of imported beer the Excise can trace the matter back and find out what was the specific gravity at the stage of the process when the mum was worts. When we are asked to impose a duty we ought to understand exactly what we are doing. Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to us the process by which that duty is arrived at, so that we may know exactly what we are dealing with, because I have not the remotest idea how the hon. Gentleman will arrive at the measure of duty he is asking the Committee to vote?
We want to know how the duty is to be ascertained, and also bow the elaborate processes in arriving at the finished article are going to be checked and watched by the officers who are asked to decide which of these particular classes of beer is actually imported. How do they arrive at a decision whether beer is one kind or another, whether it is a genuine mum or not? Surely you, Mr. Chairman, would not put the question whether we should vote the duties or not when all the Committee at any rate on this side must be in the same state of uncertainty as ray hon. Friend the Member for Down (Mr. Reid), who has just sat down. We are entitled to a clear exposition, and I feel sure we shall get it, because no Financial Secretary to the Treasury would presume to come and ask for these taxes if he did not know how they were to be calculated.
I think the hon. Member is dealing with the Clause, but the Question is to leave out the word "mum."
On that point, my hon. Friend has put a very clear question to the Treasury Bench as to how this duty is to be assessed upon mum, because whether we include mum in this Clause or not depends upon whether we are satisfied that the Customs officers can properly assess the duty on that article. If the Financial Secretary has no ideas on the subject and cannot enlighten the Committee, clearly it is the duty of the Committee to vote against the inclusion of the word "mum."
I have taken no part in these discussions up to now, but I wish to point out to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that for him to sit there and give no answer whatever is not treating the Committee properly. I suggest that the questions which have been put should be answered by him.
I am perfectly prepared to give an answer, but if I give an answer now to all the points that have been raised, I cannot give any further answer later on when it is a question of the Clause standing part. First of all, let me deal with the right hon. Member for St. George's (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). These duties were not imposed in the first instance in 1924, but go back to 1860 and earlier, though they received some modification in 1924. All these are different kinds of beer that have been manufactured from time to time. There is no import of mum, but these duties are put on to safeguard the British producer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] When hon. and right hon. Members opposite have done cheering, I will explain the position. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer put on Revenue duties, he also put on countervailing Excise duties to correspond to the Customs duties, and I used the word "safeguarding" in that sense, that we were not going to have Excise duties without any corresponding Customs duties to balance them, because that would be inverted Protection, and neither we nor hon. Members opposite would agree to that.
If the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse), and the further Amendment which you, Mr. Chairman, have not allowed, were passed, it would be an inverted Protection, because you would be protecting the foreigner against the British producer, and that is, by common consent of all parties, a thing to be avoided. With regard to the point, which at first I did not think was put seriously, but I take it now that it was, as to how you are going to settle about the worts, the hon. Member for Down (Mr. Reid) suggested that we could not determine the worts because we had not followed them all the way from the time they began till they became this beer, but that is all nonsense.I asked the hon. Gentleman to explain how it was to be done. I did not suggest that it could not be done.
I am coming to that. It is clear that when you are given a finished product, you know how much of any particular article is required in order to produce that result. That is the way it has to be done with all these beers. We have dealt with this question very fully, and I have given a full explanation, and so I would appeal to the Committee to let me have, not only the rejection of this Amendment, but the passage of this Clause.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about countervailing duties, but is it not a fact that in this particular case the Customs Duty is £24 5s. and the Excise Duty is only £5 3s. 6d.?
The position put by the hon. and gallant Member is not correct. There is an exactly corresponding Excise. It is a question of gravity.
I asked the Financial Secretary a specific question. I asked how the duty could be ascertained. He has not answered my question. I ask him now, how can he ascertain the duty? Will he explain to the House how he follows the process backwards? Why does he not put a duty on the finished product, so that we shall know all about it? Why does he go back to a remote past, which he says that he understands but which nobody else appears to understand?
Question, "That the word 'mum' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
In order to save time, I asked a question about Berlin white beer. We have had no explanation on this subject. It is common knowledge that a large quantity of lager and Pilsener beer is consumed in this country, and that a considerable amount of lager beer is now brewed in this country by several brewers. I want to know whether Berlin white beer is brewed as lager and, if not, under what heading does lager come, in order to be sure that there is no chance of lager brewed abroad coming in at a lower rate of duty than lager brewed in this country. I should also like to have an explanation on a rather technical question regarding the words "fermented or not fermented." I was not aware that there was any beer, so-called, which came into this country which was not fermented. Perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell us what is the reason for putting in the words "not fermented," whether any beer comes in that is not fermented and whether from the medical point of view it is safe for beer to come in which is not fermented. I should imagine that evil effects might arise from beer which is not fermented.
10.0 p.m.
I should like to ask whether any beers come in from the Empire. Can the Financial Secretary tell us whether mum comes in in the imperial pint or whether any spruce or any other form of black beer comes in from the Empire, and, if so, whether there should be any form of Imperial Preference on the beers coming in from the Empire.
The Financial Secretary said that there was nothing protective in these duties. It is exceedingly difficult for the layman to understand this matter, and I should be very grateful if he would explain the point. He assures us that so far as gravity is concerned, the Customs Duty proposed in this Clause corresponds with the Excise Duty. I suppose he relies for that statement on Sub-section (3), which states that there shall be
That exactly corresponds with a similar Sub-section in the previous Clause, but if we look at Sub-section (2) we see that it provides for a duty of £5 3s. 6d. for every 36 gallons, whereas the analogous Excise Duty is only £5 3s. Therefore, it appears that this duty is giving a protection of 6d. on every 36 gallons, that is, a standard barrel. In defending the Clause, the Financial Secretary said that it was a Safeguarding Measure. He was careful to point out that he used the word "safeguarding" in a limited sense, but it rather looks from the figures that I have quoted that perhaps there was more safeguarding in it than the Committee realises. I should be glad if the Financial Secretary would explain why foreign beer is apparently being taxed an extra 6d. per standard barrel. In that case, I welcome it as a sign of the conversion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the direction of Safeguarding."For every thirty-six gallons of an original gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees the drawback of £5 3s. 3d."
The right hon. Member who has just spoken put into my mouth a good many words which I did not say.
On a point of Order—[Interruption].
The point with which I was dealing was the accusation that there was an entirely different scale of duties for Customs purposes for spruce and black beer. There is no foundation for that at all. The hon. Member thinks he found in a quite different part of the Clause a loophole for the suggestion that there is a protective tariff on the importation of beer. There, again, he is not correct. There is a perfectly specific reason why there is this 6d. variation between the Customs and the Excise Duty.
On a point of Order. Not one of the Members in this part of the Committee can hear a word.
I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should impress on his friends, and also on those on this side, that they should not talk so loudly, so that other hon. Members may bear the Financial Secretary.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me a great many questions, and I am trying to give him a courteous reply. It does not tend to promote the courtesy, which I always try to show, to be interrupted. I was explaining that the apparent discrepancy of 6d. is made up of two threepences. One is a counterpart of the Brewers' Licence Duty, and the other is the counterpart of the special Excise restrictions which fall on the home producer. That 6d. for a long time past has been a differentiation between the Customs and Excise Duties in order to snake up for this. With regard to Pilsener beer, of course all these sorts of beers do not come under this special description in Clause 2. They come under the general description of the second Sub-section, and there, again, they have a precise equivalent Excise Duty imposed under Clause 1, with the exception of the 6d. which I have already explained.
I am obliged to the Financial Secretary for that explanation, but can he tell us why it applies only to standard barrels, where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a certain specific gravity? In the next Subsection he will see that for every 36 gallons of the original gravity of 1,055 degrees, the Customs Duty is precisely the same as the Excise Duty in the previous Clause and, therefore, in regard to a certain class of beer, bite right hon. Gentleman is giving the home producer an advantage of 6d. per standard barrel which, as he points out, is not Protection at all, but merely compensation for certain other charges which the home consumer has to pay. That does not apply to the beer referred to in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. Surely these two threepences of which the hon. Gentleman spoke apply to the home producer of one beer just as much as to the home producer of the other. Why is there any differentiation in that case?
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has read the Clause. He speaks of the Customs Duty proposed under Sub-section (3). If he will read the Clause, he will find that he is not speaking correctly. Sub-section (3) is a drawback, which is an entirely different thing. The Customs Duty proposed in Sub-section (2) is the additional 6d. to which I have already referred. There was one other point put to me, regarding fermentation. [Interruption.] I do not wish to reply if hon. Members do not want to listen. I understand that in certain cases beers come into this country when fermentation is not complete, and, in order to cover that, the point is included in that particular Subsection.
Certain of my hon. Friends were endeavouring to acquire information as to what was the meaning of the word "mum," and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) endeavoured in an Amendment to include the word "spruce," which you, Mr. Young, properly refused to accept. I do not think that the Committee should pass this Clause while some of us are in ignorance as to what this liquor is. Can the Financial Secretary inform us what it is, and what it is used for? There are some of us interested in afforestation in the Eastern Counties, and it might help us in selecting certain trees for our forests if we could be assured that the spruce tree would be one which would produce a liquor from which the Treasury would receive a certain amount. I presume that under a Free Trade Government we would have a duty upon the produce of our own trees the same as on that which comes from the Baltic. I should like to point out to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that, as far as I can ascertain, this liquor was formerly much in use on the shores of the Baltic as a remedy for scorbutic and other complaints. It does seem a pity, if it is a remedy for complaints of this sort, that it should be taxed so highly when it is brought into this country. Can the Financial Secretary tell us if it is the view of the Government that this is a medicinal concoction and whether it is one which it is desirable to import; and also will he be good enough to tell us whether it can be produced from the spruce trees which some of us desire to grow in this country?
"Mum" is a very old English word for beer, at least as old as the 14th century, and probably earlier. If runs through English literature, and certainly appears in some Statutes as far back as 1594. All the trouble arises from the fact that this is described as beer. That is a word which has a very singular effect on hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. The mixtures dealt with in this Clause are not beers at all, in the true sense of the word. It is really, as the hon. Member who has just spoken said, an old-fashioned remedy of the 17th and 18th centuries. I think that it was imported from Brunswick, and was called "Brunswick beer." I suggest that it would avoid the difficulty if in future its name were changed. I understand that the duty put on is in direct proportion to the strength of the beverage. The Opposition have made a great argument about the 6d. Excise, and some of them have taken objection to the allowance of 3d. which is made on the export beer. I have for a good many years been objecting to that allowance, which is made to the brewers of this country as a kind of sop to them on account of their difficulties, and if hon. Members are opposed to it, I will go into the Lobby with them.
I cannot pretend to have such an intimate knowledge of beer as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) because I know that his knowledge of intoxicating liquor is very minute. I have noticed with considerable displeasure that no less than three times in this Clause the expression "in lieu of" is used. Although Acts of Parliament are not set up as examples of good and carefully phrased English, surely we have a right to expect the Government to use English expressions instead of these foreign importations. There is a perfectly good expression in English, which dates back even further than the word "mum," and that is "instead of." "Instead" is very much better and more English than "in lieu." "In lieu" ranks in my mind with the expression "prior to" which is now common parlance for "before."
I cannot see what that has to do with the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Clause cannot stand part unless the words in the Clause also stand part. If I can have an assurance that the words to which I object will not stand part, I will withdraw my objection, but that is an assurance which even the Government can hardly give me, because, if the Clause is to stand part, part of the words which compose part of that Clause must stand part also.
We must have some regard to what the Clause means. If we go into the meaning of every word, we shall find ourselves in endless discussions.
I am bound to say that I listened with very great interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) which shows him to be possessed of a wealth of information on this subject which, if it came from any other Member of the House but himself, would be, to say the least of it, highly suspicious. The facility, the command, the variety of his knowledge, its compendiousness, its completeness, its almost exhaustive character, astonished and delighted us. For the first time, we know accurately the distinction between all these various kinds of beer. It is remarkable how some people get their pleasures. I win warrant that the right hon. Gentleman has in his life derived more pleasure from studying these very wicked drinks for the purpose of preventing their consumption than almost any individual has got through the ordinary indulgences of daily life.
Not wicked drinks; foolish drinks.
At any rate, he has derived from them an inverted pleasure. No one can deny the thoroughness of his information. We have had a perfunctory statement from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, a very polite, very careful very guarded statement, but compare it with the full fresh enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend! There is the object—and there the shadow, the mere reflection! Upon this Clause, which deals with the Customs Duty, we have had a debate which has certainly added a great deal to the knowledge which hon. Members have of the subject on which we are voting and deciding. It is not our intention to divide against this Clause. Undoubtedly, some of these beers when imported have a definitely medicinal quality. I have never been brought into contact personally with that aspect of the trade, though I can quite readily believe, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, that in cases of scorbutic disease these beers may exercise a most valuable and beneficial influence and effect. However, having thoroughly explored this subject we do not propose to put the Government to the trouble and labour of a Division, and we hope that this forbearance on our part will bring from our colleagues on the opposite benches similar consideration when other matters which raise more sharply controversial issues come forward.
I should not venture to address the Committee after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman if it were not for the fact that he has overlooked a very important consideration on this question of the Clause standing part. He is quite right in saying the Committee were illuminated by the wonderful speech of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) out of the great knowledge he possesses on this subject, but the whole point of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that these liquors are not really beer at all but are a medicinal concoction which have acquired the name "beer." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the last occasion when he occupied his distinguished position, repealed the whole of the duty upon herb beer. The spruce tree may not technically be termed a herb, but if there is a Concoction made out of spruce which the right hon. Member for Camborne tells us is not really beer but is a medicinal concoction, what is it but a herb beer?
I am Shocked to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer after four or five years of quiet reflection on the Opposition bench and after having repealed the herb beer duty, should ask us to pass a Clause which places an enormous duty upon this perfectly harmless concoction which we are told ought not to be regarded as beer at all. That is a consideration which surely comes into the question of whether this Clause ought or ought not to stand part. I think the debate conclusively shows that it ought not, and although the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said he was not going to trouble the Committee to go to a Division I am extremely exercised in my mind as to whether the Government have any justification whatever for putting a Customs duty upon alcoholic drink imported into this country under the guise of medicine, after having repealed the whole of the duty upon herb beer. In the circumstances, although I think we ought to divide against this Clause, I am ready to follow the course which has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and allow the Clause to go through with a Division.I should not have intervened in this debate but for the remarks which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). The right hon. Gentleman has stated that certain beverages are non-alcoholic, and reference has been made to cocktails and ginger ales. One of the most important people who gave evidence before the Royal Commission which dealt with this subject said that ginger ale contains far more alcohol than beer.
I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee correcting the hon. Member's statements, but I would like to say that I do not accept any of his misimaginings.
What I have stated is a fact. I am quite prepared to fall into line with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has said, and what has been stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) who have advised us not to divide against this Clause. All I wish to say is that the speech which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne is about the most deplorable speech that has been delivered in this House for a very long time.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Clause 3—(Annual Value Of Premises In London For Purpose Of Duty On Excise Licences)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I think that this Clause is an inopportune Clause, and I desire to oppose it. It will be seen that the marginal note is:
Hon. Members on these benches have found some difficulty in understanding where this Clause leads and what its purpose is, and, after some research, I was led to examine Clause 26, which has the following marginal note:"Annual value of premises in London for purposes of duty on excise licences."
I therefore suppose—and I put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not in any spirit of opposition, but in order to get an elucidation of the meaning of the Clause—that Clause 3 and Clause 26 in some way dovetail into each other. While I was on the Government Bench, I was addressed on several occasions by hon. Members who asked me whether there had been any alteration in the system of assessment under Schedule A in the country, and I think that, since the present Financial Secretary has been in office, questions have also been put to him on the same lines. A considerable amount of confusion is running in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the country as to what is being done in regard to assessments under Schedule A. I have traced back to what this particular Clause refers to, and I find that the Finance Act, 1924, Sub-section (2) of Section 12, by which this Clause needs to be tested, runs as follows:"Annual value of property in London for purposes of income tax."
I suppose that Clause 3 is put in at this place, and not aggregated with Clause 26, which deals with assessments, because we are now in the region of the discussion of beer and of Excise provisions. The Clause is very inconvenient here, and I think it contributes very considerably to confusion of thought. If I am right in thinking that this Clause is complementary to Clause 26, and is necessary in order to bring London licensed premises into line with Clause 26, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give me some information on the matter in due course. If I am right, let me see what Clause 26 of the Bill does. Clause 26, if I may paraphrase it in my own words, means that assessments under Schedule A in London are in future—and this, I believe, was outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech—to be based on the valuation to be made by the Inland Revenue, as is the case elsewhere in England, and this, therefore, is to apply to Clause 3 as it now stands in the Bill; that is to say, after April, 1931, the Sub-section of the Act of 1924 which I have just read, and which is now stated in Clause 3, will apply to London as it applies to the rest of England, and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will assess licensed premises for the duty. That is how I read the Clause. I hope I am correct, though I do not wish to dogmatise on my opinion. There is another reason why I want to protest against the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill. I object to these temporary alterations in the licensing basis while the Royal Commission is looking into licensing arrangements. As I have said, I think that the Clause is inopportune, and it ought not to have been proposed until the Licensing Commission had reported. I do not like this tinkering with the conditions under which licences are to be granted. There is still another reason why I object to the Clause. I remember that three or four years ago, when I was at the Department of Overseas Trade, it was my duty to take the lead in what was known as the "Come to Britain" movement. The question of licensing and the re-arrangement of licences came up in a very drastic form, and I had a considerable amount of correspondence with the then Home Secretary, and he asked me not to press the point until the whole question of licensing had been gone into by a Commission. I am disappointed, therefore, that steps have been taken to tinker with the position. We wanted to get the "Come to Britain" movement going. One of the main reasons why we cannot invigorate our tourist trade is the difficulty of hotel arrangements. We need more hotels. Everyone to whom I applied for better accommodation to fit in with the move- ment to attract tourists said, "We can never get the hotels built while the system of licensing is as it is now." Here you are going to have a system of assessing licences in London and the provinces which will apply equally to hotels, restaurants, and bars, and you put on the hotels, which make their living by the sale of food and by the letting of lodgings, and in a very small degree by the sale of alcohol, a burden which discourages people from building hotels. I think, therefore, it is very inopportune to start tinkering with the licensing laws without some differentiation between hotels, restaurants, and bars. I could quite understand the Chancellor putting this Clause in to rearrange the basis of assessment for London provided he also put in some powers to differentiate between hotels and bars and restaurants. If he had done so, he would have made a move which we could have supported. His action will postpone our opportunity to erect fine hotels, which are needed in London and the provinces in order to attract the very valuable traffic of tourists, and we must oppose the Clause as a protest against his action in doing a very inopportune thing in taking this occasion to rearrange the system upon which licences are based."In the case of premises to which the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, does not apply, the person applying for any such excise license as aforesaid may, if the income tax value applicable to the premises is the amount of a rent paid for the premises, require the commissioners of Customs and Excise to assess the annual value of the premises for the purpose of the duty to be charged on the licence as if there were no income tax value applicable."
Not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer but the Attorney-General ought to be present, because this is a very intricate and difficult legal question which, though it has been passed by the House for regions outside London, has never been discussed. It is extraordinarily undesirable that difficult and complicated Clauses should be smuggled through the House without anyone understanding them. In certain research that I made when the Clause was put into effect for regions outside London in 1924 not one single person, except perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, really understood what a vital change was being made for the whole country. I will quote from the debate in 1924. I regret to say that the accomplice of the Chancellor in this matter was my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts). I do not know whether he will be able to throw any light on the matter. I hope he will. What he said on that occasion was:
"I beg to move, 'That the Clause be read a Second time.'
It is rather a complicated Amendment and, in order to save time, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be good enough to indicate if it is one he can accept.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Amendment concerns Inhabited House Duty, and is a necessary one. I hope the Committee will accept it. It deals with the basis of assessment.
This is a difficult and complicated Clause which, I think, no one could understand until he had studied the statutes of England for about six hours, but it was put through without any further discussion than that which I have indicated. When I read the Section, I was determined that there should be some more complicated and more technical examination before it was extended to the metropolitan area. This is really a question in regard to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be able to fall back upon the gossip columns of daily newspapers in order to find a rhetorical reply. I think rather he will have to have a very great knowledge of the Statutes of the last 100 years. I would have preferred on this matter to see the Attorney-General present. The first thing that strikes one about the Clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) said, is that it is extending the provisions of the Finance Act of 1924. One wonders why. One at first was likely to be a little suspicious—because the first occasion was the right hon. Gentleman's first Budget and this is the second Budget—that he was trying, by a process of penetration, to get into the provinces and then to come to London, but I think that that would be doing the right hon. Gentleman a great injustice, because in 1924 it would have been impossible for him to extend this proposal to London as under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, the rating valuation of the Poor Law authority was conclusive. Therefore, he could not have brought it under the provisions of that Act. He produces Clause 26 and says that the valuation list for the time being in force shall cease to be conclusive evidence of values, and then produces Clause 3, which is really consequential on Clause 26. In order to explain the position one has to go very considerably into the various rating assessments, Income Tax law assessment and Excise assessment, from which the Committee will realise what a tremendously complicated issue we are engaged upon. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1924, refers us back to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869. That Sub-section is entirely meaningless unless you read the whole of the Section. It is absolutely necessary to describe the whole of the Section. In Sub-section (1) it says:Question put and agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1924; col. 2210, Vol. 175.]
In the Metropolis Income Tax value has been fixed by the rating authorities until this year. Under the Valuation Act of 1869 a very convenient arrangement was come to. Local authorities fixed the assessment of property and it was conclusive for Income Tax purposes and for Excise purposes. That was a simple arrangement which worked well. It suited the revenue and the taxpayer, and it saved an infinite variety of Income Tax officials a tremendous amount of work. All this the right hon. Gentleman proposes to sweep away. He wishes to bring London into line with the provinces, where there are two or three assessments. There is the rating assessment, the Income Tax assessment, and now there will be this subsidiary Excise assessment, and the simple Metropolitan method is to be brought up to date by complicating it in this manner! There was a suggestion that the whole country should follow the Metropolitan method and that the rating authority's assessment should be conclusive for all purposes. That raised a considerable outcry in the agricultural districts, and it was not adopted; but why London, in which there is no agricultural land—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"]—or very little indeed, should have to come up to the standard in the provinces I do not know. Under this Bill the value of licensed premises, the Income Tax value is the first which is to be complicated. Under paragraph (b), Section 12, of the 1925 Act,"The annual value of any premises for the purposes of the duty on any Excise licence charged by reference to the annual value shall be in Great Britain—(a) the Income Tax value, if there is such a value applicable."
And so on. This is something which leads us still further into legal difficulties. It is really a matter of great importance which I can explain to the Committee:"If there is no Income Tax applicable, such amount as, in the opininion of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, represents the annual rent which a free tenant might reasonably be expected, taking one year with another, to pay for the premises,"
When I first read that Section I was completely bewildered, but with a moderate degree of determination I tried to find out what it meant, and, when I discovered what it meant, I thought it was my duty to tell the Committee. The meaning of that provision is this, that certain licensed premises do not exactly correspond with the premises which are taxed for Income Tax purposes, and it is therefore necessary to refer to the definition of "licensed premises" in the Finance Act, 1911. The expression is there defined thus:"For the purpose of this provision, the income Tax value means the value adopted for the purpose of Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, and the Income Tax value shall be deemed to be applicable if the premises to which a value is attached for the purpose of the tax correspond with the premises the annual value of which is required for the purposes of the charge of duty on the licence."
The Committee will clearly understand now the reason for this provision in the 1924 Act, and will see that "premises," for the purposes of Excise Duty, means something quite different from premises in the case of Inhabited House Duty. They will see, on the one hand, that premises for the purpose of Excise Duty may include a part which is not used for the purpose of the business at all. On the other hand, there may be a large business in a tiny part of which there is a licence to someone to sell liquor. So some provision had to be made in the 1924 Act to deal with that position. I do not know whether the Committee will be interested if I go back to the whole history of the Liquor Licence Duties. At first they were raised as Inhabited House Duty, but it was found that sometimes a licence holder lived on the premises, and sometimes premises of this kind were not inhabited in the ordinary sense, and so this special duty came to be instituted. We now realise that the Income Tax value of licensed premises must be considered to apply if there is a stated value applicable, that is, if the licensed premises correspond with the premises for Income Tax purposes, and correspond with inhabited houses. In the case in which there is no Income Tax value applicable at all, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may apply the ordinary method of rating. Then we have the third eventuality, which is the provision with which we are now dealing, for the purposes of the 1924 Act and the present Bill. I will read to the Committee that provision:"The expression 'premises' in relation to the annual value of licensed premises includes any offices, courts, yards and gardens which are occupied together with and are within the curtilage, or in the immediate vicinity, of the house or place where the liquor is sold, except any such offices, courts, yards or gardens as are proved to the satisfaction of the commissioners to be used either altogether, or with occasional exceptions only, for any trade or business which is entirely distinct from the trade or business carried on in the house or place by the licence holder as such, and also includes any building or place which, though not within the curtilage, or in the immediate vicinity, of the house or place where the liquor is sold, is used by the licence holder for receiving or storing liquor, or which, in the opinion of the commissioners, is used by him, otherwise than occasionally, for any purpose in connection with the sale of liquor."
I think I have explained to the Committee this very complicated situation which was never discussed before. I want, in return, to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he or his hon. Friend would explain what is the exact meaning of these words. After considerable research, I have been unable to find any judicial definition of them. The operative words of this Section are:"In the case of premises to which the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, does not apply, the persons applying for any such Excise licence as aforesaid may, if the Income Tax value applicable to the premises is the amount of a rent paid for the premises, require the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to assess the annual value of the premises for the purpose of the duty to be charged on the licence as if there was no Income Tax value applicable."
If that condition is fulfilled the tenant himself may require the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to assess the annual value of the premises for the purpose of the duties upon that licence and so on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to explain to the Committee what is the meaning and the purpose of that provision. I think he did not explain it in 1924 and he ought to do so now. It is often said that representatives of various interests approach hon. Members of the House of Commons, and that those hon. Members with perfectly innocent intent put forward Amendments which sometimes are smuggled through. Is there any substance in this provision? If not, why is it brought forward? To whom is it an advantage; to whom is it a gift, and what does it all mean? How does the licensee benefit if he makes this application? What is the use of sweeping away the simple method of valuation which exists under the Valuation Act of 1859 and substituting this very complicated method on which we now have to fall back? The real indictment against this Clause is the fact that the old system is being swept away but that point arises on a later Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to explain to us first what this Clause means and why it is necessary to bring it forward at all for London. If lie does so, I, at any rate, shall be far more enlightened than I am now. I deplore the custom of bringing forward these complicated changes in our law without adequate explanation. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody the tremendous trouble which is caused both to the taxpayers and the Government by introducing Clauses of this unintelligible nature. I defy any reasonable publican or any reasonable man interested in this trade, to understand the meaning of the Sub-section I have quoted, without access to a legal library and perhaps a legal training. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to explain it, let him frankly say so and send for the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General caused considerable comment by saying the other day that certain Acts of Parliament, especially Income Tax Acts, were drafted in such a way that it was difficult if not impossible to understand them. Here is an opportunity for the Attorney-General to display his very considerable legal acumen—for which he deserves quite the salary which he is paid by the Government, if not more. He has come to the assistance of the Government again and again and got them out of difficult situations. Here is a matter in which his subtle mind could be used to explain this whole matter from beginning to end but without his considered opinion I feel we shall not get very far with the consideration of this question."If the Income Tax value applicable to the premises is the amount of a rent paid for the premises."
11.0 p.m.
The hon. Member spoke for a long time upon a very small point—because this Clause deals only with a small point, and does not, at any rate directly or at this stage, raise any of the complicated valuation matters on which he has dilated at such length. He rightly associated this Clause with Clause 26. The two are complementary and indeed, although this comes first, it might be said that it is consequential on Clause 26. The method of assessment for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A in London is at the present time different from the method in the Provinces. In London the local assessment is taken as the basis of assessment for Income Tax purposes, and Clause 26 proposes to assimilate the provincial method and the London method. In the Provinces Schedule A is taken as the basis of assessment for Licence Duty purposes. This Clause will in that respect assimilate London and the Provinces.
I have been asked what benefit this Clause will confer. At the present time, in London there is no appeal. I suppose there is an appeal for a person assessed in regard to a local assessment, but that is taken as the basis for Licence Duties, and the Customs and Excise must take that as a basis. Now it is different in the Provinces. If there is no dispute, the assessment for Income Tax purposes is taken as the basis for the assessment of Licence Duty, but the licence-holder has this additional advantage over the licence-holder in London, that if he is dissatisfied with the Income Tax assessment as the basis for his Licence Duty, he can appeal to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and if they consider it a just claim, they can base the assessment for Licence Duty upon what they regard as a fairer valuation. That is the simple and, so far as this Clause is concerned, the whole explanation. All the matters raised by the last speaker would be more appropriately discussed on Clause 26.The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the fundamental question which I asked him, and if he cannot answer it, I will be glad to have an answer from the Attorney-General.
Do not be insolent.
You do not know what you are talking about.
On a point of Order. On what grounds is the hon. Gentleman entitled to interrupt the debate by shouting across the House that an hon. Member, who has already addressed the Committee with every evidence of careful study of the subject, does not know what he is talking about? I ask for your Ruling whether that is a Parliamentary intervention in the debate.
These interruptions across the Floor are never in order, but unfortunately they are far too common on both sides. I would rather they did not occur at all.
I confessed ignorance and perplexity with regard to these words myself, and I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be able to answer my question, because it is one of great technical difficulty, and I intended no kind of insult to him by suggesting that he does not know how to answer it. The only opinion that I really value on it is the considered opinion of the Attorney-General himself. I want to know what the meaning of these words, the operative condition which puts this particular Sub-section into effect, is:
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have searched for a judicial comment or explanation of these words. Do they mean that the Income Tax value is exactly the amount of the rent payable for the premises? If so, it must be a very rare condition and must hardly, if ever, come into effect, because these two things are very seldom the same. Does it mean that the income value is equal to or more than the rent paid for the premises? These questions are very technical and difficult, and the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to explain what they mean. The only real answer that was given to my speech upon this matter was that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to bring London into line with the provinces. I do not see why we should do that. Why should we not reverse the process and simplify the whole procedure for the whole country, rather than complicate things in London because they are complicated in the country?"If the Income Tax value applicable to the premises is the amount of a rent paid for the premises."
I hope that we shall not be led away into discussing Clause 26 until we come to it. There is a great deal to be said about that, but on this Clause I do not see any difficulty. With great respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think he overstated the intended advantage of the Clause. The point can be quite simply put. When you come to settle the Excise Duty to be paid, you get a value on which to work. Section 12 says that you have to take the Income Tax value, if there is one. If there is not an Income Tax value then the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have to fix for themselves a fair value, which is based in the usual way on the rent that a hypothetical tenant would pay. Very often that rent is too high, because it has been fixed wider certain conditions. The value of the premises may have deteriorated and the Income Tax value may be based upon a rent figure which is too high to do justice. Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1924 is not imposing any disadvantage upon the tenant. It is giving him an option, but it does not go as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, namely, that whenever the tenant was not satisfied with the Income Tax valuation he could require the commissioners to make a fresh assessment. It would be a very valuable Section if it did that. It is only where the value is based upon an Income Tax value which is the amount of rent paid, that the person concerned is given the benefit of this option. The person who has to pay the duty is always bound by the Income Tax value unless that Income Tax value happens to be based upon the rent. If he thinks that is unfair and too high, and that the value of the premises has come down, he has the option to ask for a fresh assessment. That is the meaning of the Sub-section and that is the only application of it. It would be better if it were extended as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, so that wherever the person concerned was dissatisfied with the Income Tax valuation he could get a new one. When we come to Clause 26 we are making a tremendous innovation in London values, but we will leave that Clause until we come to it. As to the present Clause, I do not see anything to object to.
I am impressed by what my hon. and learned Friend has said, and I do not desire to carry further the discussion upon the point raised in the speech of the hon. Member behind me. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he thinks it convenient to take this Clause in this position in the Bill? When invited to give an explanation, he said Clause 3 was consequential on Clause 26. It is putting the cart before the horse if you consider consequences first and Clauses afterwards. I see, as a matter of arrangement, this section of the Bill is headed "Valuation," and more specifically "Values in London," but the only Clause which deals with values in London is Clause 26. Yet, instead of being put to the Clause to which it is related and on which it is consequential, the Committee is asked to decide as if it stood apart, and with the admission that the Clause to which it is consequential raises wider issues, and that it is our decision on that Clause which must cover our decision on this. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would not defer this until Clause 26 has been discussed, so that we may take it in its proper place and in due relation to all the issues raised.
I suppose the Parliamentary draftsman must have had very good reasons for inserting this Clause here, but I confess that what those reasons are I do not know. I do not think that it is necessary that we should postpone the Clause until we reach Clause 26. No harm can be done by passing this Clause now, and, when we come to Clause 26, should there be some material alteration which would necessitate some change, that can be dealt with on the Report stage. In reply to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), the position he put is absolutely correct, and, if I made the observation which he stated, then I am afraid I did not quite express myself clearly. The cases will only be those of a very high Income Tax assessment.
May I suggest that the reason that the Clause has been put in this position is a fairly obvious one, but not a sufficient one. The Part in which this Clause appears deals with Customs and Excise, and the Clause deals with an Excise Duty, but in its essence, it is not an Excise Duty, but the method of valuation for the levy of the Excise Duty; and valuation in all other respects, and particularly valuation in London, is reserved for the Part which contains Clause 26. I have come to the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman to Supply the reason, which I think is the correct one, for the action of the draftsman, but it is not a sufficient reason for putting it in what the right hon. Gentleman admits is not its natural place. It cannot be natural to put a Clause which is consequential to a later one before that later one. The only logical place for it is in the Part which contains Clause 26.
I have not had an opportunity of communicating with my hon. Friend who proposed the rejection of the Clause, but what I suggest would be a convenient course would be that he should withdraw his proposal in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the postponement of the Clause, so that it could be considered after we have dealt with Clause 26. That would be logical, and for the convenience of the Committee.The right hon. Gentleman has answered his own question and the fact that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have to do the assessing makes it necessary for this Clause to come into this Part of the Finance Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) put what I felt when I proposed the rejection of this Clause, and, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw my proposal, in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw the Clause, and move it after Clause 26.
My right hon Friend has made a definite offer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are now discussing a proposal for the rejection of this Clause, but we should be quite ready to withdraw that on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman will move the postponement of the Clause to its proper place in the Bill We have not had any answer to that, and before we go any further, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us where we stand.
I will certainly make no such Motion as that, and my justification is the speech of the right hon Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who gave a reason, which was amply sufficient, and which was not within my knowledge when I spoke before. I am very much obliged to him, with his long experience in these matters, for coming to my rescue. Although it may be true that this deals with a matter of valuation, it also deals with the Licence Duty, and the fact that it deals with the Licence Duty, makes its place appropriate in the Part which deals with Customs.
The fact that it deals with Licence Duty is not in itself decisive. It deals with Licence Duty, but quâ Licence Duty it is not more akin to the content of the Clauses which come immediately before than it is to the Clauses 26 and 27.
Though this may be the proper place in the Bill at which this Clause should be inserted it by no means follows that this is the proper time for the Committee to consider it. The ultimate form of this Clause must depend on what is done hereafter with Clause 26; if there is any substantial alteration to that Clause there will have to be some alteration in this Clause. I believe I am right in saying the time has passed when this Clause can be withdrawn from the Committee, because it has already been considered, but there have been other occasions within my experience when, after considerable discussion on a Clause, it has been found advisable to consider it at a later period, and all that need be done is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should agree that the Clause should be negatived now and move a new Clause after Clause 26 has been dealt with. If we are to get a really homogeneous Bill, properly arranged and to settle the matter, as far as we can on the Committee stage, I suggest that we ought to have an opportunity of reconsidering this Clause after we have dealt with Clause 26. If the Chancellor would agree to negative the Clause now it would make it very much easier for the Committee to consider matters in that spirit of good- will in which we have been carrying on the discussion.
After having listened to this debate, there are still many points which our lay minds cannot fully appreciate. I think it is quite clear that the Chancellor himself did not expect the very learned and well-informed speech we had from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), who raised very many points which will be shown to be very relevant to the matter under discussion when we come to Clauses 26 and 27, and must deserve a fuller answer than we have been given. Therefore, I hope the Chancellor will agree to the suggestion to allow this Clause to be negatived. There is not the slightest doubt that after we have discussed Clauses 26 and 27 it will be necessary to make some alterations in this Clause 3, and therefore it is obvious that it must be for the convenience of the Committee and the benefit of the Finance Bill in its final form that we should have a further opportunity of discussing this Clause when, perhaps, the Attorney-General is present and there are more facts before the Committee than the Government can produce at the moment.
I think that it will facilitate the discussion of this part of the Measure if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the suggestion which has been made from this side of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman will find as we go along that he will make better progress if he does not try to push this Bill down our throats in chunks. We have been asked to discuss this very important Clause under circumstances of great disadvantage. Hon. Members who are learned in the law may find that this Clause is simple to understand, but it is not so easy for those who have not the necessary technical knowledge of the subject. I think I am entitled to ask for an explanation of a technical proposal of this kind. I wish to ask two specific questions. In the first place, I wish to know why it is necessary to make this change. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he is only bringing London into line with the provinces, but he did not say what moved him to do that.
My second question is how much is this concession going to cost the Exchequer? An hon. Member on this side of the Committee asked if this was a concession to the licence holders and the right hon. Gentleman replied that it was a concession. I gather from that statement that the licence holders if this Clause is passed will have to pay on an average a considerably less sum than they are now paying otherwise the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have been justified in saying that this was a very appreciable concession. Have the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman calculated what this concession is going to cost? I am sure that nobody wishes to put an unfair burden on the licence holders who carry on a trade which is just as respectable as any other trade in the country. We do not wish to oppose any measure of justice to the London licence holders but we should like to know the value of this concession.My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has suggested that the reason for putting this Clause here is that it is one of the Clauses which deal with Excise licence duties, but I would like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a plea from the point of view of the people who are taxed, rather than from the point of view of the taxing authority. I am sure that hon. Members who have had to consider questions in this Committee on the Finance Bill as far as it has gone must have realised the extraordinary complication of the different Finance Bills to which they have had to refer, and, when you find a Clause such as this, the marginal note of which commences:
and when at Clause 26 you find the marginal note also commencing with the words:"Annual value of premises in London,"
the only difference being that in the one case the Clause deals with excise duties and in the other case with Income Tax, the taxpayer, if he is one of those who are subject to Excise Duties as well as to Income Tax, and are more hardly taxed than any other section of the population, namely, the holders of licensed premises, when he consults this Bill and finds a Clause like Clause 3, he will think that he has got to the bottom of the matter. I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the point of view of the taxpayer, that it would be infinitely more convenient if two Clauses such as Clauses 3 and 26, both dealing with the same class of premises and both dealing with the question of premises in London, came somewhere nearer together than 23 Clauses apart in this long and complicated Bill. Whatever may be the merits of placing this Clause early in the Bill because it has something to do with Excise Duties, and the other Clause at the end because it has some remote connection with Income Tax, it would be, from the taxpayer's point of view, infinitely more convenient if the one Clause immediately succeeded the other, and if Clause 3 followed Clause 26 instead of preceding it. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be sufficiently mollified to give way on this small point. It would be a convenience, not only for the present House of Commons, which has to consider this Bill, but for future Houses of Parliament who will have to consider the Bill when it is an Act, and who would never suspect that, 20 Clauses or more away from this one, there is another Clause which is really the major Clause of the two, buried away in that place because it has something to do with Income Tax. I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this matter from a common-sense point of view, and not from the point of view of the draftsman, which he had to admit to the Committee, 10 minutes ago, he did not understand before my right hon. Friend enlightened him. I think he would be well advised, not only to take instruction from my right hon. Friend, but also to follow the advice that my right hon. Friend has tendered to him in regard to this small point of the placing of this Clause."Annual value of property in London,"
It has emerged during the debate that the annual value of licensed premises may be taken under those heads, that for the local authority, that for the purpose of Income Tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to extend the provincial system to the Metropolis, so that if the licence holder is not satisfied with the valuation under the Income Tax provisions, he can claim to be valued for Excise purposes. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) pointed out in his long and carefully thought out speech that Clause 7 refers to Sub-section (2) of the Finance Act, 1924, and I gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has extended these provisions to the Metropolis to give some kind of benefit to the licence holder. [Interruption.]
Give Smithereens a chance.
On a point of Order. Is it in order to call my hon. Friend "Smithereens"?
I did not hear the observation.
I thank the hon. Member for his friendly help.
I assure you it was meant in no other spirit.
May I ask if that is not an admission by the hon. Member that he made the observation?
I did not hear that observation either.
If the holder of licensed premises has them valued under one of those three heads and he is dissatisfied, has he any appeal? I want to ask why Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1924, is not included in Clause 3 of the Bill. Section 3 gives a form of appeal.
Is it a fact that these Commissioners act in the double capacity of making the assessment and sitting in judgment on the appeal that is made on their assessment? Further, if the Commissioners make an assessment which is a subject of dissatisfaction for the tenant, do the same Commissioners who make the assessment hear the complaint of the tenant? It seems to me that, even with the benefit given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of a third form of annual valuation, there is no provision whereby an appeal can be made after the valuation has been made."Any person dissatisfied with the annual value of any premises fixed by the said commissioners under this Section may appeal to the general Commissioners of Income Tax for the division in which the premises are situated, who shall hear the appeal and determine the annual value in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this section."
I rise to emphasise the point my hon. Friend has made and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider it. I rather think it has been an oversight. Section 12 (2) of the Finance Act, 1924, is incorporated in the Bill and Sub-section (3) is really part and parcel of Sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) enables him to appeal to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise where he is dissatisfied and then, if he is dissatisfied with the value fixed by the Commissioners, he may appeal to the General Commissioners of Income Tax. Honestly, if the whole idea is to get the two systems working in harmony, the same right of appeal should be given in the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter before the Report stage, it would only mean adding Sub-section (3) as well as Sub-section (2). I do not think that it would have any effect whatever if Clause 26 was to be taken out. The wisdom of passing this Clause before Clause 26 is dealt with is another matter.
I should like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the inadequacy of the reasons he has given for not postponing this Clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) suggested a reason that might have been in the mind of the draftsman for putting the Clause in its present position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted that reason as being the reason why he insisted on taking it now. I would point out that the problem before the draftsman and that before the Committee are different matters. Anyone who has had any experience in drafting documents must be aware that it is often a question of opinion whether a proposal should be divided into two Clauses or incorporated in one Clause. The draftsman in this House who has to consider this question has the whole matter before him; it is not a matter of principle, but of convenience. This Committee can only consider matters as they come before it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, having said that this Clause is complementary to the later Clause, has given no relevant reason whatever why we should not take these two Clauses, which are part of the same matter, together and deal with the whole question.
I do not want to delay the Committee in coming to a decision, but I am the first London Member who has spoken on this Amendment, and this Clause, as well as Clauses 26 and 27, particularly affects London. I want to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to delete this Clause in order that we may discuss it when we reach the other two Clauses. We are rather nervous as to the effect of this provision. If Clause 3 was in its proper place in the Bill, that is, after Clause 26, there is no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would ask for a general discussion upon the three Clauses, and the right hon. Gentleman has already said that the speech of my hon. and learned
Division No. 310.]
| AYES.
| [11.47 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Edmunds, J. E. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Egan, W. H. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Elmley, Viscount | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Kennedy, Thomas |
| Ammon, Charles George | Foot, Isaac | Kinley, J. |
| Arnott, John | Forgan, Dr. Robert | Kirkwood, D. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Freeman, Peter | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lang, Gordon |
| Ayles, Walter | Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lathan, G. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Barr, James | Gibbins, Joseph | Law, A. (Rosendale) |
| Batey, Joseph | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Gill, T. H. | Lawson, John James |
| Bellamy, Albert | Gillett, George M. | Leach, W. |
| Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Glassey, A. E. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Benson, G. | Gossling, A. G. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Gould, F. | Lees, J. |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Blindell, James | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Gray, Milner | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Bromfield, William | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Longden, F. |
| Bromley, J. | Groves, Thomas E. | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Brooke, W. | Grundy, Thomas W. | Lunn, William |
| Brothers, M. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | McElwee, A. |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Harbord, A. | McEntee, V. L. |
| Buchanan, G. | Hardie, George D. | McKinlay, A. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Harris, Percy A. | McShane, John James |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Mansfield, W. |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Haycock, A. W. | Marcus, M. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Hayday, Arthur | Markham, S. F. |
| Cape, Thomas | Hayes, John Henry | Marley, J. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.) | Marshall, Fred |
| Charieton, H. C. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mathers, George |
| Chater, Daniel | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Matters, L. W. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Herriotts, J. | Melville, Sir James |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Messer, Fred |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Middleton, G. |
| Compton, Joseph | Hoffman, P. C. | Mills, J. E. |
| Cowan, D. M. | Hollins, A. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Daggar, George | Hopkin, Daniel | Morley, Ralph |
| Dalton, Hugh | Horrabin, J. F. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Davies, E. C, (Montgomery) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Mort, D. L. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Moses, J. J. H. |
| Dickson, T. | Isaacs, George | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Muff, G. |
| Dukes, C. | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Nathan, Major H. L. |
| Duncan, Charles | Johnston, Thomas | Naylor, T. E. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Edge, Sir William | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Noel Baker, P. J. |
Friend would have been more appropriate on Clause 26. They all deal with the same subject.
I hope we shall have a reply to the substantial point which has been put by the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) and myself. The right hon. Gentleman, apparently, considered it was a matter which should be dealt with on Report stage.
Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 254; Noes, 145.
| Oldfield, J. R. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Toole, Joseph |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Sherwood, G. H. | Townend, A. E. |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Shield, George William | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Viant, S. P. |
| Palin, John Henry. | Shillaker, J. F. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Palmer, E. T. | Shinwell, E. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan) | Simmons, C. J. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Peters, Dr. Sidney John | Sinkinson, George | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sitch, Charles H. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Picton-Turbervill, Edith | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Potts, John S. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Price, M. P. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Quibell, D. J. K. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | West, F. R. |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Rathbone, Eleanor | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | White, H. G. |
| Richards, R. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sorensen, R. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Stamford, Thomas W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Ritson, J. | Stephen, Campbell | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Romeril, H. G. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Strauss, G. R. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Rowson, Guy | Sullivan, J. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Salter, Dr. Alfred | Sutton, J. E. | Wise, E. F. |
| Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Sanders, W. S. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Scurr, John | Thurtle, Ernest | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilfrid Paling. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Peake, Captain Osbert |
| Albery, Irving James | Everard, W. Lindsay | Penny, Sir George |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Atkinson, C. | Fielden, E. B. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Purbrick, R. |
| Balniel, Lord | Forestier-Walker, Sir L. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Remer, John R. |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Gower, Sir Robert | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Salmon, Major J. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Boyce, H. L. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Bracken, B. | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Savery, S. S. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Butler, R. A. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Hammersley, S. S. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hanbury, C. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Haslam, Henry C. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur P. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Colman, N. C. D. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Long, Major Eric | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Lymington, Viscount | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Mond, Hon. Henry | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Muirhead, A. J. | |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | O'Neill, Sir H. | Sir George Hennessy and Captain |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Euan Wallace. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | |
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will treat this mater, as it has been the custom of his predecessors, I think, to treat it, and that, whatever pressure the Committee may be under at a later stage—and we all know that as the Bill proceeds the pressure becomes greater—he will not ask us to sit any longer on this, the first day of the Committee discussions. We have disposed of three Clauses; there are important Clauses immediately in front of us, and, as it is now midnight, I think we might be content with what we have accomplished and adjourn the remaining Clauses to a later day. I am encouraged to hope for a favourable response from the right hon. Gentleman because a Committee of the House of Commons has, I see, unanimously found that these late sittings are undesirable and to be discouraged. While the Committee in some of its findings differed from the Prime Minister and from the leaders of the other two parties whom they asked to give evidence before them, their unanimous finding in this matter is in agreement with the views of the leaders of all parties. In the face of such evidence of general opinion I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel that he has made a sufficient demand on the Committee by asking them to sit until midnight and that he will agree to my Motion.12 m.
The right hon. Gentleman has put his request in a perfectly courteous way and I have no desire at all to keep the Committee unduly late. But I must confess that I am grievously disappointed with the rate of progress to-day. I had hoped to get, at least, to the end of Clause 6 and in my more sanguine moments I had hoped that we might get to Clause 9. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request. As regards the question of late sittings, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the recommendation of the Committee which has been considering the Sittings of the House. May I say that the question of whether we sit late or not is always in the hands of the Opposition. They determine the rate of progress of our debates and I do not think that it is altogether reasonable for them to expect that we should now make the concession which has been asked in view of the very great length of time occupied to-day by debates upon questions which had already been discussed at great length on the Budget Resolutions. I do not say so in any offensive sense at all but it is the case that, in one respect, a late sitting is a matter of less concern to hon. Members opposite than to my hon. Friends on this side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I suppose there are very few hon. Members opposite who have not motor cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is an inconvenience to many hon. Members if a sitting lasts, until after the trains have stopped running—say, until one o'clock or two o'clock—and in such a case I think we might as well continue until the trains have begun to run again about half-past five o'clock or so. If, then, we are going to continue, I hope we shall continue until five o'clock or six o'clock in the morning.
It is not without precedent for the Committee to sit until the small hours of the morning on the first day of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I find that on the first Finance Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in 1925, the first day of the Committee proceedings lasted until 3.16 a.m. and the next day's proceedings until 3.52 a.m. and on two other occasions there were sittings which lasted until 5.45 a.m. and 6.20 a.m. respectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Opposition!"] That is my opinion—that the question of late sittings rests mainly with the Opposition. We have a very small Amendment next on the Paper dealing with the abolition of entry certificates for bookmakers. I do not know whether or not the Committee wishes to discuss that matter very fully, but I understand that the Clause which follows, dealing with the abolition of certain Safeguarding Duties, is one to which the Opposition attach a great deal of importance, and which they would like to debate at length. It is now twelve o'clock and, if they occupy two hours on that Clause it will bring us to what I have already said is a most inconvenient hour for rising. Taking all these things into consideration, I think we had better go on. I regret that I cannot accept, at the moment, the very courteous request which the right hon. Gentleman has made.The right hon. Gentleman has been on the horns of a dilemma. He has been weighing and balancing things, and has been advancing with great caution: like an elephant trying a doubtful bridge. Until the last moment I was in ignorance as to the course he intended to adopt. [An HON. MEMBER: "Surely, you know him."] Yes, one ought to have given him the benefit of the doubt and to have realised that of two positions he would take the more disagreeable one. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was well advised to choose the most opportune moment for raising the question that we should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. This matter touches the convenience of many hon. Members. Undoubtedly, if our proceedings become protracted, they will become very protracted. The appetite will grow with eating. Whether the progress of the Bill will become more marked I cannot say. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the next Clause as being a small and subsidiary Clause. It raises a large question and must be discussed at length. It deals with the Betting Duty. The right hon. Gentleman is throwing away revenue with both hands: just because he cannot touch the unclean thing. But he gets revenue from liquor, and then laps it up.
I had hopes that the right hon. Gentleman would have considered our suggestion favourably. We are willing to conform to any arrangement to meet the general convenience. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Committee which has been considering the hours of the House has reported against all-night sittings. Undoubtedly, the class and character of our business tends to deteriorate as the night advances, although important questions arise. A point for consideration is the work which Ministers have to perform in the early morning of the next day. To-morrow is a very important day. There is to be a Division to-morrow night, I believe. It is very important that we should have a full explanation from the Government tomorrow—we are all waiting for it—and also an explanation of the policy of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir Oswald Mosley). I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to reply.indicated dissent.
Well, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have to be in constant attendance, and he will have important work to do in the morning. From every point of view, especially his own, it is not worth our while continuing the debate at this late hour. However, the matter rests with the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot pretend to have any influence with him. I have no more influence with him than had his late colleague, the ex-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The right hon. Gentleman brushes people aside, or tries to crush them as would a juggernaut car. He told us earlier in the evening that he did not care either for my praise or my criticism. He adheres to that. A man of greater importance than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the great lexicographer, Dr. Johnson, told us that the applause of a single individual is of great consequence. The right hon. Gentleman so easily waves people on one side. One day it is one of his colleagues who is waved out of the administration, another day it is a member of the Opposition who is endeavouring to examine the legislation he brings before the House. When one gets into an important situation like that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one has continuously to say to oneself "Modesty." The right hon. Gentleman runs a great risk of creating a spirit of opposition where little exists to-day.
It may well be that the result of a very protracted sitting will have the consequence of developing these all-night sittings into a regular habit, sittings which a Committee has reported so much against, and he cannot blame us if we meet that in a similar spirit. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to all the circumstances, he would not do well to be content with the three important Clauses he has already got and let us now conclude our proceedings and resume our discussion on the betting law when the Committee will be fresh and invigorated to address itself to a new topic, and when our newspaper Press will be able to record our proceedings.
It was refreshing for all of us to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so sweetly and kindly. The latter part of his remarks, however, were not quite in the same key. We were all greatly interested to observe his maxim that a Chancellor of the Exchequer should, above all others, remember that he should be modest. It called to my mind the Eastern proverb: "'Fly pride' says the peacock." The present situation, however pleasantly the two right hon. Gentlemen may be speaking to one another, seems likely to lead to another all-night sitting, which a great number of Members deplore both for themselves and for the sake of Parliament. It is an abominable way of doing the business and ought to be deprecated and avoided whenever possible. What is the situation at this moment? No one can say there has been any rapid acceleration of the business of the Committee during the first three Clauses of this Bill. If the Government were to propose to take the Income Tax Clauses to-night, in the middle of the night, that would naturally arouse legitimate opposition both above and below the Gangway.
These Clauses ought certainly to be very seriously considered at a time of day when the Committee can give their full attention to them. Clause 5 is a short Clause, which raises a single issue of a simple character; it needs debate and a clear decision of the Committee, and it need not involve prolonged discussion. The Amendments to Clause 6 will not require long discussion either, and if the Committee give the Government these two Clauses at a reasonable hour, perhaps the Government would not ask the Committee to proceed with the Income Tax Clauses to-night.I should be happy to fall in with any suggestion to avoid a long sitting, but I would ask the Committee to remember what I said about the possibility of rising at 1.30. It is quite impossible, I gather, to complete Clauses 5 and 6 before 1.30. In these circumstances, I do not see any alternative to going on until 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. I very much regret it, but even if we do get through Clauses 5 and 6 before 5 o'clock, I give no pledge that I shall not ask the Committee to go on.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) will see the position to which his friendly suggestion has brought the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has really altered his attitude since he spoke earlier. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I was in doubt as to what his exact conclusion was until almost the last moment. Until the last moment, I thought that he had fixed a point to which it was reasonable to go, and beyond which he would not ask the Committee to go, provided that that moment was reached before the mystic hour of 1.30. He himself referred to Clause 5 as raising an issue which it was hardly reasonable to expect the Committee to debate and finish within the short time available to-night. If he is still of that opinion, we might be able to avoid an all-night sitting, but if, encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, he prefers a fight, we will fight to the finish.
In an earlier part of the discussion I asked the Committee to remember that the industry we are dealing with in this Clause is the only industry upon which new taxation is being imposed. Notwithstanding this fact I think I am right in saying that in the course of about three and a-half hours' discussion on the Clauses dealing with this great industry the Closure was moved twice. If hon. Members look into the history of this House I do not think that they will be able to find any instance where questions of this importance have been rushed through this House in a quicker period of time and the Committee ought to consider that point.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who spoke for the Liberal party, waived aside Clause 5 as being of very little importance. Whatever views hon. Members may hold in regard to the questions raised on the earlier Clauses of this Bill, I think they will agree with me when I say that those questions have created a good deal of interest at the present time and I suggest that to discuss questions of this magnitude at this hour of the morning is not treating those questions fairly, and I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the honour of the House, not to rush these important questions through without any possibility of adequate debate.Before the right hon. Gentleman—
Divide!
A short time ago I appealed to the Chair, in similar circumstances, to rule that interruptions to prevent an hon. Member from speaking were disorderly.
I appeal to hon. Members to allow the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) to proceed with his speech.
Divide!
Will you, Mr. Dunnico, give to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who has attempted to address the Committee, the same protection which you say is his right, and call to order those who are persistently interrupting the debate?
I do not understand the implication of the right hon. Gentleman. If he suggests that I am partial, giving protection to one side and not to the other, that is an improper suggestion to make. My desire is to keep order. As the right hon. Gentleman is an old Parliamentarian he knows that cries of "Divide" are continued again and again in this House until Mr. Speaker
Division No. 311.]
| AYES.
| [12.28 a.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Caine, Derwent Hall- | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Cameron, A. G. | Gibbins, Joseph |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Cape, Thomas | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gill, T. H. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Charieton, H. C. | Glassey, A. E. |
| Arnott, John | Chater, Daniel | Gossling, A. G. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Clarke, J. S. | Gould, F. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Cluse, W. S. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Compton, Joseph | Gray, Milner |
| Barr, James | Cowan, D. M. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Batey, Joseph | Daggar, George | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Dalton, Hugh | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Benson, G. | Dickson, T. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Dukes, C. | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Duncan, Charles | Harbord, A. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Ede, James Chuter | Hardie, George D. |
| Bromfield, William | Edge, Sir William | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon |
| Brooke, W. | Edmunds, J. E. | Haycock, A. W. |
| Brothers, M. | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bodwellty) | Hayes, John Henry |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Egan, W. H. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Elmley, Viscount | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Buchanan, G. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Herriotts, J. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Foot, Isaac | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Freeman, Peter | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
appeals to hon. Members, and then he can prevent them. I did not feel that they had reached the point of disorder. When they do, I shall act.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I made no implication, and I am quite sure, Mr. Dunnico, that if you refer to my words as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT you will see that I made no such implication as you have suggested. All that I did was to recall a Ruling you had given earlier in the evening in which you had censured interruptions from whichever side of the Committee they came. I think that the circumstances of the moment were such that it was not inopportune to recall that Ruling and I asked you to endorse it.
Before the last trains go—
Divide!
May I appeal to hon. Members to remain quiet, because this is not in keeping with the dignity of the House. I hope that hon. Members will remain quiet and orderly.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 131.
| Hoffman, P. C. | Marley, J. | Shinwell, E. |
| Hollins, A. | Marshall, Fred | Simmons, C. J. |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Mathers, George | Sinkinson, George |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Matters, L. W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Messer, Fred | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Isaacs, George | Middleton, G. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Mills, J. E. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Johnston, Thomas | Morley, Ralph | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Mort, D. L. | Sorensen, R. |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Moses, J. J. H. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Stephen, Campbell |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Muff, G. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Kinley, J. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Sullivan, J. |
| Kirkwood, D. | Oldfield, J. R. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Lang, Gordon | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Lathan, G. | Palin, John Henry. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Lawrence, Susan | Potts, John S. | Toole, Joseph |
| Lawson, John James | Price, M. P. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Leach, W. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Watkins, F. C. |
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Richards, R. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Lees, J. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Ritson, J. | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Romeril, H. G. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | White, H. G. |
| Longden, F. | Rowson, Guy | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Lunn, William | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sanders, W. S. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Sandham, E. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Sawyer, G. F. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| McElwee, A. | Scurr, John | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| McEntee, V. L. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| McKinlay, A. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Wise, E. F. |
| McShane, John James | Shield, George William | |
| Marcus, M. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Markham, S. F. | Shillaker, J. F. | Mr. Benjamin Smith and Mr. Wilfrid |
| Paling. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Albery, Irving James | Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
| Atkinson, C. | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Llewellin, Major J. J. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey |
| Balniel, Lord | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Long, Major Eric |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Eden, Captain Anthony | Lymington, Viscount |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Margesson, Captain H. D. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Marjoribanks, E. C. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Mond, Hon. Henry |
| Boyce, H. L. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
| Bracken, B. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Muirhead, A. J. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | O'Neill, Sir H. |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Gower, Sir Robert | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William |
| Butler, R. A. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Peake, Captain Osbert |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Purbrick, R. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Remer, John R. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Hammersley, S. S. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Haslam, Henry C. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Savery, S. S. |
| Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Skelton, A. N. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Thomson, Sir F. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Smithers, Waldron | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Womersley, W. J. |
| Somerset, Thomas | Todd, Capt. A. J. | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | |
| Southby, Commander A. R. J. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Spender-Clay, Colonel H. | Warrender, Sir Victor | Sir George Penny and Captain Euan |
| Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | Wallace. |
Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Division No. 312.]
| AYES.
| [12.42 a.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Penny, Sir George |
| Albery, Irving James | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Atkinson, C. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Purbrick, R. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Balniel, Lord | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Remer, John R. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Betterton, Sir Henry B. | Gower, Sir Robert | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bracken, B. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Savery, S. S. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Butler, R. A. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Haslam, Henry C. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Long, Major Eric | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Lymington, Viscount | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Croom-Johnson, R. P. | Mond, Hon. Henry | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Muirhead, A. J. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | O'Neill, Sir H. | |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Peake, Captain Osbert | Captain Margesson and Captain |
| Wallace. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Brockway, A. Fenner | Cocks, Frederick Seymour |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bromfield, William | Compton, Joseph |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Brooke, W. | Cowan, D. M. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Brothers, M. | Daggar, George |
| Alpass, J. H. | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Dalton, Hugh |
| Arnott, John | Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Dickson, T. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Buchanan, G. | Dudgeon, Major C. R. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Burgess, F. G. | Dukes, C. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Duncan, Charles |
| Barr, James | Caine, Derwent Hall | Ede, James Chuter |
| Batey, Joseph | Cameron, A. G. | Edge, Sir William |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Cape, Thomas | Edmunds, J. E. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) |
| Benson, G. | Charieton, H. C. | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Chater, Daniel | Egan, W. H. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Clarke, J. S. | Elmley, Viscount |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Cluse, W. S. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) |
The Committee divided: Ayes 129; Noes 221.
| Foot, Isaac | Lawrence, Susan | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Freeman, Peter | Lawson, John James | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Leach, W. | Sanders, W. S. |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Sandham, E. |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Lees, J. | Scurr, John |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Gill, T. H. | Lindley, Fred W. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Glassey, A. E. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shield, George William |
| Gossling, A. G. | Logan, David Gilbert | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Gould, F. | Longbottom, A. W. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Longden, F. | Shinwell, E. |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Gray, Milner | Lunn, William | Sinkinson, George |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | McElwee, A. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | McKinlay, A. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Hall Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | McShane, John James | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Harbord, A. | Marcus, M. | Sorensen, R. |
| Hardie, George D. | Markham, S. F. | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Harris, Percy A. | Marley, J. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Marshall, Fred | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Haycock, A. W. | Mathers, George | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hayes, John Henry | Matters, L. W. | Sullivan, J. |
| Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.) | Messer, Fred | Sutton, J. E. |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Middleton, G. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Mills, J. E. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Herriotts, J. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Morley, Ralph | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Mort, D. L. | Toole, Joseph |
| Hollins, A. | Moses, J. J. H. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Muff, G. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Noel Baker, P. J. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Oldfield, J. R. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Isaacs, George | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| John, William (Rhondda, West) | Palin, John Henry | Westwood, Joseph |
| Johnston, Thomas | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | White, H. G. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Potts, John S. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Price, M. P. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Richards, R. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Kinley, J. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Kirkwood, D. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Lang, Gordon | Ritson, J. | Wise, E. F. |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | |
| Lathan, G. | Romeril, H. G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling. |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Rowson, Guy |
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do leave the Chair."
I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask from you at this stage some further guidance as to the conditions under which we are to be permitted to conduct our debate and under what conditions Members of this House are to be permitted to deliver their speeches and criticisms, if at all. In order to put myself in Order, I propose to conclude by moving, under Rule 68 of the Manual of Procedure, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," and, in support of that motion I should like to ask for your guidance, bearing in mind that my hon. Friend behind me was addressing the House and that we found great difficulty in hearing him owing to the organised opposition from the Government benches. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Lord Winterton."] The noble lord did not interrupt my hon. Friend. There was organised opposition from the Government benches. Then the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) appealed to you to secure to the hon. Member the protection of the Chair, and you replied, if my memory serves me correctly, that that was certainly your first care and that you intended to discharge that task, but that it was quite usual from time to time when disorder broke out for the chairman to wait for an opportunity to enforce respect for the speakers on the Opposition side. On that, my right hon. Friend ceased to press his point of Order. We endeavoured to continue the debate, and my hon. Friend below the gangway rose in his place and proceeded with his speech. Thereafter, for two or three minutes, as you will perhaps remember, he was quite inaudible owing to a chorus of interruptions raised from the Government benches every time he attempted to address the Committee. I must point out to you, in asking for your ruling, that this debate is being continued at the wish of the Government. After we have suggested that all advantages would be served by its curtailment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided that we shall go on with the debate, and therefore it seems very wounding and grievous to my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends on this side of the House that, when directed by the Government to sustain and take part in the discussion, we should not even be allowed to be heard. That is very hard indeed. After this had continued for some time, you rose in your place and made a strong personal and formal appeal to the hon. Gentlemen on the Government side that they should give a fair hearing. That appeal, I need scarcely say, was treated with complete contempt. Not the slightest attention was paid to it by them, and there followed immediately from it your acceptance, in virtue of your plenary authority—which I in no way reflect upon—of the motion for the termination of the debate. That is a frank statement of what has occurred. I want to ask where, in these conditions, is the protection for the minority, which you were so good as to promise us, when these events occur? What guarantee have we, if we continue the debate, that the moment hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to terminate the discussion they will not merely raise this organised clamour, and that the Chair will not then find it necessary to accept the Closure in order to terminate the disorder, in which case the opportunities of debate are denied? This is a very grave matter on which we are most anxious to receive your guidance, because it is perfectly clear that it will be impossible even for a far greater majority than the Prime Minister has now in the House, even for a far greater majority than he commands, to bear down and silence an opposition and prevent them from discharging their Parliamentary duties. Therefore, in order that we may receive your guidance on the subject, and, with the very greatest respect, I move, under Rule 68, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."The right hon. Gentleman has raised his point of Order in a perfectly Parliamentary way, but I wish to make two things clear. He does not question the right of any hon. Member of the House on the Front benches or on the back benches to move the Closure. Nor does he question the right of the Chair to accept the Closure if, in the opinion of the Chair, the Closure should be applied. These two principles being quite clearly accepted, I do not think I should be lowering the dignity of the Chair if I gave my reasons to the Committee why I acted as I did. The debate on the motion to report Progress had proceeded for some time, and three front bench members had spoken and a number of back benchers had also spoken. [HON. MEMBERS: "One."]
How many of you want to bully one man?
A number of front benchers had spoken and some Members on the back benches. The Government had made it clear on three occasions that they intended to proceed. The Chair is not infallible, but I thought I had interpreted the wishes of the Committee in following the course I did. Let me say, quite frankly, that I accepted the Closure because I felt that I was interpreting the general wish of the Committee to get back to business. In respect to the point of order that has been raised, I wish to give all Members an assurance, if such an assurance is required, that the rights of minorities will always be safe in my hands and that I shall not allow them to be overridden. If I made a mistake, I take full responsibility for it. When I say, "If I made a mistake"—[Interruption.]
rose—
Order! Order!
When I say, "If I made a mistake" I mean if I mistakenly interpreted what I conceived to be the wish of the overwhelming majority of the Members of the Committee. I accept full responsibility for my action.
It was not without deep feeling, which is shared by a great many of those who sit on this side of the House, that I made the Motion which you have allowed me to put, and I cannot feel that it was needlessly moved, in consequence of the statement you have just made from the Chair to the Committee of the House. In view of the statement which you have made, that in the full extent of your indisputable authority you considered that the Committee had by an overwhelming majority arrived at the moment when it was ripe for decision, it appears to me that I ought not to proceed with my Motion. We all have a common interest in maintaining the dignity of the Chair. We wish our debates to have the greatest freedom, but it is vital for those debates that we should show the utmost respect, and enforce by every power, the authority of the Chair, if only because it is the sole protection that minorities have for their rights and duties. In these circumstances, I ask your leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On a point of Order. I desire to ask your protection from an interruption made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). He made a most serious accusation against me. He accused me of having led the interruptions that have occurred. I never interrupted in any form. All I did was to avail myself of the right that every hon. Member has to call "Order" when the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was being shouted down. We on this side of the House claim to be protected from the kind of insulting interruptions that have come from hon. Members opposite. In view of what I have said, may I ask that the hon. Member should be requested to withdraw his remark?
I did not hear any interruption such as the Noble Lord has referred to, but I am perfectly certain that, if the Noble Lord was accused of doing something that he had not done, the hon. Member who made the accusation would withdraw it. [Interruption.] I call on the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne).
On a point of Order. May I ask for your ruling on a point that appears to be one of very great importance. The whole Committee will realise the spirit in which you have just addressed us. My hon. and gallant Friend the member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was in possession of the House and had not commenced his speech beyond a very few words. Then you were asked to give him protection, and the moment after you had asked him to resume his speech hon. Members on the opposite side of the House got up to move "That the Question be now put." I quite understand the difficulty of the situation in the turmoil that arose, but I want to know whether it is to be regarded as a precedent that when a Member is in possession of the House and has not been permitted to resume his speech and another hon. Member gets up and moves "That the Question be now put"—
What about the Rating Bill in your Government?
I have already stated that I accepted the Motion, because I thought that I was interpreting the wishes of the majority of the Committee. I shall only accept Motions of that kind when I am so satisfied.
Clause 4—(Abolition Of Duties On Bookmakers' Certificates And Entry Certificates)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, to leave out the words "and on an entry certificate."
It will be in the recollection of hon. Members who were in the last House that there were few battles which caused longer controversy or longer debates than the imposition of these duties in 1927 by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). In order to carry out this duty, he imposed a system partly certificate on bookmakers, partly on premises, and partly on turnover. It will also be within the recollection of those hon. Members that in the Finance Act of last year the right hon. Gentleman repealed the duty on the turnover of the bets. At that time, he announced that, if the Government of that day were returned to power again, he intended this year to introduce another form of this duty on the telephones used by bookmakers for the purposes of their business. Unfortunately, the election went otherwise, and the right hon. Gentleman decided not to bring in a second Finance Bill. Now he has in this Finance Bill proposed to drop the registration tax on the bookmakers. I would only say that it is curious that the only people who benefit directly under this Budget are a class which the right hon. Gentleman dislikes. But I would suggest to him that it is not really of benefit to them. I propose to detain the Committee for a few minutes to explain why I consider this proposal is not in the interests of bookmakers or of those who bet and is not one which should be accepted by this Committee. If I were to give my private views on betting and compare them with those of the right hon. Gentleman it would be found that our views were not very different. A bet is a thing which I very rarely indulge in. It is not a matter which interests me personally, and I regard it simply as a method of getting rid of money for which I can find a better use. In that point of view, I am in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but I must own that that is a point of view that does not seem to be shared by the vast number of my fellow citizens, for most people I know, be they University professors or others, seem to have something on the 2.30 or the 3 o'clock. I dare say it brings a great deal of interest to life which would not be forthcoming otherwise. One of the things which I regard as of importance is to make sure, as far as we can do, that, when the artizan or anyone else wagers a small portion of his hard-earned wages on a horse which specially interests him, he shall have some guarantee that the bookmaker with whom he places that bet is respectable. I submit, further, that it is an asset to the bookmaking profession as a whole that its members should have a certificate of respectability, which I believe this certificate does something to give. The certificate which I propose to retain is the one for the premises used for betting. That is carefully defined in Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1926, which says:There is no bookmaker with a substantial business who is not called upon to meet an occasional heavy loss, and there is no bookmaker carrying on a substantial business who does not do so in some form of office in which he can carry on credit betting, and it seems to me that in the interests of the punter and also of racing generally the thing which we should encourage is to keep up an improved standard of bookkeeping and guarantee, so far as possible, that those who undertake it shall be respectable. It is not a profession which I personally understand, but I am bound to say that its members fulfil a useful purpose in our national life. Our object as legislators should be to see that the profession is carried on only by people who can meet their liabilities. I contend that the mere fact of licensing bookmakers will go a long way towards achieving these ends, and therefore give some security to the ordinary backer that, if his horse wins, he will get what is due to him. I also think it is in a certain sense a security to the bookmaker himself. It makes him feel his profession is perfectly honourable, a view which I share. Why should objection be taken to the small Betting Duty? Auctioneers and members of other honourable professions have to pay duties. I trust that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will explain to the Committee why he has singled out bookmakers as the only recipients of his benevolence and why there should not be this control and registration of them."The expression 'betting premises' means any premises which are kept or used for the purpose of making, receiving or negotiating in any manner whatsoever bets on credit, or which are in any manner held out as being kept or used for any such purpose."
The hon. and gallant member who has submitted this Amendment has given us a short historical sketch of the Betting Duty. His Amendment is a very narrow one. It takes, apparently, no objection to the abolition of the personal certificate to the bookmaker, but it proposes that the certificate of entry shall be retained. These certificates were instituted, when the Betting Duty was first proposed, in order that the Revenue authorities might have some power, not merely over bookmakers, but also over the premises of bookmakers, and when the Betting Duty was repealed these certificates became unnecessary, because there was no longer any necessity for the registering of bookmakers. We are removing what I described in my Budget speech as the last vestige of the inglorious Betting Duty because we strongly opposed it when it was first proposed. It was a tax which outraged the moral sense of a large section of the community. The State should not in any way have any regard for a great evil. It is not a question of money. The amount of money involved is not very great. The total cost of removing these two certificates will be about £200,000. It is not on these grounds, but on moral grounds that we are making this proposal. I cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given the answer which I expected him to give on this matter. He prefers to regard the whole of this as a blot on the Statute book. He was also good enough in the earlier part of the discussion to say that this was a very unimportant part of the Budget. I submit that it is very important, because it involves the whole ethics of taxation on which there is very real division of opinion on the two sides of the House. I take an entirely different view on the ethics of taxation. I think the State should have regard to realities, and anybody who knows anything of the history of this country knows two things. There are two strong strains which mark the whole English character. The first is the puritan character and the second is the strain of sportsmanship. These are strains nobody will be able to destroy. This country had the opportunity of being governed in the 17th century by undiluted puritanism followed by reaction of the opposite quality. I think that the people of England disliked the Commonwealth as much as they disliked the Restoration.
On a point of Order. May I point out that for the good feeling and good temper of the Committee it would be better if supporters of the Government would refrain from offensive and irrelevant interruptions. These did not conduce to the good order of the House and are childish and foolish.
On that point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken to treat the Committee to a historical disquisition?
In reply to the Noble Lord, I have repeatedly appealed to both sides of the House not to interrupt the Member who is speaking at the time, and I think it is about time that Members on both sides of the House recognised that these interruptions are unnecessary and do not add to the general decorum of the House.
Are the sinners all confined to this side of the House?
If the hon. Member will keep his ears open, he will hear what I say. I appealed to both sides of the House on previous occasions, and I trust that in future it will be accepted. It is unnecessary for the hon. Member to say that it applies only to one side of the House.
Is not the Noble Lord one of the biggest sinners in this House?
It is only because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised the question of morality that I take the opportunity of replying. He regards it as unnecessary to levy these excise duties, because it is a question of morality. Because you are a Puritan there is no reason why you should be a Pharisee and pass by on the other side, and because you are a sportsman there is no reason why you should not wish to see fair play done to the public. It seems to me quite clear that in this matter the Puritan and the sportsman should come together in the protection of the public. The public is very largely at the mercy of the fraternity. They may be honest or they may be dishonest. At any rate the foolish public, the youthful public, is at the mercy of these people, and it is the duty of the State to intervene and protect them. I would remind the Committee that the solicitor has to subscribe in order to renew his certificate, and, if the solicitor did not have to take out his certificate annually, the public would not have any protection whatever. Let us take a profession which is not as creditable, I think, as that of a solicitor, and perhaps is a little lower than the bookmaker—that is of the moneylender. The public is at the mercy of the moneylender, but the moneylender has to take out his annual licence. I think these instances show that there is a guarantee to the public. Under Section 17, Subsection (3) of the Act of 1926—
In my view, that does not go nearly far enough. These duties have a significance apart from a question of morality and apart from the question of the ethics of taxation, and were the protection of the public. These duties have a revenue significance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer waived aside as of no account the amount included, £200,000, or £70,000, in these particular certificates. Hon. members opposite may consider that an insignificant sum. It may be a very small sum as compared with the whole Budget but it is still a very large sum supposing it were earmarked for some definite purpose to relieve unemployment. Is this a time to make remissions of taxation of this nature? Is this a time to abolish a source of revenue which does no harm to anybody, which protects the public, and places no direct burden whatever upon any protfiable industry? I suggest that this, the leanest of lean years, is the last time in which we should make such a change."Any Court before which a bookmaker is convicted of any offence under this part of the Act, or otherwise in connection with his business as a bookmaker, may order him to be disqualified for holding a bookmaker's certificate for such period as the Court may think fit."
There are two aspects from which we can regard this question—the moral and the financial. As I understand it the Betting Duty—[Interruption]—I do not interrupt hon. Members when they are speaking. Ever since I have been in this House the hon. Member for Rhondda East (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) has done nothing but constantly interrupt hon. Members on this side. If he cares on any occasion—he has never done it yet so far as I know—to address the House we are prepared to listen to him with respect, and we ask him occasionally to listen to a speech from this side.
It is not that I could not very often usefully intervene in the debate.
When sober. [Interruption.]
I did not notice who the hon. Member was who made that remark, but, whoever he was, I hope he will withdraw it.
Mr. Young—
I would ask the hon. Member, whoever he was, to withdraw the remark he made.
Mr. Young—
I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the remark he made.
I am doing my best to do that if you will only listen. I am naturally starting by addressing you. If what I said is offensive to the hon. Member opposite, I will withdraw it, but surely he will not with me to suggest that he was not sober—[Interruption.]
I think I am entitled to say that that kind of withdrawal is almost as bad as the original statement.
If that is your view, I will withdraw it without qualification.
The remark does not in any way affect me, coming from the quarter it does.
The hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) has withdrawn the remark.
Then I shall say no more about it. All I wanted to say was that we have resented remarks coming from the other side of the House even when some of their own speakers were addressing the House. I was making no remark when the hon. Member was on his feet except drawing his attention to the fact that there was much more noise on the other side of the House than there was on this. I have been 33 years in public life, and some of us cannot help thinking that an enormous amount of time, in this House is being wasted with the kind of discussion that we have heard.
I really must ask you, Mr. Young, whether you will pro- tect hon. Members on this side from the kind of attacks which we have had. I want to know whether it is in Order for the hon. and gallant Member to make the most offensive charge that this debate has been conducted—[Interruption.] I am not in the habit of using language of that kind. It may be used in a saloon bar, but not in the House of Commons. I ask you, Mr. Young, whether that which is more suitable to a saloon bar than to a Committee of the House of Commons is to be used in the House of Commons?
Immediately the hon. Gentleman gave expression to the remark I was going to ask him to withdraw it.
I am sorry that my temper for the moment overcame me, and I withdraw.
Mr. Chairman, you have accepted an apology from my hon. and gallant Friend. May we now have an apology from the noble Earl?
May I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member who raised the last point of Order spoke with his hands in his pockets?
I ask the hon. and gallant Member not to raise needless points of Order.
In the new atmosphere of calm and good will, I am sure I shall be able to make the few observations I desire to do to the Committee on this point. [Interruption.] These interruptions only prolong the proceedings. There are two aspects from which this tax on bookmakers may be regarded. The first is from the moral point of view, and the second is from the financial point of view. As I understand it in the Betting Duty Sections of Part II. of the Finance Act, 1926, there are two Sub-paragraphs 15 (b) and 15 (c) which refer to bookmakers. The first one imposes a duty of £10 to be taken out annually by a person carrying on the business of bookmaker. [Interruption.]
The hon. Gentleman who is responsible for that noise must kindly stop it.
It has to be taken out by the bookmaker in respect of the premises he uses. The duty is £10. These are not grave and serious charges when made upon individuals who carry on what has been, and is to-day, a reasonably lucrative profession. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) has shown that these taxes are really no appreciable burden upon the individuals who pay them, but they do provide a very definite guarantee of security to the public. When we are asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a very small and reasonable concession of £60,000 or £70,000, he finds a thousand reasons for not granting it, but when it comes to a matter of sweeping away the sum of £200,000 he treats it as if it were a mere nothing. I only hope that in future, when we are asking for some small concession, we may be permitted to remind him of the lavish way he has thrown away £200,000. He merely said, if I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, that many Members behind him, and many on these benches think betting is a most undesirable pastime, and one in which no one should indulge. There are a number of people in this country who do bet. It is impossible to ignore betting and it is pure hypocrisy to do so.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not wish the State to be connected in any way with racing, but the State draws revenue from the Entertainments Duty on tickets for which people have to pay to go and see racing. If it is sum an iniquitous thing that the State should not draw any revenue from racing, then surely he cannot accept that part of the revenue, and it is a very substantial part, raised on the tickets for which people have to pay who attend races in this country. It is sheer hypocrisy. Is there really any moral difference between drinking a glass of beer and having a bet, which may be well within the means of the individual making it, on a certain horse? I think it is sheer hypocrisy. As the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a previous debate, "you cannot wink at the Derby." The Derby is a national event, and the majority of the people of this country and the world take a great interest in it. To treat betting as if it did not exist, puts the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a very hypocritical position, and, if he considers it from the point of view of finance, he is needlessly throwing away £200,000 of revenue. I do not think the arguments, as put forward this evening, are sufficient to warrant his act.Mr. Young—[Interruption]—I have no intention of raising my voice in competition with the noises from the benches opposite. As I was starting to say—[Interruption.]
I will have to warn hon. Members that that sound must cease, or I must ask them to leave the House.
I consider there is more cant and humbug talked about this subject than about almost any subject that comes up for discussion in this House. We are told that there is something morally wrong in the State raising revenue out of the Betting Duty. Yet there is nothing morally wrong, apparently, in the State raising money out of the taxation of beer, or other intoxicating liquors. There are those people who argue at one and the same time that it is good to tax liquor, because, by taxing it, you reduce the consumption, but that it is wrong to tax betting, because, by the taxation, you increase the use people make of it. You cannot have it both ways. It is what I call cant and humbug. Either you decrease a thing by taxation or you do not. You cannot by taxation decrease one thing and increase another. I am not going to say that the particular form of tax which was introduced some two or three years ago on betting was the right form, or the best possible form, to achieve the object which it was designed to achieve. I do say, however, that betting is one of the most suitable objects for taxation and raising revenue for the country. It is obvious that betting will exist whether it is or is not taxed. It is quite obvious to me at any rate that by taxing it you will not increase its volume. Since nobody can say it is a necessity, and it is obviously a luxury and a bad luxury, it should, in my judgment, be compelled to contribute to the revenue of the country. Moreover, I believe that by taxing it you would do, as you undoubtedly do by taxing liquor, reduce the consumption.
It is really pitiable to me to listen to the nonsense which is talked on this subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and many others who think with him talk about the moral evil. Admitted that betting in excess is an evil, that fact does not in any sense affect the right or the wrong of a Betting Duty. I feel that it is most wrong on this occasion to give away revenue unless you are going to impose a corresponding or a greater tax on the same set of people or on the same customs and habits of the people. If, for instance, in place of this tax which is going to be repealed, there was going to be imposed another tax on betting, that would be a very good reason for repealing this tax, but, merely to repeal it and thereby lose a couple of hundred thousand pounds or perhaps more, seems to me wrong both because it is encouraging hypocrites—[Interruption]—and causes considerable loss of revenue to the country.The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out three quarters of an hour ago that the issue raised by this Amendment was a very narrow one. It does not propose entirely to do away with the bookmaker's tax, but to retain the certificate of entry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that that particular certificate involves a loss of revenue of £70,000. I regret on general principles the sacrifice of revenue by any Chancellor of the Exchequer when all the revenue we can get is obviously wanted in a year like this. I am, however, going to look at this question from the point of view of it being the last remainder of the Betting Duty. I was never a strong supporter of that tax duty, and I was always opposed to the Racecourse Betting Bill, dealing with the totalisator. The arrangement by which a share of the totalisator revenue was placed at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer now having been dispensed with, there is very little justification for leaving a portion of the tax in the form of certificates, one a personal certificate and the other an entry certificate, on the bookmaker when the operations of the totalisator are left entirely free from any contribution to the revenue.
The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) who moved the Amendment said it was very desirable from the bookmaker's point of view that he should pay a duty of £10 a year as a kind of certificate of respectability. I really cannot understand the hon. and gallant Member's reasoning, because, even if his Amendment were carried, the bookmaker would still have a certificate of respectability, the certificate left in this Clause. The argument of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment comes to this, that, if a bookmaker only pays £10 a year, he is not respectable, and that to ensure his respectability you must ask him to pay £20. I do not think the bookmakers would thank the hon. and gallant Member for that guarantee of respectability, and I would remind the Committee that there are a good many industries and professions carried on in this country where the people who carry them on claim to be perfectably respectable and do not have to pay £10 to prove that they are respectable—or rather do not pay £10 to prove that they are not respectable and £20 to prove that they are respectable. The bookmaker will thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for abolishing this duty. There is no justification for maintaining it now since the whole of the machinery has gone. The argument put before the Committee why the bookmaker should be taxed is rather a novel argument, and I only hope that this particular Amendment will not go to a Division, or I shall find myself in this matter not able to support my own friends and having to support the Government.I am in a difficulty over this Amendment. I do not propose to take up the argument of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down. I do hope, however, that we may have some guidance from the Financial Secretary about the moral question. It is rather difficult to follow the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He tells us that the evil of betting is a cancer which is eating into the heart of the Nation, and I agree with him that it is a very bad thing. I should have thought that if it was such an evil the obvious thing would be to make betting illegal. I hope we may know in the near future that it is the intention of the Government to make betting illegal. It would certainly interest people very much in the constituency of my hon. Friend. From the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman on other issues, I have always understood that, if you put a tax on an article, you raise the price. If, therefore, you put a tax on betting you raise the odds and discourage betting. I should have thought that, if he has not the courage to prohibit betting, he would have tried to discourage it by some such duty as we have had. It is rather difficult to follow the moral arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because in this Clause he seems to make the best of both worlds. He tells us betting is a very great evil and that he is going to remove this duty and that that is going to appeal to the puritan conscience; yet at the same time he remembers the help he had at Battersea and Lanark before the last General Election, and therefore hopes to get the help of the bookmakers. I would like a little more guidance, and I would congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having successfully arranged a union between Mrs. Grundy and Mr. Douglas Stuart.
2.0 p.m.
There is one point of view which I would put briefly. In the broadcast address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the United States of America we know that he referred to certain burdens that we put upon industry in this country and used some such words as these: "With such burdens as these upon our shoulders, is it any wonder that we have suffered industrial depression as an aftermath of the war?" The burdens to which he referred were Income Tax at 4s. in the £, what he termed Super Income Tax at 6s., and Estate Duties at death. He made no reference whatever to the Betting Duty from which he got a certain amount of his revenue. It seems to me, therefore, to be very odd that that is the one tax he has remitted by the Finance Bill, because it is not a tax that bears heavily on any industry which we want to encourage in this country. It is a complete luxury trade on which it bears heavily. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) that the effect of the Betting Duty is to increase the odds, because probably it reduces them. The ordinary man who backs a horse may get rather less odds, and that may discourage people from betting. That is, therefore, a much better and more effective way of reducing betting.
I meant decrease.
It seems to me a much more effective way of discouraging betting than the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking by his remission. It seems to me that we have no good reason at all why bookmakers should not pay an entrance fee to the State. There are many learned professions, such as that to which the Attorney-General and I happen to belong, in which we have to pay the large sum of £100 as an entrance fee. The less meritorious profession of bookmaker should also have to pay some fee to the Government, and it would give to those who deal with them some sense of security. This is one of the taxes which helps to regularise the bookmaking trade and is one that should certainly have been kept on. I very much hope that the Amendment will be taken to a Division, because this is the one year of all years in which there should be no remission of taxation, such as this, which does not bear heavily on industry or in any way affect the unemployment problem in this country. I am concerned to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is throwing away this sum of money—small though it is—which obviously does not bear on industry.
I find myself in a position rather different from that of almost any of the other speakers. I am slightly in agreement with the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and I very much object to the Betting Duty. On the other hand, since it has been introduced a different situation has arisen, and I think it is a great pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way to retain one of the two duties. I rather think it would have been better if this entry tax had been permitted, and an Amendment moved to the betting certificate, because, whereas the entry tax deals only with the bookmaker's house, the certificate applies to any man who is a bookmaker. I had a good deal of experience on the Moneylenders' Bill, as also did the hon. and gallant Member for Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan). It was found that the registering of moneylenders was considered to be strictly advisable. You canont say that moneylenders are exactly like bookmakers or that bookmakers are exactly like moneylenders, but there is a certain amount of resemblance between the two, and it is in the interest of the bookmaker and the public that the bookmaker should be registered. I have an Amendment later on to give the country an opportunity of considering this matter which I hope the Chairman will accept. I feel that I shall be able to support this Amendment, although in principle I am against the Betting Duty as such.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking a most curious and unreasonable course in depriving himself of this revenue. I believe that the revenue in question is about £70,000 on this Amendment, and £200,000 a year on the whole Clause. Let us consider what this money could be used for. Take the national theatre, or national opera, matters in which I know that hon. members opposite are very keen; or take scientific endowment; there might be extra money for light cures or radium. You have this money for nothing—no trouble whatever. The bookmakers have never objected to the tax. Just as in the case of British-made wine, the trade was quite pleased. It gave them definite recognition, a cachet, a hall mark, an imprimatur on their business.
Because it recognised the bookmakers—that is why they were pleased.
They were pleased, and there was the £200,000 a year. If it had been spent on the light cure or radium, then everyone might have been pleased. It seems to have been a matter where everyone could have been pleased, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has prejudice in his mind. He has the idea that he is putting down betting by singling out bookmakers alone to be favoured, when they do not ask for it and really were not worrying about it at all. This doctrine of the unclean thing really is one of the most remarkable forms of mental infirmity with which this House has been confronted. The "Daily Herald", in its early form, I know, used to give exceptional prominence to betting. This was not a case of ordinary gambling; it is gambling among comrades, really quite shocking, and look at the space given in the official organ of the Labour party, which is managed with some capitalist assistance by a Labour committee, to betting, gambling, and all those forms of the unclean thing that cannot be touched. They can touch it quickly enough when it brings in money to the "Daily Herald", but not for some worthy object. This is a form of mental infirmity, a sort of lesion of the mind from which they are suffering. The President of the Board of Trade, who is so clear headed, must, surely feel a serious irritation at this amount of revenue that is being thrown away. It is simply ridiculous, this notion of the unclean thing, while at the same time they do not mind gulping down scores of millions of revenue from the sale of intoxicating liquor.
I am sorry that the Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has gone to bed. It would have been interesting to see her relative reaction to the unclean thing in drink and the unclean thing in betting and their competitive priority. There is no logic in the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I am glad to see, has returned to the House properly refreshed and able, I hope, to give further guidance and advice to the Committee. I would be grateful if he would address his mind to this question: Why should he refuse £200,000 a year which he can get without the slightest trouble? What is the object? I believe his party keeps a tipster on the "Daily Herald" and are well informed on these matters. This is not the only side to his policy. There is the totalisator. There was a substantial revenue which could have been got without difficulty from this machinery year after year which would have inured to the public well-being. But the right hon. Gentleman is above that. This £200,000 would have paid the salaries of His Majesty's present advisors. It would have been almost poetic in its similitude that Members of His Majesty's Government should have defrayed their salaries by a continuance of these duties on bookmakers.What about dogs?
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has studied too attentively the sporting columns of the "Daily Herald" instead of devoting himself to the more serious political matters which are, I believe, treated of in some other parts of the paper. The right hon. Gentleman has needlessly aggravated his difficulties in refusing this revenue—small though it be it is still considerable—and still more in failing to utilise the 2 per cent. on the totalisator. He has done it because of some irrational quirk of his intellect, some twist or knot or gnarl in his mental structure. It seems to me that the Debate we have had on this subject is a very fitting commentary on his inconceivable folly and his gross financial improvidence.
I wish to address a couple of questions to the Government, which, I hope, will be answered with candour. I would first, however, inform my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that the tipster to whom he referred has the eloquent name of "Temple Gate." When this particular Clause was under discussion in 1926 the hon. Gentleman who moved its rejection, and who is now the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Ammon) said:
I ask the Financial Secretary if there is any conceivable evidence on that point? This was a definite prophesy by one of his colleagues, and I would like to know if it is so, and if that is why it is being taken off now. Much the same sort of question arose in the speech made by the present Secretary of State for India (Mr. Benn) the same evening in the discussion on the same Amendment to leave out this Clause. I do not know if he was then a Liberal or a Socialist. But on 14th June, 1926, he said:"As I see it the result will be to increase betting among poor people in a very much worse form than is now the case, and it will lay them open to very much greater disaster so far as their domestic finances are concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 2000, Vol. 196, 14th June, 1926.]
Is there any evidence of that? Is there any evidence that the bookmakers who paid for these certificates have gone about saying that they were in some way asso- ciated with the Government of the country, and that, as a result, they have acquired a certain prestige? If so, is it because of that prestige that the Government are modifying this Clause in the Bill? Do they want to bring the bookmakers down from their exalted position and reduce them to the common ruck of ordinary people? Those are the two questions to which I wish to have a reply, for they are definite expressions of opinion by Members who are now on the Front Benches. It was stated that the certificates, if they were granted, would lead to an enormous increase of betting among poor people, an argument which it is almost impossible to understand. I should like to know whether the experience has shown that to be the case. It seems a very curious thing that they should, as a quid pro quo to those who intervened in the fortunes of the Government in the by-elections, take off the tax and at the same time reduce their prestige. Some people might prefer the prestige. We should like to have more real explanation from the Treasury Bench. With regard to the point of the great moral evil which has been so fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend and so little answered by the front bench opposite, I think the Financial Secretary should give us some reply in order to clear up the position. There is to-day the connection of the State with the Racecourse Betting Control Board, and there is the connection with the State through the Entertainment Duty. Incidentally, I understand race meetings generally involve a certain amount of refreshment from which the State derives revenue, and there is also the revenue derived by the Post Office Department. There is also the setting up of the national stud from which an income was derived from letting out horses for people to run. All this happens now. Unless the Government are going to sweep everything of that kind away, it is rather idle to come down and to say that this small amount is not going to make any difference in the attitude of the Government. The sum of £200,000 could so well be spent on so many different objects for the productive industries of this country rather than giving this relief to the bookmakers. I ask the Financial Secretary whether he has any evidence at all that these book- makers' certificates really increase betting amongst poor people or whether it gives them any prestige at all."I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the view that the granting of this certificate will not confer some sort of prestige on the individual, and I think that that really is the gravamen of the charge against this paragraph.… Although the Government deny it, to turn the agent of this particular transaction, which all agree is anti-social and should be restricted as much as possible, into a Government agent, and there is no doubt at all that in doing his trade he will advertise that he is a licensed bookmaker or a Government bookmaker, holding a Government licence, or use some other words associating himself with the Government of the country, which will give him a prestige he did not possess before." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1926; col. 2004, Vol. 196.]
I should like to ask whether the bookmakers are to be the only people to benefit from this Budget. Why are the bookmakers singled out for this special treatment? They may be a very honourable and useful body of men, but I do not see why they should have this special treatment. My suspicious mind goes back to a year ago when the bookmakers gave very special assistance to the Socialist party at certain by-elections. I should be very sorry to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen from his very high estate and was reducing this taxation for that reason.
I should have thought that if there was this £200,000 to be distributed there were other ways of distributing it than by giving it back to the bookmakers. The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly take it that he is doing some great moral good by giving back this £200,000 if he considers betting is a bad thing. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a lot of cant and hypocrisy. Every man has a right in this country to spend his money as he likes, and, if a working man likes to put a shilling on a horse, there was no reason why he should not. I cannot understand why there should be one law for the rich in betting and one for the poor. That sort of thing is not, in my opinion, the English way of carrying out what we believe to be justice in this country. There must be some reason for all this. I think my hon. Friend who spoke last put his finger upon the spot. It is, of course, this. Shortly before the last General Election the bookmakers came very much to the assistance of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends. He was only too pleased to receive their support at that particular time, and he now turns round and tells us that he will have nothing to do with what the country should not tolerate for one moment. If you are dealing with luxuries, you must expect to put on certain taxes, and there is nobody in this House who can stand up and say that betting is not a luxury.
It is one of the greatest luxuries there is in the country to-day, and, being a luxury, it is something which ought to pay a tax to the Exchequer. There is, of course, also the question of the amount which may be paid for entrance to various other forms of sport. Personally, I cannot see why a man should be taxed for making a bet any more than he should be taxed for going into a football match. The two things are exactly on an equality. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that this is something to be avoided, because it is unclean. Why does he to-day take an Entertainments Duty on other places where betting takes place? The whole thing is hypocrisy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that it is not at all a question of whether it is morally right or morally wrong. He knows perfectly well that he made a bargain in times past over this particular matter, and at the present time he is asked to carry out the bargain, and it is not for the welfare of the Labour party that the bargain should be carried out.Only about a year and a half ago one factor that contributed largely to the success of my opponent was the fact that he had the strong support of a concentration of bookmakers, and I remember very well seeing placards at the time with "Vote for so and so the Sportsman's Friend." I quote from the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
The Pharisees could strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, but the Pharisees might well watch with admiration the performance of the right hon. Gentleman."I propose now to repeal the duties on certificates, so that the Statute Book will once more be entirely free from the blemish of Measures that ought never to have appeared upon it." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, col. 2671, Vol. 237.]
I should not have intervened if we had had at any time from the Treasury bench an explanation of the real reasons for this remission of taxation, and I think the Committee must agree that strong arguments have been adduced against the remission. We have to consider that we are hard pressed at the present time for money, and that we are in this budget taxing revenue which in the opinion of many hon. Members must react very disastrously upon trade and industry. At such a time, the Committee ought to consider with very great care and sus- picion any attempt to remit taxation unless it can be shown that such remission will improve industry and employment. This is the background which the Committee ought to have in mind in considering the proposal. If it had been shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this one remission of taxation contained in the Budget was for the purpose of encouraging a struggling, productive industry, the Committee would have been with them. But when we are considering that this one industry which is receiving a bounty is an industry which in their opinion confers no benefit on the people of this country but is indeed destructive of their happiness and carries a bad effect to thousands of homes we must indeed wonder very seriously why it is that this one industry is singled out as the recipient of their bounty. The only argument we have had put before us is that in some way the imposition of this tax has given a cachet or sort of hall mark of some kind of respectability to the bookmakers. If it were indeed the fact that the imposition of this tax had in some way conferred a benefit on the bookmakers you would have expected to find them up in arms against any suggestion for the remission of the tax. But the very reverse is the case. The bookmakers do not regard this tax as conferring a benefit on them and they have never expressed an opinion that they regard it as assisting them in carrying on their business. If it was thought that the tax helped the bookmaker in his business and encouraged persons to indulge in the practice of betting the bookmaker would be the first person to welcome the tax and do his best to secure its retention. When we find that the whole influence of the trade is directed to securing the removal of the tax we cannot but deplore the unholy alliance of the bookmakers on the one side and persons of an unduly narrow view on the other combining to secure this one remission of taxation. Then again, if we care to leave the hard realm of figures and soar into the more rarefied atmosphere of ethical considerations—
We cannot have a disquisition on the ethical point of view of taxes. Ethics only come in so far as the taxes are concerned with gambling.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself defended the remission of this tax on the ground that it was a tax which had outraged the moral sense of a large portion of the community, and my hon. Friend can surely rebut that argument.
That expression of opinion was on the Report stage of the Resolution.
May I say at once that in order to keep within your ruling, as I am always anxious to do, when I used the word "ethical" I meant a consideration which is surely relevant to this topic—the good of the people as affected by this tax and its remission. I do not propose to consider the tax from any metaphysical point of view. I submit, with respect, that, when we are considering the remission of this taxation, we ought to consider whether it will encourage or retard betting in this country. I think the experience we have gained from other forms of taxation in this country—taxation applied to other industries and to drink—justifies us in opposing the remission of this taxation. It is the case that the high price and taxation has discouraged the use of drink. We who are against betting, and regard it as dangerous in the body politic, ought to think whether we are working in the best interests of the people of this country in asking for the remission
Division No. 313.]
| AYES.
| [2 45 a.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Chater, Daniel | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Clarke, J. S. | Gray, Milner |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Cluse, W. S. | Greene, W. P. Crawford |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Compton, Joseph | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) |
| Arnott, John | Cowan, D. M. | Groves, Thomas E. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Daggar, George | Grundy, Thomas W. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Dalton, Hugh | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Dickson, T. | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Barr, James | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Harbord, A. |
| Batey, Joseph | Dukes, C. | Hardie, George D. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Duncan, Charles | Haycock, A. W. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Ede, James Chuter | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Benson, G. | Edmunds, J. E. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Herriotts, J. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Egan, W. H. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Bromfield, William | Foot, Isaac | Hollins, A. |
| Brooke, W. | Freeman, Peter | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Brothers, M. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Horrabin, J. F. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Gibbins, Joseph | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Gill, T. H. | Johnston, Thomas |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Glassey, A. E. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Cape, Thomas | Gosling, A. G. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Gould, F. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
of this taxation. No reply has been supplied to the arguments from this side of the House. Unless there is some other reason, which we have not heard, it seems incredible that we should throw away a considerable sum of revenue and gain no appreciable benefit from it. For these reasons, I do support this Amendment.
I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I must protest against the cavalier treatment by the front bench opposite. I have been listening for an hour and a half, and we have had practically no answer at all, except the original statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had really no explanation whatsoever. I have heard hon. Friends on my side of the House ask specific questions on specific points, and there has been no attempt on the part of the Government to reply to these points. I can hardly find any reason which should keep them so silent. I have been searching in my mind to find if there could be any possible reason, and the only thing I can find is that, if they were to rise to explain the situation, they would possibly be giving away the unholy bargain that they have made with the unclean thing.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes 205; Noes, 89.
| Kennedy, Thomas | Moses, J. J. H. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Kinley, J. | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Lang, Gordon | Muff, G. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Lathan, G. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Law, Albert (Bolton) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Oldfield, J. R. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Lawson, John James | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Sorensen, R. |
| Leach, W. | Palin, John Henry | Stamford, Thomas W. |
| Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Penny, Sir George | Strauss, G. R. |
| Lees, J. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sullivan, J. |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Potts, John S. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Price, M. P. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Quibell, D. J. K. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Longden, F. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Toole, Joseph |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Richards, R. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Lunn, William | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Walkden, A. G. |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wallace, H. W. |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Ritson, J. | Watkins, F. C. |
| McElwee, A. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W, Bromwich) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| McEntee, V. L. | Romeril, H. G. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| McKinlay, A. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| McShane, John James | Rowson, Guy | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Marcus, M. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Westwood, Joseph |
| Markham, S. F. | Sanders, W. S. | White, H. G. |
| Marley, J. | Sandham, E. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Marshall, Fred | Sawyer, G. F. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Mathers, George | Scurr, John | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Matters, L. W. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Messer, Fred | Shield, George William | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Middleton, G. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Mills, J. E. | Shillaker, J. F. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Shinwell, E. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Morley, Ralph | Simmons, C. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Sinkinson, George | |
| Mort, D. L. | Sitch, Charles H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel. | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Albery, Irving James | Eden, Captain Anthony | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Purbrick, R. |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Balniel, Lord | Everard, W. Lindsay | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Ford, Sir P. J. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Bracken, B. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Savery, S. S. |
| Bullock, Captain Malcolm | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Butler, R. A. | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Long, Major Eric | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Muirhead, A. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Dalrympie-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Mr. Marjoribanks and Captain |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Peake, Captain Osbert | Bourne. |
Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Do the Government intend to give us any answer to the questions asked about the Clause on the Amendment? The point brought out by my hon. Friend was that, at the moment when we are trenching so deeply on our resources for taxation, it seems a strange thing that we should remit taxation to the extent of £200,000 per annum. That, it has been calculated, would at 5 per cent. pay the interest on a loan of £4,000,000 which would give employment to some 16,000 men. Of all forms of productive employment on which the labour of this country could be employed just now, it is not the most useful that it should be employed on the race tracks of the country. The question whether, if remission of taxation is to be made, remission of taxation to the bookmaking fraternity would minister to the success of the citizens of this country is one on which we might reasonably expect some further reply from the Government. The question of the objects to which this money could be devoted has been brought up, but not deeply examined, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but, even without dwelling upon the possible alternative uses of this money, why should any remission of taxation be made at this moment and particularly to the bookmaking fraternity? An hon. Friend of mine, who was defeated at a by-election, told me his defeat was largely due to the Labour placards carried round saying "Vote for.…, the Labour candidate. Vote for..…, the sportsman's friend." That argument would not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at all. He does not desire to be regarded as "the sportsman's friend." The reason he gives for this remission is that the tax outraged the moral sense of a large portion of the community. It was ruled at an earlier stage that we must not go into the ethics of the question, so I cannot go into that aspect further. We must conclude that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has chosen on its merits the bookmaking fraternity to make to it a remission of taxation.
What does the Glasgow Presbytery say?
What do the citizens of Glasgow and the electors of my hon. Friend say? What will they say when I tell them that the only remission of taxation was made to the "bookies"? What will be said when I tell the women of his constituency, as I shall, that the only remission he voted for was not on food taxes, not on taxes upon industry or any other tax that bears heavily upon the community, but for a remission of taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, finding that he had £200,000 to distribute, handed over to the "bookies"?
What is the opinion of the Church Presbytery?
The opinion of the Church Presbytery, though important, is not so important as that of the women electors represented by my hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the only justification for this is that the tax was a blemish on the Statute Book and outraged the moral sense of the community, and for those reasons he desires to remit it. Surely, if it would justify the remission of this taxation, it would infinitely more justify the remission of the taxation on intoxicating liquor. Yet he does not propose to remit taxation on that, but to increase it. The moral argument does not seem to hold water at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beer!"] It may hold beer, but it does not hold water. With the present strain on our financial resources, any remission of taxation must be jealously examined. This is an unproductive community, a sport, and a luxury which has been singled out, and there seems no reason for this remission at the present time. The argument about morality does not seem to be a very good one in view of the fact that no remission, but rather an increase, of taxation is being sought from what is admittedly a more harmful trade, the trade in intoxicating liquor. [Interruption.] I am speaking from my own point of view entirely. Is this the time, when the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal is struggling with adversity and is seeking where he can raise revenue to guarantee this expenditure in order to employ people in productive work in this country, that we should part with a sum which would meet the annual expenditure on a loan that would employ no fewer than sixteen thousand persons? For all these reasons, it does seem that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might give us some further explanation of the reasons why at this moment of all moments they have chosen to make this remission of taxation.
I, too, want to reinforce the arguments of the plea that has come from the front bench on this side of the House as to either the unwillingness or the inability of the Government to offer any satisfactory reply to the numerous points put up in this debate. There are two questions which I should particularly like to ask again. One is, how does the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconcile the bringing in of moral argu- ments into the formation of his opinion as to how he should impose the taxes of the year? We should, secondly, like a definite answer as to whether there was any agreement with the bookmakers in return for the services they gave at the election. Clause 4 contains four lines which read as follow:
a certain date. The first point I wish to ask about this legislation by reference is this. The Clause refers to the Excise Duties and mentions two, referring to a Clause in the Finance Act of 1926, but it does not take the trouble to define which of the Sub-sections of that Section 15 are being repealed. Clause 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, begins as follows:The excise duties chargeable under section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1926, on a book-maker's certificate and on an entry certificate shall cease to be charged after.…
Then comes paragraph (a) which, as I read it, was the paragraph repealed in the Budget last year. Then comes paragraph (b) which says:There shall, on and after the first day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, be charged, levied and paid the following duties of excise, that is to say:
Then comes paragraph (c):On a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as "a bookmaker's certificate") to be taken out annually by a person carrying on the business of a bookmaker, a duty of ten pounds:
Now these two paragraphs are specifically referred to in the Clause which we are now discussing, but the Clause begins by saying "the Excise Duties" and only those two. There is a third section which, as I read it, raises another duty which comes under the Excise. Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, Sub-section (3) reads as follows:On a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as "an entry certificate") to be taken out annually by a bookmaker in respect of the entry for any betting premises kept or used by him, a duty of ten pounds.
Is that repealed? If it is not, the following Sub-section imposes a penalty on the bookmaker for not carrying out Subsection (3) of the Act. In Sub-section (4) this is the penalty imposed:Betting duty shall be payable by the bookmaker with whom the bet is made, and every bookmaker (other than a bookmaker who has made an arrangement approved by the Commissioners for furnishing returns of all bets made with him and has given security up to an amount and in a manner approved by the Commissioners for the payment of the betting duty thereon) with whom a bet is made shall immediately on the making of the bet issue to the person by whom the bet is made a ticket (not before used) in the prescribed form denoting that the proper betting duty has been paid (in this Part of this Act referred to as "a revenue ticket").
Any betting duty not paid by means of a revenue ticket shall be recoverable from the bookmaker with whom the bet was made as a debt due to the Crown—
I do not quite follow the hon. Member. This Clause only deals with the abolition of duties on book-makers' certificates and entry certificates. These are the questions under discussion and not the Betting Duty.
The Clause I am reading now is Clause 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, Sub-section (4), which directly refers to a Betting Duty, and I was pointing out that the penalty—
This has nothing to do with the Betting Duty. The Betting Duty, I understand, has been abolished. This matter which we are discussing now abolishes the certificates.
Surely, this is the foundation on which we are repealing the certificates, and on that all these questions of revenue turn.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) is not on that.
I have not looked this matter up to-night, but two days ago, and it only points out the extraordinary difficulties of legislation by reference. I will not pursue the point, but will only ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury definitely to look at Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, and tell us if and when Clause 4 becomes law, how much of Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, will be left, how much repealed, and, if any is left—[Interruption]. This is not easy to explain to the Committee. The whole afternoon we have been subjected to this long fire of animal noises from the other side and I do protest against it. We are trying to quote numbers of Sections and Sub-sections in different Acts. I want the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to tell us—[Interruption].
Order, order.
It is quite impossible for hon. Members below the Gangway to hear what the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) is saying on account of interruptions on the Government benches, and we ask for your protection.
I did not think the interruptions were of such a character as to require intervention on my part. But I must appeal to hon. Members not to raise points of Order in such a way as to imply that these interruptions come from only one side of the House.
With great respect, a Ruling on this point was given by your predecessor.
The decision given by my predecessor does not arise on the point of Order raised now.
I happen to have friends who are bookmakers. There are black sheep in every profession, and there are some in the profession of the bookmakers, but I would also say that there are some of the most honourable men in it to be found in any walk of life in this country. The big men in their profession do business running into hundreds and thousands of pounds with clients without any writing, but by word of mouth only, and men with whom you can do business of that kind must be honourable men. I have been asked to raise this question: If Clause 4 of the Bill is passed in the form in which it now stands, how much of Section 15 of the 1926 Act will be left? Will any of it be left, and, if so, what part? May I also ask what agreements have been come to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before introducing Clause 4 of this Bill?
I can answer the hon. Member's question in one sentence. The only things that remain of the original betting legislation are the two certificates, the personal certificate, and the entry certificate, and, if the Clause under discussion is passed, nothing whatever will remain.
I apologise to hon. Members opposite for intervening for a short time. While the right hon. Gentleman has satisfactorily cleared up an important point put by my hon. Friend, there is another matter to which I wish to refer. It appears to me to be an extraordinary case of self-deception. I do not object to self-deception among Members opposite—it is the only political thrill they have left—but I object to self-deception at the public expense, and that is the effect of this Clause. Betting is a grave question which divides people of the country into two camps. I recognise two schools of thought. There are Members on one side who think that betting on a moderate scale meets the ordinary needs of humanity, but they recognise that it is an evil if indulged in to excess. They believe, however, that it is better for a human being to learn for himself to curb his tendencies towards excess rather than that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should attempt, and probably fail, to do it for him. Hon. Members who take that view believe the bookmaker has the right to be recognised, and that, as he only appeals to a luxury instinct in the population, it is only fair that he should contribute a part of his earnings to the general service of the State. Members on the other side, with equal sincerity, take the entirely opposite view, that dealing in any form of betting is an evil thing which should be stamped out, and they are prepared to take the only logical course, and that is to render betting wholly illegal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a middle course between these two. He makes no attempt to place the pains and penalties of the law upon bookmakers, but at the same time he refuses to recognise the bookmakers and to take a share of their profits for the State. The right hon. Gentleman has treated us on several occasions during these Debates to what I believe are popularly known as wise cracks. [Interruption]. The right hon. Gentleman gives no reason for his refusal of this income.
The right hon. Gentleman refuses to touch this unclean thing; yet at the same time his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General places all the facilities at his command at the service of these unclean people. He tries in every way to meet their demand and secure from them a larger revenue for the right hon. Gentleman. But even more flagrant is the case of the Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly prepared to recognise the bookmaker as a profession and to recognise the profits which the bookmaker makes as assessable for Income Tax, and let me point out to hon. Members the difference between revenue raised in this Bill and the revenue raised under the Income Tax Act. It seems to me an extraordinary piece of self deception that the Chancellor should be able to come down to the House and inform it that he is refusing this money because it is not right that the State should accept anything from the bookmakers. He may have a very deep hidden desire, and it may be his intention to kill the book-makers by kindness, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that the book-makers of this country are a tough race, and if they are to be killed at all, they are not to be killed by kindness.I think it would be hard to find a better example than that which has been followed of a very unpleasant feature of the British character, and that is hypocrisy. Here we have a situation in which, as my hon. Friend for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) has pointed out, we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepting from the book-makers of the country—or rather taking from them—in the form of Income Tax a proportion of the profits which they make in this "unclean" trade, and then the right hon. Gentleman coming down to this House and making a speech in which he says this is an immoral trade. Nor is that the worst of the situation. Some years ago this House passed an Act by which betting in the street was made illegal. At the same time, the House has never attempted to deal effectively with betting in other places. It is well known that gambling in this country is on a larger scale than in any Continental country, and in the effects it has and the amount of money it takes out of the pockets of the people it has probably the same result as the drink traffic.
Yet we know from the right hon. Gentleman on that evening when he has placed a heavy tax on the licensed trade a declaration that he is not willing to ask the Committee to tax bookmakers because he looks upon theirs as an unclean trade. I would go as far as to say that there is no other country in the world where such an hypocritical argument would be put before the legislative assembly and where the Minister could get away with it. I have no doubt that argument will be acceptable to some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, but I think this Committee should pause before accepting it. There is a definite justification for our asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to rise and say how he reconciles the extremely high moral principles he adopts in some parts of his Budget with the extreme willingness he shows in another part of his Budget to take money from what he regards as an unclean quarter.I think the answer, if I am right, is to be found in the schedule. I see that the whole of Part II of the Finance Act, 1926, is repealed and that includes all the Sections—15, 16, 17 and 18—which dealt with the whole question of the taxation on betting. There is this point: I had endeavoured at an earlier stage to move a manuscript Amendment to alter the date in this Clause from the 31st day of October to the 1st of August, but that was in some way out of order, and I was not able to move it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the Committee a few minutes ago, in answer to my hon. Friend that if this Clause was passed, then the whole of Section 15 of the 1926 Act would be repealed, but, under this Clause itself the duties are being raised until the 31st of October, therefore, surely there must be an error of drafting in this Schedule. I do not wish to arouse any member of the Government to take an interest in this matter, but honestly, I think the point is one of substance and deserving of some slight attention. I have examined this Schedule with great care, to ensure that I was not wasting the time of the Committee in raising the point. If hon. Members look at Part IV, the last item of the third Schedule, they will see that a certain Section of the 1926 Act is repealed, and then, under the paragraph which shows the extent of the repeal, there are these words:
Under the Clause the duties are continued to be raised until 31st October."Proviso (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 (except in relation to the year 1929–30)."
Have you read this Clause?
I have not only read the Clause, but also the Schedule. If I have overlooked some point—and that is the object of my getting up—I am asking for information. I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should resent my raising this point, and, if the answer is satisfactory, we shall be very grateful indeed to receive it. There is another point that has not been raised. Does the right hon. Gentleman really consider that there is any moral difference between those who speculate on the Stock Exchange and those who speculate on the race course? He is perfectly willing to accept a revenue in Stamp Duties from those transactions which take place on the Stock Exchange, and it is the greatest hypocrisy to refuse to accept revenue from betting.
On a point of Order. Is the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Mr. W. J. Brown) in Order in lying full length on the benches?
He is not in Order.
I was not lying full length.
Do I understand that lying down is forbidden in this House?
Having read the Clause again and again I am still of the same opinion as when I read it at first. The words of the Clause are:
But we have just had an assurance that if this Clause is passed this charge will become inoperative."The Excise duties chargeable under Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1926, on a bookmaker's certificate and on an entry certificate shall cease to be charged after October, 31st, 1930."
On 1st November.
If that is the case, why is it that the duty is not to be repealed at an earlier date? I was concluding my argument by asking why the right hon. Gentleman should consider that there was any difference between people who gambled on the Stock Exchange and those who bet on horses. I want to put another point. If Part II of the Finance Act, 1926, is repealed, is it to be understood that we stand in this country exactly in the same position as regards betting in its legal aspects as we did before the Act of 1926 was passed? Are we to go back to the hypocritical stage that we sanction, allow, and permit betting inside certain buildings, but that it is illegal for the same thing to take place outside? I think that all parties agreed that the Act put an end to that hypocritical situation. Are we to go back to the old hypocritical stage that we sanction with our right hand what we proceed against with our left? I only hope that on the day when a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer again produces a Budget he will not hesitate to reimpose the duty along these lines and take from that section of the community a sum of £200,000, and that he will take more if he can towards the revenue of the country.
I rise to deal with an interruption which took place from the other side of the House, and I call noon hon. Members to justify it in their speeches. From this side a reference was made to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer described these duties as a blemish on the financial system of the country. I went to the library of this House the other day to look at the "Daily Herald." I went to ascertain what the unemployment returns were, and I found that they were suppressed. Instead of the unemployment returns, I found seven columns devoted to horse racing and betting, and four of those columns were a direct encouragement from the Labour party's official organ to bet. I looked at the "Daily Herald" to-day, and I found that not only were there seven columns directly encouraging people to bet, but—
On a point or Order. Are we debating horse racing in general? I understood that the Question was "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
I was discussing the question of the morality of betting, and I say it is hypocrisy for a party which pays part of its funds to encourage a newspaper which recognises betting to cheer a suggestion that betting is a blemish.
I was called to Order for supporting my feet on a, bench; is it in Order for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to support their feet on the Table?
It is a long-standing custom in this House.
Would it be in Order for us to begin a custom?
As representing a constituency in which there takes place annually a gathering which necessitates the largest concentration of bookmakers and a gathering which does so much to increase and sustain the circulation of the "Daily Herald" whose information I believe, though not from personal observation, is extremely good, I would like to say a few words to the Committee on this subject. I would remind hon. Members opposite that the very class of bookmakers who are so derided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer serve a very useful purpose to many hon. Members, not only on this side of the House, but on the other side also. Gratitude to bookmakers for services rendered in their official capacity and also at election times in the past might at least constrain the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be less scathing in his remarks.
By what process of logic is it held that, if one puts one's feet on a bench, one is out of Order, while one who puts his feet on the back of the bench in front of him is in Order?
I am afraid logic is not the determining factor; it is largely governed by precedent.
Could not something be done to put an end to frivolous points of Order?
The Chair is always anxious to prevent a waste of time. A waste of time takes place with unnecessary points of Order, but there are other ways of wasting time not unknown to the Noble Lord.
The Committee will realise how difficult it is to make a connected statement when one is subject to interruptions. I had hoped the silence of the Committee earlier was prompted by a desire to hear what information I might have to give it. It is common knowledge that the bookmaking fraternity are always willing to bear their share of the national burden, and it is rather cavalier of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have relieved them of taxation, and at the same time to have held them up to execration by saying that their business was an evil and wrong business. There is no doubt his party has accepted the help of the bookmakers at by-elections. If this relief was to be made, surely he might have made the relief earlier, so that it could have come into operation before the events of a week's time. It would have been a kindly thing to have done, seeing he has made so many strictures on bookmakers—these men who in the main are pursuing a particularly fair and honest business. There should be some answers to the questions raised on this side of the House. These men are not mischievous in any way. They are not dishonest men. Although I hold no brief for the bookmakers, at least their name should be cleared, and there should not be these perpetual references to them as if they were something unclean.
Before the debate ends, is the right hon. Gentleman not going to make some reply to the arguments addressed to him? After all, it is the right hon Gentleman's wish that this discussion should proceed in the small hours of the morning. When he took that position and attained the ratification of his will and authority over the House, it was to be assumed that he intended to take an intelligent part in out discussions; that he intended to make the necessary contributions to our debates and answer the points raised. Some of the points have been very clear, and I should have thought that it would have been very unpleasant for the right hon. Gentleman to sit there apparently incapable, for some reason or other, of giving an answer. He is raising money from the Income Tax on the profits of bookmakers, and yet saying that he cannot be responsible for the unclean thing by raising money by the taxation of their licences. Surely he has got some answer. Everybody has some sort of answer.
Then take the question of sweeping away this loathsome blemish—but apparently only after 1st November. Up to then he is prepared to obtain the proceeds of gambling and put into his pure and orthodox coffers money which is gained by his direct and intimate association, in his public capacity, with the trade which he has told us is built up from day to day on the ruin of countless homes. He is going more deeply into this business with every step he takes. On the one hand, there is his connection with the "Daily Herald," the official organ of his party. If it were not for the exertions of the "Daily Herald" he would not hold his position on the Treasury Bench. He would not have been there, probably, but for the valuable "Daily Herald." It is all very well to take their aid and assistance and be supported by their active journalism, and then brush it aside as an unclean thing. Really, for the right hon. Gentleman's own sake, I would advise him to try to make some answer to the arguments. It is not the slightest use sitting there and maintaining a stoney silence. For three or four hours he has contended himself with barking out one single sentence. [Interruption]. If it is objected to that I should say "barking," I will say snapping out one single sentence with a, peculiar canine inflection. I do not wish to say anything to hurt the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am anxious that he should have some chance of making some reply. He should be inspired with some desire to distinguish himself in the Debate instead of sitting there with a look of unutterable weariness and boredom on his expressive countenance. It is really quite painful to see. It is his wish that we should debate this now. He sits there unable to answer and unwilling to allow anybody to go to bed. He is forcing us to remain here and he is adding nothing to our discussions. It is unworthy of the great responsibility committed to his care. I ask him to answer the various points raised in the Debate.Before the Government replies, I would like to add one or two words. I have noticed with great interest the dilemma my hon. Friends seem to be in with regard to the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer's motive and view with regard to the repeal of these taxes. My hon. Friend from Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) seems to think that there is some difficulty in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in calling this an unclean thing and then relieving the individual. He seems to have never heard of the maxim "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." The position the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken up is that betting is a sin, but you must show the greatest love and zeal towards the bookmaker. But the publican is such a sinner that you cannot do anything for him. There is just the proper degree of sin about the bookmaker that makes it possible to love him while you detest the sin he has committed. My right hon. Friend on the Front bench has remarked with surprise that the tax will continue until 1st November. Surely it is clear that it marks the determination for moral and fiscal purity that he has selected Halloween as the day for the tax to cease—31st October. I think both my theology and my calendar are correct. I know that if they are not I will be corrected when I finish. If I am wrong in thinking that the 31st October is Halloween and that Halloween has something to do with All Saints, then of course I shall be corrected.
On a point of Order. Have the Saints got anything to do with the Betting Duty?
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument. I shall not put it to him again, because I am quite satisfied that everyone in the Committee has followed it, and, reinforced as I am by the assistance of the little Oxford Pocket Dictionary provided by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), I am in a position to say authoritatively—when I have found the place—that we are both right. All Saints day is the 1st November and Halloween the evening before that day, now doubly holy—
May I inform the House that Halloween, the 31st October, was instituted by the Druids centuries before Christianity was introduced.
I hope in a Parliamentary life a little longer than that of my hon. Friend I have never made any observation so clearly out of Order as this dragging into a discussion on betting the question of the Druids. On second thoughts I am not so sure that my hon. Friend was so far away from the point. Am I right in thinking that in my early youth, in those distant days, one of the most famous tipsters was called "The Druid"? I believe the memories of his early youth must be struggling through the mind of my hon. Friend as he takes a comfortable repose on the benches opposite. It is all very well to attempt to explain the Chancellor's action by the well-known saw, "Hate the sin and love the sinner." But, when one comes to look at this repeal of taxation, was there ever such a piece of utter fraud and humbug? How impossible it is to find any fiscal, moral, or logical justification for selecting, out of all the persons who have to pay duties in order to carry on their trades in this country, the bookmakers alone! Why should not the licences of the publican also be removed as one of the sources of revenue? We hear a great deal from hon. Members opposite about the necessity of raising the social standard of the people, but can anyone doubt that that matter can be seriously discussed even at this early hour of the morning and that, if you are anxious on that point, a far greater harm is being done to the people of this country by drink than through betting? If you are judging the thing from that standpoint, if you are looking for the most unclean thing, surely in a test of uncleanness, drink must win against gambling. In uncleanness I have no doubt that the whisky of Scotland will take a far lower rank in the degree of uncleanness than the beer we have been discussing.
I would remind the hon. Member that repetition of other people's arguments is equally as much out of Order as a repetition of his own.
I will do my best to observe that essential but often broken rule. I shall not expatiate on that, although it is the most outstanding feature that this selection should be made for this remission of taxation. The Committee is so impressed with that that it will be widely asked, and asked with force, why this particular remission has been made. What is the point of it? Why, first of all, make an elementary error in your scale of uncleanness, selecting the wrong thing as the most unclean, and then, by a most illogical method of dealing with it, help the people carrying on the unclean trade to carry it on without any financial burden at all? What a farce! What a humbug! What a contemptible misuse of the fiscal power now entrusted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer! It is made doubly mischievous in one who himself has been trained up in the office of the Treasury, who himself has been an expert tax collector, who knows from the beginnings the whole method of taxation, who is not a mere outsider put into the position, but who has been a tax collector from his youth upwards. How can he bring himself, knowing how terrific are the burdens of taxation, how severe a weight of taxation presses on the people of this country, while he adds to the taxation of everybody else, to reduce the tax of one class, the class carrying on this most unpleasant trade?
I would say, in reply to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that, when I spoke four hours ago, in that speech I anticipated and answered all the arguments put forward in this debate. I beg to move, "That the Question he now put."
Is it in Order, and, according to precedent, for a right hon. Gentleman to move the Closure at the conclusion of a speech which he himself has made? I have always understood that that is contrary to the Rules of this House and that that Motion could only be made by another hon. Member.
The right hon. Gentleman has not acted contrary to the Rules of the House. A member may move the Closure whenever he wishes, and if the Chair thinks proper it can accept it.
This innovation of a Member making a speech and then concluding with a Motion for the Closure would carry us very far. A most provocative speech might be made, and then, by concluding with a Motion for the Closure, any answer or rejoinder might be prevented. Some very damaging statement might be made, and then the Minister might finish up by moving the Closure which would leave that statement uncorrected. In all the 25 or 30 years I have sat in this House, I have never known a Minister of the Crown conclude his speech by moving the Closure, and I submit that matter to your attention.
On that point of Order, may I call attention to this fact, that before you came back to the Chair and while the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair we persistently put questions to the Government to which no attempt at an answer has been made. The only answer we got was about ten words, and the Closure was moved.
Division No. 314.]
| AYES.
| [4.3 a.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gould, F. | McElwee, A. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | McEntee, V. L. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | McKinlay, A. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Gray, Milner | McShane, John James |
| Alpass, J. H. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Marcus, M. |
| Arnott, John | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Marley, J. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Groves, Thomas E. | Marshall, Fred |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Grundy, Thomas W. | Mathers, George |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Matters, L. W. |
| Barr, James | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Messer, Fred |
| Batey, Joseph | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Middleton, G. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Harbord, A. | Mills, J. E. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Hardie, George D. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Benson, G. | Haycock, A. W. | Morley, Ralph |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Hayes, John Henry | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Mort, D. L. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Moses, J. J. H. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Herriotts, J. | Muff, G. |
| Bromfield, William | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Brooke, W. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Brothers, M. | Hoffman, P. C. | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Hollins, A. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hopkin, Daniel | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Horrabin, J. F. | Palin, John Henry. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Cape, Thomas | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Johnston, Thomas | Potts, John S. |
| Chater, Daniel | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Price, M. P. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Compton, Joseph | Kennedy, Thomas | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Cowan, D. M. | Kinley, J. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Daggar, George | Lang, Gordon | Ritson, J. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lathan, G. | Romeril, H. G. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Dickson, T. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Rowson, Guy |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Lawrence, Susan | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Dukes, C. | Lawson, John James | Sanders, W. S. |
| Duncan, Charles | Leach, W. | Sandham, E. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Scurr, John |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lees, J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shield, George William |
| Egan, W. H. | Lindley, Fred W. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Foot, Isaac | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Freeman, Peter | Logan, David Gilbert | Shinwell, E. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Longbottom, A, W. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Longden, F. | Sinkinson, George |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Gill, T. H. | Lunn, William | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Gossling, A. G. | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
The Chair obviously cannot dictate to Ministers or to Members when or when not to move the Closure. That must be left to the discretion of the Member moving it. It is left to the discretion of the Chair whether to accept it. All I can say is that the discussion has lasted nearly three hours on this particular Clause. In exercising my discretion on a debate that centres round a particular point, I feel perfectly entitled to accept the Closure.
In reply to—[Interruption].
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 191; Noes, 84.
| Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Toole, Joseph | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Vaughan, D. J. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Walkden, A. G. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Wallace, H. W. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Sorensun, R. | Watkins, F. C. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Strauss, G. R. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Sullivan, J. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) | Wellock, Wilfred | |
| Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Thurtle, Ernest | Westwood, Joseph | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. William |
| Tinker, John Joseph | White, H. G. | Whiteley. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Savery, S. S. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Butler, R. A. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Somerset, Thomas |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Long, Major Eric | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Lymington, Viscount | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Courtauid, Major J. S. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Muirhead, A. J. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Penny, Sir George | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Ramsbotham, H. | Major Sir George Hennessy and |
| Captain Wallace. | ||
Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Division No. 315.]
| AYES.
| [4.10 a.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Compton, Joseph | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Cowan, D. M. | Harbord, A. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Daggar, George | Hardie, George D. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Dalton, Hugh | Haycock, A. W. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hayes, John Henry |
| Arnott, John | Dickson, T. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Dukes, C. | Herriotts, J. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Duncan, Charles | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Barr, James | Ede, James Chuter | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Batey, Joseph | Edmunds, J. E. | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Hollins, A. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Benson, G. | Egan, W. H. | Horrabin, J. F. |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Foot, Isaac | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Freeman, Peter | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Gibbins, Joseph | Johnston, Thomas |
| Bromfield, William | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Brooke, W. | Gill, T. H. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Brothers, M. | Glassey, A. E. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Gossling, A. G. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Gould, F. | Kennedy, Thomas |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Kinley, J. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lang, Gordon |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Gray, Milner | Lathan, G. |
| Cape, Thomas | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Law, A. (Rosendale) |
| Charieton, H. C. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Chater, Daniel | Groves, Thomas E. | Lawson, John James |
| Clarke, J. S. | Grundy, Thomas W. | Leach, W. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
The Committee divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 77.
| Lees, J. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Palin, John Henry | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Lindley, Fred W. | Paling, Wilfrid | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Lloyd, C. Ellis | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Sorensen, R. |
| Logan, David Gilbert | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Longbottom, A. W. | Potts, John S. | Sullivan, J. |
| Longden, F. | Price, M. P. | Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln) |
| Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Quibell, D. J. K. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Lunn, William | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Rathbone, Eleanor | Tinker, John Joseph |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Toole, Joseph |
| McElwee, A. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Vaughan, D. J. |
| McEntee, V. L. | Ritson, J. | Walkden, A. G. |
| McKinlay, A. | Romeril, H. G. | Wallace, H. W. |
| McShane, John James | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Marcus, M. | Rowson, Guy | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Marley, J. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Marshall, Fred | Sanders, W. S. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Mathers, George | Sandham, E. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Matters, L. W. | Sawyer, G. F. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Messer, Fred | Scurr, John | White, H. G. |
| Middleton, G. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Mills, J. E. | Shield, George William | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Morley, Ralph | Shillaker, J. F. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Shinwell, E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Mort, D. L. | Simmons, C. J. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Moses, J. J. H. | Sinkinson, George | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Muff, G. | Sitch, Charles H. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | |
| Noel Baker, P. J. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Oldfield, J. R. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. William |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Whiteley. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesail) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Savery, S. S. |
| Butler, R. A. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Long, Major Eric | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Lymington, Viscount | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Courtauid, Major J. S. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Muirhead, A. J. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Penny, Sir George | |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Captain Bourne and Mr. Smithers. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Pownall, Sir Assheton | |
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
We have had four hours of discussion since the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided we were to continue. During that time we had a very strenuous sitting which has clearly produced a marked effect upon the strength of the Minister in charge of the Bill. For reasons with which I sympathise and respect he has practically ceased to take an active part in the debate. He has simply sat there, hour after hour, with a look of sour disapproval on his face. But we are now coming to the most important Clause and we have disposed of four Clauses and have made a remarkable inroad into the Bill. We are now approaching Clause 5 at five o'clock in the morning when the debates are not followed at all by the country, because the reporting staffs are reduced. We are not at all afraid of our work being reported, but I quite understand that others may not have the same with and this question of Safeguarding is the most controversial question of the present day. It is the key question at by-elections, and probably it will be the most important point in the forthcoming general election. In every part of the country, the question of Safeguarding is exciting the greatest interest. The Liberal party and other free traders are marshalling their forces and sharpening their weapons. The Labour party are in considerable doubt as to what their course should be. Are we really to assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants this important matter discussed at a moment when the country will not be able to receive any reports? Is he really so alarmed about this topic that he does not wish it to be entered on by Parliament at a proper hour? In any case, it seems to me that we have now reached a point where we ought to break off our discussion. This Clause, I warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is one of an extremely controversial character, and I cannot possibly suppose that it can be easily or simply disposed of. This is like talking to a stone wall. I am not going to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because we know the futility of that. Nor am I going to suggest any sort of Parliamentary bargain with him, because, as we well know, the last arrangement made with him was made the ground of an accusation of bad faith against those with whom he entered into the arrangement. Consequently, we are unable to come to an arrangement with him. He has placed himself in a special position different from any other Minister. He is a sort of political pariah for the purpose of our Debates, only, of course, from that point of view, and we are unable to enter into any arrangement with him. But the mere fact that we are precluded from making such an arrangement makes it all the more necessary, and, indeed, indispensable, that he should himself regulate these Debates so as to conduce to proper discussion. He is a little smirched perhaps by the Coal Bill; somewhat smutty from the coal hole, but still orthodox, and I should have thought that it was the very topic that he would have been specially anxious to bring forward at a time when the country would be waiting to hear him.As far as I can ascertain this Clause does not deal with Safeguarding at all; it deals with dumping.
There is Safeguarding against dumping. This was the part introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when Prime Minister, and it is only three or four weeks ago that the right hon. Gentleman said he would introduce legislation to prevent dumping even in the case of food stuffs, arriving too cheaply.
We cannot discuss that matter now.
I was only meeting the point that perhaps in referring to this as Safeguarding I was not sufficiently accurate in my description of the subject and I should have said Safeguarding against dumping. There is a lot to be said about dumping. I hardly know another subject on which more general interest prevails, even among all parties. I should like very much to enter into battle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, but why cannot we have it at a reasonable hour? Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer want to smuggle it through at this dim hour of the morning when the pale dawn is just illuminating the monstrosities on the Thames Embankment. I do suggest that he would better consult the dignity of his office, the efficiency of his administration, the smooth and orderly progress of his Bill if, instead of endeavouring to burke this question by relegating it to a period when no record of our proceedings can reach the public, he discussed it at a moment when he is more fit to do himself full justice on his own subject. He would be well advised to accept the Motion which I make, which is not without consideration for the right hon. Gentleman and the progress of his Measure.
The only contributions which the right hon. Gentleman has made to our Budget debates are insolence and buffoonery [Interruption]. If the right hon. Gentleman is capable of making a reasonable contribution to our debates, the House will be ready to hear him. He is quite mistaken in his sympathy. I am quite prepared to stop here until to-morrow evening with the right hon. Gentleman, and he will find that I am as fresh to-morrow night as he is. He was particularly offensive when he said—[Interruption]. He is incapable of being otherwise [Interruption]. The right hon. Gentleman was particularly offensive when he said I had sat here for hours and taken no part in the debate. I have spoken upon every Amendment that has been moved during the long sitting. It is not my business to waste the time of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are quite capable of doing that. They have shown their capacity to do it. I shall certainly not accept this Motion. The House will sit until the end of Clause 6. I said at 12 o'clock that, if the hon. Members opposite curbed their loquacity, we should rise at one o'clock. I told the Committee that if we could not rise then we should have to continue until the trains were running, and my hon. Friends were able to get home. I said we should go on to the end of Clause 6, however long it takes. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), when he last spoke, ended upon a defiant note. He said: "We are prepared to fight you." Where are three-quarters of the Tory Members of the House now? [Interruption.] Are they in the fighting line? I suppose it is that kind of fighting the right hon. Gentleman had in mind—running away. For four hours since 12 o'clock [Interruption]. I repeat it is not for me to waste the time of the Committee. There are hundreds of Amendments on the Order Paper, and if I spoke for an average of five minutes on each, I should occupy about 20 hours. I shall leave it to the Opposition. [Interruption.]
Hear, hear.
As I was saying—
Hear, hear.
If the hon. Member continues his interruptions, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.
On a point of Order. Is the expression "Hear, hear" out of Order?
It depends upon how it is said.
The Amendment in which the right hon. Gentleman is so much interested could, if hon. Members had shorn the profuseness of the Debates, have been reached at a time when his racy statement could have got that prominence in the daily Press which appears to give him so much satisfaction. When any question of safeguarding arises, however, he always walks consistently out and leaves it invariably to another person to put the case.
On several occasions, I have taken an active part and spoken in the Debate. I know perfectly well what I said in the Debate. Naturally, I left the omnibus measures to my right hon. Friend. If the right hon. Gentleman proposes now to quit the Chamber when this matter is under discussion what becomes of his taunt of "running away."
The right hon. Gentleman had better wait and see what I do. The right hon. Gentleman has been out of the Chamber for three-quarters of an hour. I have been out an hour and a half altogether. I shall leave the conduct of the Debate to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in whose province it appropriately falls. I shall not consult the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether I sit on the bench beside my right hon. Friend. I shall not, first of all, ask the permission of the right hon. Gentleman.
I must confess that, personally, I prefer the tone and temper of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at 12 o'clock to his tone and temper at 4.30 in the morning. If there were another argument needed to support the proposal which my right hon. Friend beside me has just made, it would be amply supplied by the temper in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has replied to the perfectly reasonable and natural request which has been made. At 12 o'clock the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to indicate that, if he could not finish by 1 or 1.30, he would wish to go on in order not to get more business done, but in order to keep the House sitting until the trains began to run again. [Interruption.] The business of this House is no longer conducted with a view to getting things done, but with a view to getting home. If we cannot finish by the time the trains cease to run, we must continue our discussions until the trains begin to run again.
The right hon. Gentleman must know he is grossly misrepresenting me. [interruption.] I made two statements. I repeated them just now. One was that I hoped we might be able to get through the business by one o'clock or so. The other statement was that, if we could not get through the business by one, I hoped we would continue until the trains ran again. A further statement was that in any case we should have to go to the end of Clause 6.
The speech which the right hon. Gentleman made at that time was a speech which began in excellent fashion and ended in excellent fashion. He hesitated and balanced. He was obviously debating with himself, even while he was addressing the Committee, what course he should take, and whether he should make any kind of proposal for the Committee or not, and he went so far as to admit that it would be unreasonable to ask us to take Clause 5 at a later hour of the night. Everything up to the last sentence pointed to the fact that he would have been satisfied if he had got Clause 4.
No.
If he had finished on the note he began, we would have got home, but in the last sentence he changed his mind, and since then he has been obstinate. He has now two purposes in view, one is to occupy his friends until the trains run again, and the other is to punish the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman used language to the Committee—[Interruption.] I have had a longer Parliamentary experience than the hon. Member who interrupts me.
Not much longer.
I did not notice the interruption of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I noticed an interruption from the back bench.
rose—
I do not remember ever to have heard a Minister leading the House talk to it in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to adopt to-night. There is no attempt at persuasion. There is a sharp, shrill menace with an obvious desire to be disagreeable if he cannot have his own way in the exact form he proposes. That really destroys the comities of the House. Whatever be the result, it does not promote the conduct of Government business generally, and I venture to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the way to facilitite the passage of this Bill. He is trying the Committee too high. Does he doubt it? Why, since I spoke last, an hon. Friend of mine has put into my hand a passage from a speech of the Prime Minister reported in yesterday morning's papers.
That is admitted. What cause have you to complain? The Prime Minister goes on:"There never has been a Session in the House of Commons where more work has been done than this."
This is one of the occasions on which the Government are working the House too hard and not from any necessity for public business, but out of spite on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."I am willing to confess that sometimes we are working the House too hard."
I trust that hon. Gentlemen who are supporting the Government will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow and read the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and ask themselves whether the adjectives applied to those remarks by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are justified. I would remind him that venom and bitterness are not necessarily characteristics of a great Chancellor of the Exchequer. I rise to beg the Government to remember that there is a very large section of persons in this country, more especially in the trade union movement, who are deeply exercised about this subject which it is suggested we should debate now. The right hon. Gentleman himself will not dispute my facts when I say that whole trade unions have begged the Government to stay their hands, that 14,000 persons in one trade out of 15,000—
We cannot discuss the merits of the Clause on this Motion.
I bow to your Ruling, but would I not be in order in pointing out to the Chancellor at this stage the extreme anxiety among a large number of persons in the country and then ask him whether it is really fair to this vast number of persons interested that this vital question should be discussed at five o'clock in the morning? I understand that shortly the whole of these industries, which are affected by this principle, are holding a great demonstration together. What will be the opinion of those persons, so deeply concerned, if it shall then be said that the only occasion we had of discussing this vital question, on which the next election is going to be fought, was at this hour. This is a matter which deeply moves people throughout the country. Might I not make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? He knows the sincerity of some of us on this question. If we are going to treat the question in this manner, when unemployment is going to be up to the 2,000,000 mark before Christmas, when masses of persons in organised labour in this country are changing their views and demanding fair play and fair discussion—if he has not realised this, then we have reached a grave situation in this House, and people will see that we are mocking the whole question of industry and unemployment by treating the question like this. I appeal to the Government—I know there are no newspaper reporters and no Press here—to let the House rise now and to say that they are not prepared to run away from this question and to refuse to have in the newspapers a fair report showing the people outside what has happened. Forgive me if I have spoken warmly on this subject. I can only say that if we do really feel the condition of these 3,500,000 souls—who may soon become 5,000,000—who may be affected by this question, and if we do feel that we are not fighting a party battle, let us adjourn and discuss this question at a reasonable hour.
I was present at 12 o'clock when the right hon. Gentleman made his declaration, and I only regret that the Prime Minister was not present to hear the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He deplored taking legislation at this time and went on to say that, unless he could get it by one o'clock, he would go on till half-past five, when the trains began to run. The country will, therefore, I think, realise that the interests of good legislation, of the taxpayers of this country, and of the people employed in the industry are going to be subordinated to the comfort of Socialist Members of Parliament. If this is to go on night after night, why cannot they out of their funds hire chars-à-bancs and so prevent this scandalous misuse of Parliamentary time?
I appeal for only one minute to point out that the hon. Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) must be under a complete misapprehension regarding this Clause. In point of fact, this does not raise the issue of safeguarding, except as applied to dumped goods, and relates to Clause 3 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. No question of employment comes under that section of the Act, which has never been applied, and, I hope later in the debate to show, never could be applied. That is all the issue before the House.
I should not have intervened but for the statement very courteously made by the President of the Board of Trade to point out that I think the right hon. Gentleman himself really is under a complete illusion, or misapprehension, as to the scope of the issues raised by the proposal which we are going to be invited to discuss. What is proposed by this Clause is complete repeal of the whole of Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act. It matters not whether these powers were used by us or not. If you propose to repeal that section it inevitably raises the whole question of dumping, and you cannot put that on the Order Paper without raising the whole question. In addition, you raise the question that took months to debate in this House before, relating to depreciated exchanges. The object of the Clauses relating to depreciated exchanges was to meet unfair foreign competition created at that time largely by a bounty through exchanges and involving a comparatively different cost of living. The President of the Board of Trade says that only a very small point is raised and that he would not propose to use these powers, but actually what he is repealing is the whole of this chain of powers for dealing with dumping and unfair foreign competition. If he wishes to repeal seven Clauses of a very important Bill, he must inevitably raise these very important issues, and we shall claim to discuss them to the full. If we must take this debate at five o'clock in the morning, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will meet us fairly, as he always does. But let the House be under no illusion as to the scope and magnitude of the operation we are about to undertake.
I feel bound to say that I adhere to every word I have said. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into a very serious error. That part of the Act of 1921 relating to depreciated exchanges expired in 1924. I am compelled to add that there is not a single amendment on the Order Paper that would revive that part.
It is rather amazing to us why the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to be so angry with us. He started this discussion with a threat. We realise that this matter is going to be discussed in the early hours of the morning. We have to face that issue, because discuss it we must. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not really believe that this is a most vital matter in the country to-day, he lives in a world of illusion. There will soon be available the result of an election that has been fought entirely on this issue. The party opposite may prefer that this discussion should take place before that result is known, but in the interests of the country as a whole the result of that election should be known before the discussion. We are prepared to discuss this question with perfect good will, because we believe that it is a question above all others that interests the country at the present moment. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take up any other attitude, is, to quote his own words, grotesque and ridiculous.
May I say—[Interruption.]
May I draw your attention to the fact that there is now again beginning the very same practice of organised disorder which gave trouble at an earlier part of the sitting; and may I also draw your attention to the fact—[Interruption.] May I ask you for protection for my hon. Friend? [Interruption.] The trouble is not being created on this side of the House.
May I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know it is difficult at this time in the morning to keep Order in Debate.
On a point of Order
The hon. Member must not assume that the Chairman is deaf!
I would like to point out that you dealt rather severely with me for saying "Hear, hear!" You laid down no ruling as to whether that was in order.
The hon. Member must not make that point of Order now.
When is it in Order and when is it not for hon. Members to cry "Divide! divide!"?
That is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Chair.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
If this interruption dies down, we shall be able to save a great deal of time in discussing this Bill, but clearly the longer the animal noises continue—[Interruption]. I rise to support the Motion.
Is it in Order for an hon. Member to accuse other hon. Members of making animal noises?
Perhaps they would like it better if I said they were making bird-like noises. My object is to support the Motion moved from the Front Bench below me, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." A number of good reasons for supporting that have already been advanced from this side, and I do not intend to repeat them. I want to support the Motion on humanitarian grounds. [Interruption.] I have been sitting, on this side all the evening and Members opposite have not been in the position that I have been in to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His appearance at this moment and throughout the whole night is a sufficient argument for supporting this Motion to adjourn the proceedings now. His dejected and morose appearance indicates that he is not feeling well, and, if any further evidence to that effect were needed, we had his extreme bad temper in the last few utterances which he made. When you couple his gloom with his morose appearance—
On a point of Order, is it in accordance with the rules of debate that one Member should take the opportunity of reflecting upon the physical appearance of another member?
Another reason, equally humanitarian, and I would like to advance is that, on the last occasion when the Chancellor of the Exchequer vouchsafed a few remarks, in his snappy manner he told us he was going to ask the President of the Board of Trade to deputise for him. The President of the Board of Trade is the most courteous and also the hardest worked man in the Government.
Every nasty job that has to be done for the Government he is asked to do. The extraordinary thing is that he has not been given, in addition to his own job, that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to clear up that mess. Both right hon. Gentlemen are obviously in need of sleep and rest, and I appeal to
Division No. 316.]
| AYES.
| [5.11 a.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Daggar, George | Herriotts, J. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Dalton, Hugh | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Dickson, T. | Hoffman, P. C. |
| Arnott, John | Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Hollins, A. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Dukes, C. | Hopkin, Daniel |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Duncan, Charles | Horrabin, J. F. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Ede, James Chuter | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Edmunds, J. E. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) |
| Barr, James | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | John, William (Rhondda, West) |
| Batey, Joseph | Egan, W. H. | Johnston, Thomas |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Foot, Isaac | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Freeman, Peter | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) |
| Benson, G. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Gibbins, Joseph | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) | Kennedy, Thomas |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Gill, T. H. | Kinley, J. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Glassey, A. E. | Lang, Gordon |
| Bromfield, William | Gossling, A. G. | Lathan, G. |
| Brooke, W. | Gould, F. | Law, Albert (Bolton) |
| Brothers, M. | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Law, A. (Rosendale) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lawrence, Susan |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Gray, Milner | Lawson, John James |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Leach, W. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Groves, Thomas E. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
| Cape, Thomas | Grundy, Thomas W. | Lees, J. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Charieton, H. C. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Chater, Daniel | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Lloyd, C. Ellis |
| Clarke, J. S. | Hardie, George D. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Cluse, W. S. | Haycock, A. W. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hayes, John Henry | Longden, F. |
| Compton, Joseph | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Cowan, D. M. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
their friends and supporters to give them the opportunity for rest by agreeing to their Motion. There is another reason—[ Interruption.] We are about to embark upon the discussion of a Clause which is—[ Interruption.] May I ask for your protection, Mr. Chairman?
On a point of Order, may I draw your atttntion to the fact, Mr. Dunnico, that the supporters of the Government have relapsed into their former bad habits?
I really must ask for your sympathy and support. If the worst comes to the worst, I feel certain that you, Mr. Chairman, will protect me—[Interruption.]
rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee proceeded to a Division—
I must warn the hon. Member that whistling is continuing in spite of my call to order.
Are you suggesting, Sir, that it is I?
The Committee divided: Ayes 183; Noes 82.
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Price, M. P. | Sorensen, R. |
| McElwee, A. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Strauss, G. R. |
| McEntee, V. L. | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sullivan, J. |
| McKinlay, A. | Ritson, J. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| McShane, John James | Romeril, H. G. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Marcus, M. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Marley, J. | Rowson, Guy | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Marshall, Fred | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Walkden, A. G. |
| Mathers, George | Sanders, W. S. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Matters, L. W. | Sandham, E. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Messer, Fred | Sawyer, G. F. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Middleton, G. | Scurr, John | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Mills, J. E. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Shield, George William | Westwood, Joseph |
| Morley, Ralph | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | White, H. G. |
| Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Shillaker, J. F. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Mort, D. L. | Shinwell, E. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Moses, J. J. H. | Simmons, C. J. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Sinkinson, George | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Noel Baker, P. J. | Sitch, Charles H. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Oldfield, J. R. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Palin, John Henry | Smith, Rennie (Penlstone) | |
| Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling. |
| Potts, John S. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Salmon, Major I. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Graham, Fergus (Camberland, N.) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Savery, S. S. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Butler, R. A. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Somerset, Thomas |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Lamb, Sir J. O. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Long, Major Eric | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Lymington, Viscount | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Muirhead, A. J. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | |
| Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Pownall, Sir Assheton | Sir George Penny and Captain |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Ramsbotham, H. | Wallace. |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y) | |
Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
Division No. 317.]
| AYES.
| [5.25 a.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Courtauld, Major J. S. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Dalkeith, Earl of | Lamb, Sir J. Q. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Llewellin, Major J. J. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Long, Major Eric |
| Butler, R. A. | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Lymington, Viscount |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Margesson, Captain H. D. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Everard, W. Lindsay | Marjoribanks, E. C. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Muirhead, A. J. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
The Committee divided: Ayes 83, Noes 184.
| Penny, Sir George | Savery, S. S. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Skelton, A. N. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Pownall, Sir Assheton | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Ramsbotham, H. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Smithers, Waldron | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Somerset, Thomas | Womersley, W. J. |
| Ross, Major Ronald D. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. | |
| Salmon, Major I. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) | Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain |
| Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Wallace. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Grundy, Thomas W. | Moses, J. J. H. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hardie, George D. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Arnott, John | Haycock, A. W. | Palin, John Henry |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Hayes, John Henry | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Potts, John S. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Herriotts, J. | Price, M. P. |
| Barr, James | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Hoffman, P. C. | Ritson, J. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Hollins, A. | Romeril, H. G. |
| Benson, G. | Hopkin, Daniel | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Horrabin, J. F. | Rowson, Guy |
| Bowen, J. W. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sandham, E. |
| Bromfield, William | Johnston, Thomas | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Brooke, W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Scurr, John |
| Brothers, M. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Shield, George William |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West) | Kennedy, Thomas | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Kinley, J. | Shinwell, E. |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Lang, Gordon | Simmons, C. J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lathan, G. | Sinkinson, George |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Chater, Daniel | Lawrence, Susan | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lawson, John James | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Leach, W. | Smith, Rennie (Penlstone) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Cowan, D. M. | Lees, J. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Daggar, George | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Sorensen, R. |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, Fred W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Sullivan, J. |
| Dickson, T. | Logan, David Gilbert | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Longbottom, A. W. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Dukes, C. | Longden, F. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Duncan, Charles | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lunn, William | Walkden, A. G. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Wallace, H. W. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Watkins, F. C. |
| Egan, W. H. | McElwee, A. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Foot, Isaac | McEntee, V. L. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Freeman, Peter | McKinlay, A. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | McShane, John James | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Marcus, M. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) | Marley, J. | White, H. G. |
| Gill, T. H. | Marshall, Fred | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Glassey, A. E. | Mathers, George | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Matters, L. W. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gould, F. | Messer, Fred | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Middleton, G. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mills, J. E. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gray, Milner | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morley, Ralph | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Mort, D. L. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling. | ||
Clause 5—(Abolition, Of Customs Duties Under Part Ii Of 11 And 12 Geo 5, C 47)
May I ask your Ruling, Mr. Young, as to what Amendments you propose to call, as there are a number on the Amendment Paper in my name?
I intend to call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Mr. Gibson) and another one, and that is all.
Which other?
The next one.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, at end, to add the words:
The effect of the Amendment will he to postpone the abolition of these powers until 1st June, 1935. The right hon. Gentleman attaches one meaning to this Clause, but I and my friends attach a different meaning to it. As we understand it, it really means that the machinery that exists at the present time for dealing with the dumping of goods into this country under the circumstances detailed in Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act becomes repealed. We think that it would be a deplorable thing in the present state of industry in this country if that machinery is removed from our administration. I feel very strongly that in the state in which industry now finds itself, with the continuous increase of unemployment every day, and no means by which we can deal with the measures taken by foreign countries to dump goods into this country, it would be a very serious state of affairs if the power now in the hands of the administration were removed. Of course, it is extremely difficult on this subject to make any sort of appeal with any hope of a reasonable response from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is determined, as he has indicated so forcibly since he came into office, to destroy every means whereby industry in this country may be safeguarded from any attack of any sort from our foreign rivals. This is but a further step in the continuous course he has pursued to the injury of productive enterprise in this country by repealing such opportunities as we have had of safeguarding our industries against dumping in this country. Most countries have provided antidumping laws. Canada, for example, has safeguarded her local industries by having an anti-dumping law. The Chancellor is familiar with its operation, be cause he knows at the present moment silk exported from this country into Canada is not merely charged an in- creased duty but also 100 per cent. of the rebate which they regard as a bounty given by the Government here. The United States has an anti-dumping law, and every country under the sun which has real regard for the needs of its own people has some means in its power to deal with unfair competition by its rivals. Yet, in the fact of that competition and the deplorable increase in unemployment due to the assault continually made by competition from abroad, the competition, due in large measures to the very causes which the Section of the original Act was produced in order to deal with, he now proposes to repeal the law as it stands. The President of the Board of Trade, in spite of his amiability and all the admirable qualities he has shown in this House, has been committing himself day by day since he came into office to taking away more and more the possibility of industry in this country defending itself against these assaults from abroad. He is now going to support the repeal of these powers. It is a very sad circumstance that he should do it at this hour of the morning. [Interruption.] I am glad that there is some life in the Liberal Party, that they have raised sufficient spirit to say "Hear, hear" in support of the humble claim I am making on behalf of British industry. Someone says it is the only speech they have made in the Committee. I submit this Amendment for the postponement of the execution of these powers, which His Majesty's Government now possess to deal with the dumping of goods into this country."as from the first day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-five."
Are they operative?
We claim that they are operative.
Why did not your Government ever use them?
If the occasion arose, the late administration would have given effect to these powers. For the reason I have given and the situation in which this country finds itself, I beg to move this Amendment, in the hope that the elimination of these powers will not be carried into effect.
I support the Amendment, because I should like to see the operation of the Clause postponed as long as possible. The Amendment postpones it for five years, which I gladly accept instead of the more humble Amendment which I have put on the Order Paper myself. Whereas the Clause proposes to repeal Section 3 of the Safeguarding Act of 1921, it does not propose to put anything in its place. The Liberal party have been trying to challenge the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) as to when these powers were used. The less that this part of the Act has been used in recent years, the more need to have something effective in its place. The Government take a merely negative attitude and pick out this particular Section of the Act, which is the operative Section, to repeal. They leave the rest of Part II on the Statute Book, although it cannot possibly have any effect without Section 3. I hold that that is not a straightforward way of dealing with the Committee. The Government are removing from the Act of 1921 the operative Section, and they have not got even the grace to let people know exactly what it is that is meant, because of the other seven Clauses in Part II six are left on the Statute Book.
Because this Part of the Act has not been put into operation up to the present, is not, I hold, ground for sweeping away the vital part of the Act. Any Government taking that course at the present time, in view of the terrible state of our industries, ought at least to be able to tell the Committee what they propose to substitute as something more effective. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade are definitely committed against giving any assistance to industry in a direct way such as Safeguarding, we can only assume that they have no intention of substituting anything for it. My own Amendment is to postpone this Section to 1932. Personally, I do not think there is the least chance of the present Government being in office in 1932, but I want to be quite sure that this question will not be dealt with until a Conservative Government is in office, and I therefore gladly agree to this Amendment.The position of this Clause in the Bill can be quite simply, and, I trust, clearly, explained, and I hone to be able to convince the Committee that no useful purpose can be served by continuing this part of the legislation of 1921; nor can any of the Amendments on the Paper be in practice effective. All who were Members in this House after 1918 will remember that there was a great deal of discussion regarding the large scale dumping of goods in this country, due in part to the export advantage enjoyed by other countries in depreciated exchanges and the possibility of their having considerable quantities of the commodities that they could sell at less than cost of production in the country of origin in our market in Great Britain. There was considerable discussion in 1921 that led to the passing of the Act, the object of which was to impose, after inquiry by the Board of Trade, a duty of 33.3 per cent. on goods which enjoyed those advantages. I will not detain the Committee with a long historical review, but, of course, as I pointed out before, that part of the legislation dealing with depreciated exchange expired in 1924. That part of the problem has altogether disappeared, due to the return to the gold standard and the absence of anything like a margin of exchange such as would justify the duty on that scale.
We propose in this Clause to wipe out Section 3 of the Act of 1921. The cumulative effect of this Clause is to repeal all that remains of Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. May I make it quite clear, first, in answer to an hon. Member, that this could by no stretch of imagination, be related to existing industrial conditions. The ground for saying that is the experience of the last nine years during which this Act has been in operation. The Act was passed in 1921, and in that year there were two applications. In neither of those cases could the applicants prove that the goods were being sold in this country below the cost of production. In 1922 there were three applications, and in the succeeding years, between 1926 and 1928, there were four more, making a total of nine applications under this Part of the Act of 1921. In not a single case of the nine applications did the applicants establish a case that these goods were being sold in these markets below the cost of production. The history of this duty proves that you could not apply it in practice, because you could not get at the cost of production in the country of origin. Even if you had been able to do so, there were a hundred ways at least in which a duty of that kind could be evaded either by repudiation or by some consideration as between the parties to the transaction. The whole thing was utterly inapplicable. No Government could put it into force. 6 a.m. In July last we received an application from the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers regarding certain electrical articles imported from some foreign source, and on looking at the facts at the Board of Trade I was obliged to say we could not proceed, and, in any case, we intended to take the earliest opportunity of repealing this useless piece of legislation. It is idle to keep on the Statute Book and be compelled in law to accept applications to consider something which you cannot do in practice, and which in nine years could not be applied. It is important for that reason to get rid of it. But I want to add that the other difficulties are really insuperable. The thing cannot be done. I will not this morning press the Commercial Treaty point. It is plain that you cannot apply this legislation. The final point is that a duty of that kind is no remedy for dumping. Nine years of sympathetic experience proves that you simply cannot. For these reasons, there is not a vestige of case for the Amendment.Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that a duty under this part has never been applied to anything in the whole of the nine years, and can he tell us under what legislation the first duty on gloves was imposed?
I could not tell the hon. Gentleman what he asks with regard to the duty on gloves, but I can reply to his question at once that under that Section, that is, the dumping Section of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921, no duty has ever been applied.
The Committee has been indebted to the President of the Board of Trade for the very clear and lucid speech which he has just made, and I think that if all the Amendments that have been proposed to other Sections had been dealt with as fully and as understandingly, probably we would not have been sitting here at this hour of the morning. But, interesting and clear as his speech was, I am bound to say that the longer it progressed the less reason did I see for repealing this Section which is the one protection against dumping which exists to-day. He gave us a historical review, concise and full, and I agree with him that he was not only justified, but, indeed, bound to cover the whole range, because the Measure which he now seeks to commend to the Committee does involve the history of the imposition of the duties under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and where depreciated exchanges or dumping are concerned it becomes necessary for him to consider the action that was taken at the time, how far it was successful, and how far that or similar action is necessary at the present time. The President of the Board of Trade told us that these proposals came to us, not as the product of one party, but fortified by the considered judgment of a Coalition Government. I very well remember how much sound Protectionist doctrine I learned from the great Free Traders of the Liberal party who were my masters and leaders at that time. I understand that they are free now from all immediate obligations and able to return to their own allegiance, and I sincerely hope that we may have support of such Liberals as are here.
We have a better proposition than you have got.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a larger proportion of Liberal principles than I have, though the conduct which they have shown recently leads to a doubt as to whether they have Liberal principles at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was a whole-hearted supporter, and, indeed, the originator of these duties.
They go back before 1921.
As the hon. Member says they go back even earlier, back to the Paris Resolutions—
The right hon. Gentleman is always sneering at the people who gave him his start in politics. The less he says about it the better.
The hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that we are prepared to defend our present and our past, and we shall not be deflected from referring either to the present or to the past by any Members of his party. But I am content to found myself on this Bill itself which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It dealt with dumping in the popular sense of selling below the cost of production and dumping owing to depreciated exchanges. The President of the Board of Trade said that we need not worry about depreciated exchanges to-day, because all countries have got on to the gold standard and that the bounty of a depreciated exchange was no longer with us. I am not at all satisfied that the effects of depreciated exchanges are not with us to-day. It is quite true that with the exception of a few countries, the exchanges are no longer depreciating; you have not got what the economists would call the bounty of a depreciating exchange. But in many countries, and particularly in Germany, you have the result that with the exchange depreciated large industrial concerns were able to wipe off practically the whole of their debentures and other charges at a nominal figure.
Therefore, we are facing to-day competition from the effects of depreciated exchanges, and I think it is true to say that in foreign countries where exchanges were depreciated, the cost of living today is cheaper than with us. Indeed, I remember well hearing colleagues of the President of the Board of Trade arguing against the Safeguarding case by saying that it was quite true that the wages were far lower in Continental countries than they were here, but that if one went to France one would find that those wages bought more than a corresponding wage bought in this country, and, therefore, that you ought not to put on a duty because, relatively, the worker was no worse off. I am paraphrasing one of the arguments used in this House—I think it was on one of the textiles. That argument had some force, but I do not think it had force for the purpose for which it was used. What you have to consider in the competition you have to meet is the actual wage rate paid, because it is the amount of wages paid in France or Belgium, compared with the amount paid in England, which fixes the cost at which the article can be sold. If the result is that the wages paid are lower in France the article can be sold in England, or a neutral market, at less price than the English article. It is no way of meeting foreign competition to say that the foreigner is no worse off owing to his small wage, because it buys more than it would in England. I think the argument singularly futile for that purpose, but it is very relevant to be advanced against the President of the Board of Trade. It shows that in these foreign countries the lower wage purchases a greater amount of commodity than the same wage could buy in this country. That is a legacy of the depreciated exchange and the form of competition we have to meet. You have not nearly reached the period in which you can wipe all that out and not consider it in the field of competition. But the real issue is that of dumping in the popular sense—the sale of goods here below the cost of production, or the selling price in the country of origin. The real question the Committee has to ask itself before it passes this Clause is not whether this particular Clause is effective for its purpose, but do we need anti-dumping legislation today? The answer to that can only depend on whether the risk of dumping is past. If your powers in this Measure are inadequate, it is not for you to repeal these powers, but to add to them. I was never greatly enamoured with this Section, because I thought it was very difficult to deal with the cost of production with something taken off. It is a much fairer basis, and appeals to everybody, that we should take the price at which the foreign articles are sold here and ascertain if it is lower than the prices at which the articles sell in the country of their production. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the test in this Act is wrong—and I think it is too narrow—he should come with an Amendment to provide the necessary powers, unless he can show that the need for anti-dumping legislation has passed. He cannot say anything of the sort. I defy anyone, whatever his fiscal views, to say that today the risk of dumping is probably not greater than at any time in the past. It is plain beyond a peradventure. All over the world there is vastly increased manufacturing plant, and vast factories occupied in mass production. The cost of manufacture in all these factories depends on whether the factories can be run full time. They have all protected their own markets. They have hurried in, as a consequence of the Tariff Truce, to protect them a little more. They have that secured to them. The purchasing power of their people has rather diminished in the recent slump, but they will want to go on producing and producing cheaply. What is going to happen? The articles which are produced in these mass production factories will be sold as much as they can in their own market, and they are going to sell the rest at any price. They are coming to the country which, by reason of the Tariff Truce, has said, "Whatever you do, nothing will make us defend our workpeople, although 25,000 are added to the unemployed every week." The need in these circumstances is far, far, greater to protect us against the dumping of foreign goods than ever before. It is not for the President of the Board of Trade to say he is not continuing this because he is going to carry out the policy of the Labour party, the policy set out in "Labour and the Nation." I do not wish to regard him as personally responsible for the writing of that document. But it is the prospectus, and he is one of the directors. What they said was that they would deal with this by means of prohibition. There is a great deal to be said for that and the hon. Member for Leyton is nearer to us in fiscal matters than to his own front Bench. He is not going to get prohibition out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.We are not discussing that the Clause should stand part. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks make it appear so.
I apologise, but the President of the Board of Trade dealt with the whole position, and gave his reasons why we should reject the Amendment. Perhaps I may be permitted to deal with this briefly. There is not the least chance of dealing with this by prohibition, because he has deliberately gone into a Convention which prohibits him from putting on any prohibition. That avenue is not open to him. He must deal with the matter by effective duties. I think that everything I have said is in line with the economic realities of the world to-day. Instead of asking us to repeal this Section, he ought to come down and ask us to reinforce it.
On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Amendment which stands in my name is being taken concurrently with the present one?
I did not intend it in that way, but the discussion has got so wide that I think it ought to be discussed with the present Amendment.
In that case, the Amendment will be put without any further debate?
Yes.
What Amendments is it proposed to take?
I cannot be called upon by Members to state which Amendments I am going to take. I have stated earlier which ones I propose to call. Perhaps the hon. Member was not present.
The President of the Board of Trade, in his very clear speech, gave good reasons not why the Clause should be introduced, but why the present existing Measure should be made operative and effective. He never showed that there was any reason for introducing this Clause at all. These powers are not harming anyone at the present moment. He is simply depriving the country of a weapon which can be used in special circumstances—the dumping to which my hon. Friend has referred. This existing Measure by very simple amendment could be brought in keeping with the whole ideals of trade unionism in this country, and the same principle applied to the products coming into this country. I particularly wish to call attention to the responsibility of all parties in this House for placing this Measure originally on the Statute Book. It arose, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, from the Paris Resolutions. It is no good of hon. Members below the Gangway dissociating themselves from the action at that time of the late Lord Oxford, then Mr. Asquith. He used words actually covering this Measure, and which apply very clearly to the pre- sent situation. This is what he said just after the Conference of Paris, at the end of 1916:
"The War has opened our eyes to the full meaning and manifold implications of the German system of—"
I must appeal to my hon. Friends at the other end. I hear every word they are saying, and, consequently, I cannot hear the words of the hon. Member who is addressing the Committee.
I was following the line of argument used in two or three previous speeches showing what was the origin of this Clause with which it is proposed to deal in the Finance Bill. Following that, the Coalition Government, which contained representatives of all three parties, came out very strongly for these principles.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say if the Act set out as the act of all three parties in 1921 had the support of Mr. Asquith at that date, and of the Independent Liberal party?
I do not suggest that. The party of Mr. Asquith at that time was not in association with the Government, but, perhaps, I may be permitted to quote on that point some words of the present leader of the Liberal party as late as 14th November, 1922:
"The Safeguarding of Industries Act was an inheritance from our predecessors. It was simply an attempt to incorporate the Paris Resolutions framed by our predecessors. As a matter of fact, it did not go as far as the Paris Resolutions. Who drafted those? A good Free Trader—for Mr. Runciman regarded himself as such—and he with Mr. Bonar Law and Lord Crewe put them before the Conference of the Allies who adopted them."
Is there not among those Resolutions one which enables countries who like to do it by nationalisation to do so? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that Mr. Bonar Law was in favour of nationalisation?
I would be out of order if I referred to nationalisation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to finish the quotation from his present leader:
It is clearly shown that, though the Liberals following Lord Asquith and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) were divided on other things, they were all Protectionists with regard to this policy which is the origin of Safeguarding. The Liberal party at least should not allow this Clause to pass and this Measure to be practically removed from the Statute Book and render this country defenceless in case we have to deal with the question of dumping. My hon. Friend and his colleagues should reconsider this matter. Perhaps they would bring it up again at a later stage and not deprive this country of this weapon, because we have been rendered absolutely defenceless by the Tariff Truce in which the right hon. Gentleman has taken such an interest."Mr. Asquith then recommended these principles to the House of Commons as his own. He was the witness, Mr. Runciman being the parent, and he said to the House, 'What a fine child it is!'"
I think something should be said on that point. The statements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman though, as always, accurate, are so out of perspective in regard to the whole problem, that they really convey an effect of inaccuracy in regard to the way they are put. At the time of the Paris Resolutions—some of us were otherwise engaged then—those who were engaged in the War for a political end and taking part in this international conference, were facing the situation they might meet at the end of the War and the possibility of an economic bloc being formed against the Allies by our antagonists. That was the origin of the Paris Resolutions. In addition to giving powers to take tariff measures, they gave powers to every country that desired to go along the lines of Socialism to rationalise, if they thought that was the best weapon, if and when the occasion arose.
It is quite obvious that the fight is out of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends rather thought earlier in the Debate that they were going to deal with a very different subject from that contained in this Bill. There were numbers of members very ready to talk about lace and Nottingham earlier in the Debate. It is quite obvious that it is agreed upon all sides that, whatever may have been the intentions behind this legislation, it has never been put into effect. It is agreed on all sides that the machinery devised in 1921 when the state of the exchanges was extraordinary in character has no relation whatever to our present-day affairs. The weapon is utterly useless, even if it were wanted. Therefore, it is a right thing to take from the Statute Book this kind of legislation, which simply cumbers it, and has the effect on the public mind of thinking that we have legislation that will give our country power for anti-dumping legislation, whereas we have not got it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) was very careful in his talk about dumping. All his illustrations were taken from factories—nothing about the land or about food, because the last thing he wants to do by a tariff is to put a tax on food that is dumped, unless by taking some ambiguous way round.The Act contains the words:
"Other than articles of food and drink."
The hon. and gallant Gentleman must admit that the right hon. Gentleman went a good deal further than that, and was dealing with the general question of dumping, and not merely with the Act. His charge against the Government was not merely that they were repealing the Act, but that they were putting nothing in its place.
Is it not a fact that the hon. Member's leader himself has declared that you ought to use a weapon against the dumping of corn in this country?
That may be so, but now the hon. Member is putting up a tariffist argument for dumping, and my retort is that his illustrations were all drawn from the field of manufacture.
Is it not a fact that the whole of this discussion has proceeded on manufactures, and that this is a red herring drawn across the trail?
I am sorry that the hon. Member did not wait to hear me. He will admit that when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking he asked me not to interrupt him but to wait until he finished his argument. This Act has never been used. The weapon is utterly obsolete, and if hon. Members above the Gangway want to have a real anti-dumping discussion, let them have the courage of their convictions and discuss agriculture as well as manufactured articles.
I intervene only to indicate that there is a view different from that which has yet been expressed in this Committee. Many of us on these benches are definitely not Free Traders, and take the view that there is an overwhelming case to deal with the problem of dumping, and that Free Trade is an absolutely inadequate method to deal with it. We say that equally inadequate is the method of Safeguarding. We believe in the method of Import Boards for the industries which are concerned, and we would give them the powers of absolute prohibition.
I should like to correct the impression of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that we on this side of the Committee thought that we were raising the whole question of Safeguarding. We were perfectly clear that what we were raising was this question of dumping. It centres round the pledge given by the present leader of the Liberal party in 1918 that if production was to be maintained at the highest limit at home, security must be given against the unfair competition to which our industries might be subjected by the dumping of goods produced abroad and sold to our markets below the actual cost of production. I was not at all convinced by the arguments of the President of the Board of Trade that there was no need for such machinery at the present time. Looking at the present world depression, we must be on our guard against large-scale unloading. With all the great manufacturing countries finding their markets saturated, we are the only free dumping country in the world. It is no argument to say that this machinery has not been used for nine years. It is no argument against keeping a fire escape to say that a man has not used it for nine years. It may be said that we in this country are the pot calling the pan black after the Coal Bill with its provisions for cheap coal for export. Other countries have machinery for dealing with this very question. Why should we not have it to guard against the same danger?
I beg to call attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member has sent three of his leaders to sleep.
I do not think that the Government have made out a case for dropping this machinery without putting anything in its place to deal with what is, undoubtedly, a danger at the present time. Is the right hon. Gentleman thinking only of unemployment or of the 12,000,000 employed at present? Surely their jobs might be menaced by the wholesale unloading that might take place at any time from these competitive countries.
Perhaps we can get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us on what grounds of reason, logic or economic, he bases the argument for the removal of these safeguards against dumping of foreign goods into this country at the present time. There are more reasons to be considered than depreciated exchanges when dealing with dumping. There are the important questions of conditions of labour in other countries, the hours of labour, and so forth. There are still depreciated exchanges in European countries, despite what the President of the Board of Trade said, which have not yet stabilised their exchanges. So that we are still subject to the dumping of foreign goods which are enjoying the advantages of a depreciated exchange as against our gold standard and our superior working conditions. Yet it is at this time that the President of the Board of Trade has thought fit at Geneva to commit us to a policy of the open door, by allowing other European countries to increase their tariff by means of his so-called Tariff Truce. By doing this, he has placed this country in a very serious position indeed. To take the step proposed now is to add still greater burdens on the people who are trying to carry on the industries of the country.
I would ask hon. Members opposite who represent trades unions and organised bodies of working men what would be their attitude if we were to import foreign labour to work longer hours for lower wages in order to take the work out of the hands of our own people? There is no doubt that there would be an unholy outcry. Yet what is the difference between employing labour working under inferior conditions for lower wages and longer hours in this country and purchasing the goods manufactured abroad under such conditions? I have never obtained an answer to that reasonable question.It seems to me that there is very little use in repealing Section 3 of this Act of 1921 at the present time, because the whole power under Section 3 hangs upon Section 2. Under Section 2, an industry has to make a complaint to the President of the Board of Trade and he may then set up a committee. Having set up a committee, and that committee having reported, he may then, acting upon that report, make an order. So it seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade and the Government could quite well have made this Act of 1921 a dead letter if they had wished to do so, without doing anything in this Finance Bill; and they could have left on the Statute Book the power this Act gives to any subsequent Government—which we hope to see of a different complexion from the present one—to do something to prevent dumping. It seems to me to be quite useless as it stands, and I do ask them, when they can quite well make this Act a dead letter because of the President of the Board of Trade taking no action, to leave this power on the Statute Book for some succeeding Government to try to protect our industries against unfair competition from abroad. They talk about some possible prohibition in the future. That is not half as good as showing a willingness to meet dumping under legislation already on the Statute Book. Here we have a power which maybe is not as adequate a power as some of us would like to see, but, at any rate, the power is there, and it seems to me that all parties who have the welfare of the unemployed at heart should show their goodwill by keeping an existing provision on the Statute Book. However inadequate the power may be, I, at any rate, am prepared to go into the Lobby in support of it.
I propose to make only an observation or two in regard to the last few speeches. I want to paint out to hon. Members above the Gangway on this side that really the whole of these speeches are irrelevant to what this Clause actually does. This Clause repeals a Section of the Safeguarding Act which does not deal with any question of conditions in other countries. It does not matter how bad may be the wage that is paid in another country; it does not matter how bad the conditions that exist in another country, the Act of 1921 did not give you any power whatever to deal with those conditions. The Act refers to goods being dumped below the cost of production, and that cost of production may be lower than here by virtue of low conditions and low wages. But that would not be dumping below the costs of production and the whole of that kind of argument is not affected by the Amendment that is before the Committee. It is quite true that hon. Members above the Gangway do want to have some form of Protection in this country, but this Clause is not the proper place on which to discuss that question. The speech that came from the front Opposition Bench was really a strong case in support of the action of the Government, because I suggest that to retain on the Statute Book a weapon which gives you an illusion of being able to do something which you cannot do by that weapon, is misleading. The mere fact that during the whole period of the last administration there never was the slightest attempt to use this weapon, must prove one of two things—either that there was no occasion to use it, because there was no dumping, or that the weapon in the Act of 1921 was incapable of use to meet the situation.
It is useless for hon. Members above the Gangway to talk to those of us who sit on these benches and try to induce us to object to the removal of that Measure for which many of us did not ever care a great deal. References have been made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and I find myself in some difficulty to understand what is the mentality of right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway in regard to that right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether they wish to assert that he is such an excellent and a desirable leader that they are going to borrow him, or do they mean to suggest that they are quite prepared to use him when they find him useful? Now that he is no longer associated with them, do they wish to blame him for everything that they do not like? Hon. Members must make up their minds as to whether they think that everything my right hon. Friend does is absolutely right, and that because he was associated with them in the Coalition Government he has got to continue to support it, and that we are bound by it. I am quite sure the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would not care to be bound by principles which hon. Members wish to apply to my right hon. Friend. We support the Government in this action because this weapon is useless. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did not put on the Statute Book a purely Protectionist Measure. It is so safeguarded that for all practical purposes it is quite useless. Why, then, should we keep it on the Statute Book?7.0 a.m.
I was rather surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept the suggestion that a debate of this magnitude should take place in Parliamentary hours. It has been thrust upon us. It does not matter to me that my hon. Friend says that so far as he is concerned this is "useless." I disagree with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) that we should not retain this because it is cumbersome. If it is useless it cannot do harm, and if it cannot do harm, it can very likely do good, and a great amount of good. [Interruption.] The position in regard to this Measure is left entirely in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade. He has to decide, from the complaints made by traders, that goods are being dumped into this country on such terms that they cannot be otherwise than under the cost of production in the country of origin. It is only reasonable to suppose that the President of the Board of Trade would look upon the effect it was likely to have upon the trade of his own country. The hon. Member below the Gangway, apparently, wishes to throw over his own leader.
May I ask the hon. and gallant Member not to put into my mouth words I did not use?
One can judge only by the manner in which the hon. Member desires to dissociate himself from the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Are we to understand that the hon. Member has one opinion on one day and another on another day?
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has now become a prohibitionist so far as foodstuffs are concerned.
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for drawing my attention to that fact. I can understand the difficult position in which hon. Members below the Gangway find themselves. We have a large amount of unemployment, and surely we should take every possible step to protect our labour. I am never frightened to say that, so far as I am concerned, I always believed in protecting industries for my own people in my own country. Is it sensible to allow the products of other countries to come in, when they are produced under conditions that no one would permit in this country? At seven o'clock we start a discussion which has a far-reaching effect upon the industries of this country. It is not fair; it is without parallel in the time I have been a Member of this House. I have never seen a debate of this magnitude forced upon the Opposition at this time of the morning on so important a subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he would weary us out, but we can stop as long as he can. We shall take good care to let the electorate know the way in which debates of this magnitude are forced upon us. If there is no harm in this, as the hon. Member said, why not leave it on the Statute Book?
I never said there was no harm in it, but that it was a useless weapon.
The hon. Member for Leith said that this was one of those Measures which were cumbersome, not that it could not do good. It is a Measure which may do a vast amount of good. If it cannot do any harm, surely you may leave this Measure upon the Statute Book. It has been gone into years before some of the Members who are here now were here. It was because of the difficulties we encountered after the War that it was practically accepted by all parties in the House.
I think that a rather remarkable feature of this debate has been the fact that there has at last been an intervention from the back benches opposite. Almost the whole night we have hardly had a speech from those back benches. In the very clear speech from the hon. Member opposite, he did not at all take up the attitude assumed by the Government. He clearly stated that in his view dumping was an exceedingly serious matter. He even went so far as to suggest sweeping measures of prohibition.
He also stated that it was the view of a considerable number of Members on his side.
I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. We now find a coalition between some of the extremists on the Socialist back benches, who advocate prohibition to prevent dumping, and the leader of the Liberal party with regard to subsidised food from overseas. With regard to the position of the Liberal party, I have a few observations to make. First, the foundations of the subject we are now discussing were undoubtedly laid by the Liberal party. We had from the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) a statement that
That was not merely some War measure, as was suggested, because "unfair" suggests a competition that is unfair and is not some passing emergency lasting only during the War. He admits that dumping is unfair. The present leader of the Liberal party said security should be given against unfair competition to which our industries had in the past been subjected by dumping of goods below the actual cost of production. That is the point we are arguing, and it is in a letter signed by the present leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). When this Act we are now discussing was brought in in 1921, Mr. Asquith, speaking for the portion of the Liberal party he led at the time, asked, "What is dumping?," and proceeded to define it. He said that dumping meant the deliberate and organised attempt of foreign producers or, as is much more common, a combination of foreign producers, flourishing as they do under rings and trusts and protective tariffs, to flood our markets regardless of price with goods which will undermine and, as they hope, destroy some particular part of British industry. That seems to me an extraordinarily good definition. He also said:"We ought to be defended against dumping or any other kind of unfair competition."
"There is nothing in the Free Trade creed or practice which obliges any Free trader to submit to a process of that dumping."
For what do you want that obsolete weapon?
It seems to me a pity that the hon. Gentleman should wish to destroy these remains of Liberal action against unemployment in this country.
It is time it was buried; it is beginning to smell.
That is an offensive description of a Liberal Measure. The only speech we have had from the back benches of the Labour party admits the danger of dumping. In the speeches I have quoted from the Liberal benches, the word "unfair" appears time after time, and, therefore, in justice to our people we claim that this provision should be continued. Surely, with the unemployment returns, bad as they are—and the unemployed are well aware of them, despite their being suppressed in the "Daily Herald"—and with the danger we are in from the present state of trade in the world, it is a pity to take away this provision, which surely ought to be left. There never was a time when there could be a greater danger of dumping than at the present moment. It is notorious that the whole world is suffering from over-production. Therefore, all countries are faced with the alternatives of either closing down some of their works, working short time, or sending their surplus products at almost any cost into our markets. The removal of this Part of the Act will be a direct encouragement to other countries, because they will know that the Government will not in any way intervene to protect our workers.
It is pathetic to see how the hon. Members above the Gangway cling to obsolete and useless opinions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Carnarvon Boroughs!"] We have heard a great deal about the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but there is one Member on the Front Bench who should remember he was washed, clothed and fed and given his chance in life by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. One would have thought that common decency would have put a seal upon his lips. Whenever the word "Safeguarding" appears, it is sufficient to raise tremendous enthusiasm or indigation among the minds of hon. Members above the Gangway. It is on their backs like the Old Man of the Sea, a presence from which they cannot get free, something which holds them and refuses to let them go. If this was such a useful and valuable instrument, why did not hon. and right hon. Gentlemen during their 4½ years of office put it into operation? It is rather a strange thing that during the whole of that time it was never called to their aid in one single instance. Now they are appealing for the retention of the shadow, though there is no substance, and of the symbol when there is no fact behind it. It is on a par with the whole of their reasoning in regard to Safeguarding.
What would have happened if we had adopted the attitude of mind of the party above the Gangway when our forefathers were developing the country, building ships and railways and sending our products all over the world and receiving their goods in exchange? Now they have a type of mind that seems anxious that we should put a barbed-wire fence round the whole country, so that nothing can get in or out, and then suggests that we should get prosperous taking in each others washing. If this instrument could have been used, why did they not use it in reference to German wheat? Hon. Members above the Gangway have talked about German wheat on every occasion. It was coming in during the 4½ years they were in office, yet they never used that weapon during the whole period.The Act expressly excludes articles of drink and food.
No attempt was made by the Conservative party to amend that Act so that they could deal with German wheat, although they were in power with an overwhelming majority.
Is it in order to raise the question of whether any party ought to have amended a previous Act?
Just as much in order as many other things.
Might I point out that two blacks do not make a white?
I am not prepared to pursue this further, but the country will realise that the whole of the arguments put forward above the Gangway break down under the weight of their own absurdity.
We have listened to a very humourous speech delivered in a very friendly manner, but I regard the crisis in the history of the country as too serious to be looked at in that kind of buffoonery. There is a great necessity under world conditions that we should not abandon anything that might protect us. The party opposite is always pointing out that over-production is the cause of a great deal of the troubles of this country. I want to emphasise that in these conditions it is not a matter for recrimination between parties, but the point that is really important for this country to realise is that there is over-production, and great over-production, in manufactures, and it is being led by the
Division No. 318.]
| AYES.
| [7.25 a.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Leach, W. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Gibbins, Joseph | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
| Arnott, John | Gill, T. H. | Lees, J. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Glassey, A. E. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Gossling, A. G. | Lindley, Fred W. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Gould, F. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Barr, James | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Longden, F. |
| Batey, Joseph | Gray, Milner | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Lunn, William |
| Bellamy, Albert | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Benson, G. | Groves, Thomas E. | McElwee, A. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Grundy, Thomas W. | McEntee, V. L. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | McKinlay, A. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | McShane, John James |
| Bromfield, William | Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Marcus, M. |
| Brooke, W. | Hardie, George D. | Marley, J. |
| Brothers, M. | Haycock, A. W. | Marshall, Fred |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Hayes, John Henry | Mathers, George |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Matters, L. W. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Messer, Fred |
| Cape, Thomas | Herriotts, J. | Middleton, G. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Mills, J. E. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Chater, Daniel | Hoffman, P. C. | Morley, Ralph |
| Clarke, J. S. | Hollins, A. | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hopkin, Daniel | Mort, D. L. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Horrabin, J. F. | Moses, J. J. H. |
| Compton, Joseph | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) |
| Daggar, George | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Noel Baker, P. J. |
| Dalton, Hugh | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Dickson, T. | Johnston, Thomas | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Dukes, C. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Palin, John Henry |
| Duncan, Charles | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Ede, James Chuter | Kennedy, Thomas | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Kinley, J. | Potts, John S. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lang, Gordon | Price, M. P. |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lathan, G. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Egan, W. H. | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Foot, Isaac | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Ritson, J. |
| Freeman, Peter | Lawson, John James | Romeril, H. G. |
greatest Protectionist country in the world—the United States. There is going to be a scramble to get out and to get markets. Where are the people of any nation going to be hardest hit? Surely in this country, which lays itself open to that kind of attack. We are the country that can least afford that kind of attack, because we do not keep our home markets in a position to encourage our manufacturers by mass production and sell abroad in the face of fierce foreign competition. If we are attacked, we are going to starve, and to abandon, for any sort of party motive, any Measure that is in any degree calculated to help us to protect ourselves in this way is directing a vital blow at our manufactures and crippling our power to sell our goods.
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 69.
| Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Rowson, Guy | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Sanders, W. S. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Sandham, E. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip | Westwood, Joseph |
| Sawyer, G. F. | Sorensen, R. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Scurr, John | Strauss, G. R. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) | Sullivan, J. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Shield, George William | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Shillaker, J. F. | Thurtle, Ernest | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Shinwell, E. | Tinker, John Joseph | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Simmons, C. J. | Vaughan, D. J. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Sinkinson, George | Walkden, A. G. | |
| Sitch, Charles H. | Wallace, H. W. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | Watkins, F. C. | Mr. Paling and Mr. William |
| Whiteley. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Everard, W. Lindsay | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Ferguson, Sir John | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Ford, Sir P. J. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Salmon, Major I. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Butler, R. A. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Savery, S. S. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Skelton, A. N. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Long, Major Eric | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Lymington, Viscount | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Muirhead, A. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Sir George Penny and Captain |
| Wallace. | ||
Question put accordingly "That those words be there added."
Division No. 319.]
| AYES.
| [7.34 a.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Everard, W. Lindsay | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Ferguson, Sir John | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Ford, Sir P. J. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Savery, S. S. |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Butler, R. A. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Somerset, Thomas |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Long, Major Eric | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Lymington, Viscount | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Muirhead, A. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Sir George Penny and Captain |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Margesson. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Ramsbotham, H. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Attlee, Clement Richard | Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Bellamy, Albert |
| Alpass, J. H. | Barnes, Alfred John | Benson, G. |
| Arnott, John | Barr, James | Bowen, J. W. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Batey, Joseph | Broad, Francis Alfred |
"The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 172.
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Hollins, A. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Bromfield, William | Hopkin, Daniel | Potts, John S. |
| Brooke, W. | Horrabin, J. F. | Price, M. P. |
| Brothers M. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Ritson, J. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Johnston, Thomas | Romeril, H. G. |
| Cape, Thomas | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Rowson, Guy |
| Charieton, H. C. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Chater, Daniel | Kennedy, Thomas | Sanders, W. S. |
| Clarke, J. S. | Kinley, J. | Sandham, E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lang, Gordon | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Lathan, G. | Scurr, John |
| Compton, Joseph | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Daggar, George | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Shield, George William |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lawson, John James | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Dickson, T. | Leach, W. | Shinwell, E. |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Dukes, C. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Sinkinson, George |
| Duncan, Charles | Lees, J. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Alfred (Sutherland) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Logan, David Gilbert | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Egan, W. H. | Longbottom, A. W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Foot, Isaac | Longden, F. | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Freeman, Peter | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Sorensen, R. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lunn, William | Strauss, G. R. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Sullivan, J. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | McElwee, A. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Gill, T. H. | McEntee, V. L. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Glassey, A. E. | McKinlay, A. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Gossling, A. G. | McShane, John James | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Gould, F. | Marcus, M. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Marley, J. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Marshall, Fred | Watkins, F. C. |
| Gray, Milner | Mathers, George | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Matters, L. W. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Messer, Fred | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Middleton, G. | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Mills, J. E. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Morgan Dr. H. B. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Morley, Ralph | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Hardie, George D. | Mort, D. L. | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Moses, J. J. H. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Hayes, John Henry | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Noel Baker, P. J. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Oldfield, J. R. | |
| Herriotts, J. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) | Mr. Paling and Mr. William |
| Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Palin, John Henry | Whiteley. |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much further he proposes to go?
Of course, we must have Clause 5, and Clause 6, I should venture to think, is not very controversial. There is, of course, one reason why it is suggested that we might now report Progress. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has not been able to stay the course. In view of the promise he made of the very vigorous part he was going to play in the debate on Safeguarding it would be rather unfortunate
Division No. 320.]
| AYES.
| [7.45 a.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Boothby, R. J. G. | Cayrer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft. | Cazalet, Captain Victor A. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Briscoe, Richard George | Colfox, Major William Philip |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Butler, R. A. | Colville, Major D. J. |
to continue without his presence. I would, therefore, propose to report Progress after Clause 5 is finished.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, at end, to add the words:
"except in the case of goods manufactured in a country outside the United Kingdom which are being sold or offered for sale in the United Kingdom at prices below the cost of production."
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 70; Noes, 171.
| Courtauid, Major J. S. | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) | Savery, S. S. |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Long, Major Eric | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Lymington, Viscount | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Duckworth, G, A. V. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Fison, F. G. Clavering | Muirhead, A. J. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Ramsbotham, H. | |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Sir George Penny and Sir Frederick |
| Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Salmon, Major I. | Thomson. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Ht. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardie, George D. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Haycock, A. W. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Palin, John Henry. |
| Arnott, John | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Herriotts, J. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Potts, John S. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hoffman, P. C. | Price, M. P. |
| Barr, James | Hollins, A. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Hopkin, Daniel | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Horrabin, J. F. | Ritson, J. |
| Benson, G. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Rowson, Guy |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Johnston, Thomas | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Brooke, W. | Jowitt Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Sandham, E. |
| Brothers, M. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Kennedy, Thomas | Scurr, John |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kinley, J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lang, Gordon | Shield, George William |
| Cape, Thomas | Lathan, G. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shinwell, E. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Chater, Daniel | Lawson, John James | Sinkinson, George |
| Clarke, J. S. | Leach, W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lees, J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Daggar, George | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Dickson, T. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Logan, David Gilbert | Sorensen, R. |
| Dukes, C. | Longbottom, A. W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Duncan, Charles | Longden, F. | Sullivan, J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lunn, William | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Egan, W. H. | McElwee, A. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Foot, Isaac | McEntee, V. L. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Freeman, Peter | McKinlay, A. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | McShane, John James | Watkins, F. C. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Marcus, M. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Marley, J. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gill, T. H. | Marshall, Fred | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Glassey, A. E. | Mathers, George | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Matters, L. W. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gould, F. | Messer, Fred | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Middleton, G. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mills, J. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gray, Milner | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morley, Ralph | Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Mort, D. L. | Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Moses. J. J. H. | Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Noel Baker, P. J. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Oldfield, J. R. | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. |
| Hayes. | ||
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Division No. 321.]
| AYES.
| [7.52 a.m.
|
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hardie, George D. | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Haycock, A. W. | Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Palin, John Henry |
| Arnott, John | Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Paling, Wilfrid |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Herriotts, J. | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Potts, John S. |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Hoffman, P. C. | Price, M. P. |
| Barr, James | Hollins, A. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Hopkin, Daniel | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bellamy, Albert | Horrabin, J. F. | Ritson, J. |
| Benson, G. | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Romeril, H. G. |
| Bowen, J. W. | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Rowson, Guy |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Johnston, Thomas | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Bromfield, William | Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) | Sanders, W. S. |
| Brooke, W. | Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Sandham, E. |
| Brothers, M. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield) | Kennedy, Thomas | Scurr, John |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Kinley, J. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lang, Gordon | Shield, George William |
| Cape, Thomas | Lathan, G. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Law, Albert (Bolton) | Shinwell, E. |
| Charieton, H. C. | Law, A. (Rosendale) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Chater, Daniel | Lawson, John James | Sinkinson, George |
| Clarke, J. S. | Leach, W. | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.) | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Compton, Joseph | Lees, J. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Daggar, George | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lindley, Fred W. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Dickson, T. | Lloyd, C. Ellis | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Logan, David Gilbert | Sorensen, R. |
| Dukes, C. | Longbottom, A. W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Duncan, Charles | Longden, F. | Sullivan, J. |
| Ede, James Chuter | Lovat-Fraser, J. A. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Lunn, William | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Edwards. E. (Morpeth) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Egan, W. H. | McElwee, A. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Foot, Isaac | McEntee, V. L. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Freeman, Peter | McKinlay, A. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | McShane, John James | Watkins, F. C. |
| Gibbins, Joseph | Marcus, M. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) | Marley, J. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Gill, T. H. | Marshall, Fred | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Glassey, A. E. | Mathers, George | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Gossling, A. G. | Matters, L. W. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Gould, F. | Messer, Fred | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Middleton, G. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Mills, J. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gray, Milner | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morley, Ralph | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Mort, D. L. | Wilson R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Moses, J. J. H. | Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Noel Baker, P. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Oldfield, J. R. | Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford) |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Dalkeith, Earl of | Lamb, Sir J. O. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Llewellin, Major J. J. |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Duckworth, G. A. V. | Long, Major Eric |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Lymington, Viscount |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Butler, R. A. | Everard, W. Lindsay | Margesson, Captain H. D. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Marjoribanks, E. C. |
| Cazaiet, Captain Victor A. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Muirhead, A. J. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) |
| Courtauid, Major J. S. | Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 71.
| Ramsbotham, H. | Smithers, Waldron | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) | Somerset, Thomas | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Robert, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Salmon, Major I. | Stanley, Lord (Fylde) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | |
| Savery, S. S. | Thomson, Sir F. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Skelton, A. N. | Todd, Capt. A. J. | Sir George Penny and Captain |
| Wallace. |
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I should like to express my regret that it has been necessary to occupy the Committee for so long. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying so. The debate has been characterised by quite a lot of good humour. [An HON. MEMBER: "On one side!"] I hope that it will not be necessary to repeat this experience on the later stages of the Bill. I can assure the Committee that if it be necessary, it will only be under the direst need.I wish to acknowledge the very friendly and pleasant words in which the right hon. Gentleman has just introduced this Motion. We part very good friends and in the best of tempers all round. I hope it will not be necessary for the Committee on this Bill to repeat the kind of sitting that we have had to-night. The right hon. Gentleman might try to enter a little more into the feelings of an Opposition, and if he finds himself obliged to ask them to help, to act as if he did it with regret, instead of with an apparently impish pleasure.
I would like to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman has made his maiden speech, but he has pursued a role of free silence. Sometimes free silence is much more effective than free speech. Speaking on behalf of those who have been mostly silent, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that if ever this kind of thing should arise again, to ask his old friends to spend a little less time in things not very important; and then we can get some things done that are more important.
Is it in order to raise anything on the Adjournment?
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 2nd June.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Five Minutes after Eight o'Clock a.m.