Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Thursday, 18th February, 1932.

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

Private Business

Gateshead Extension Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

London County Council (General Powers)

Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

High Court Of Justice (King's Bench Division)

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Sir George Penny) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, a Judge may be appointed to the High Court of Justice to fill a vacancy in the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue directions in accordance with your desire.

War Debts

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:

For Address for Return,

"showing in full detail the total indebtedness in terms of capital and interest due to this country and arising out of the late War of each foreign Government concerned; and the extent to which such amounts have been at any time reduced or cancelled."—[Mr. Holford Knight.]

On a point of Order. May I ask when the Notice of Motion standing in my name will be called?

I understand that the Return has not been granted.

Would it not be in order for me to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman who will be responsible for the giving of that Return?

No; unless the Return is granted, I cannot take the Motion.

With all respect, this is a matter of very great importance, and I desire to ask the representative of the Treasury why this Return should not be granted in the circumstances.

The hon. and learned Member must put a question on the Paper with regard to that point.

Oral Answers To Questions

Unemployment

Insurance Fund

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state what is at present the balancing point of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

In order to make this point quite clear, I have prepared a somewhat long reply, which, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the answer give the figures for the first 26 weeks' benefit?

I think that the hon. Member had better look at the answer. It is a very complete answer.

12.

asked the Minister of Labour by what amount approximately the indebtedness of the Unemployment Fund is increasing per week at the present time?

The average weekly increase in the debt of the Unemployment Fund during the six weeks ended 13th February, 1932, was £271,666

Following is the reply:

As expenditure on transitional payments, whatever its amount, is covered by an equivalent grant from the Exchequer, it is only with regard to the Insurance Account of the fund that the question of balancing arises. The income of the Insurance Account will suffice at present to meet the claims of about 1,200,000 insurance claimants. To obtain the corresponding total register it would be necessary to add the applicants for transitional payments and the persons who are claiming neither insurance benefit nor transitional payments; there are at present no sufficient data for estimating what the numbers in these two groups would be likely to be on the assumption that the number of claimants for insurance benefit is 1,200,000. I may mention that at present the register consists of about 1,500,000 claimants for insurance benefit, 900,000 applicants for

Number of cases disallowed by certain Courts of Referees during the period 10th November, 1931, to 30th January, 1932.
Ground of disallowance.	Court of Referees.
Ground of disallowance.	Barnsley.	Castleford.	Doncaster.^*	Goole.	Pontefract.
First Statutory Condition (Juveniles only)	13	11	>6	—	9
Less than eight contributions paid in past two years and less than 30 contributions paid at any time.	—	2	2	1	—
Not normally insurable and/or will not normally seek to obtain livelihood by means of insurable employment	158	73	142	25	47
Anomalies Regulations:—
Class (b)—Seasonal workers	24	25	23	6	7
Class (d)—Married women	121	56	59	4	21
Class (c)—Persons who normally or habitually work for not more than two days in the week.	4	3	8	1	—
Employment left voluntarily without just cause	60	35	59	12	14
Employment lost through misconduct	43	29	58	11	7
Failure or refusal to apply for or accept suitable employment, or failure to carry out written directions.	44	22	46	18	10
Not unemployed	32	27	70	3	7
Not capable of work, or not available for work	40	51	62	2	7
Other grounds	41	86	77	10	16
Total	580	420	612	93	145
^* There is no Local Office or Court of Referees at Hemsworth, which is within the area of the Doncaster Court of Referees.
These figures may include a certain number of persons who were applying for transitional payments but separate figures for this dais are not available.

11.

asked the Minister of of Labour whether he is aware that in cases of married women who have been disallowed benefit under Section 4 (ii) of the Unemployment Insurance (Anomalies) Regulations, 1931, but who have subsequently fulfilled this requirement,

transitional payments and 300,000 non-claimants.

Benefit Disallowed

asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications for unemployment insurance benefit that have been refused by the courts of referees at Hemsworth, Pontefract, Barnsley, Castle-ford, Goole, and Doncaster during the last three months, and the reasons for such refusal?

As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

there are instances of delay in allowing them benefit; and whether he will adopt measures to eliminate such delay in future?

I understand my hon. Friend is referring to cases in which benefit has been disallowed by a court of referees and a test case has subsequently been allowed by the umpire. Some little time is necessarily occupied in identifying the claims covered by the test case and taking the necessary steps for authorisation of benefit, but I am looking into the point in order to see whether the procedure can be expedited.

15.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can state the number of applicants for benefit in Glasgow who have been refused benefit and have in consequence left their homes and gone to new addresses, and have then been allowed payments under the means test?

I regret that there are no statistics on this point.

Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries, because this is a very serious matter? Here we have proof of the Tory Government breaking up homes—[Interruption.]

Transitional Payments

asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures available from the Wigan Employment Exchange stating the number of cases dealt with by the public assistance committee for transitional payments; how many have received full benefits; how many less than full benefits; and how many were totally disallowed?

Between 12th November, 1931, and 23rd January, 1932, the public assistance committee for the county borough of Wigan gave determinations on 10,047 applications for transitional payments. In 4,538 cases payment was allowed at the normal benefit rates, and in 4,131 cases at lower rates, while in 1,375 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payments being made. The figures include revisions and renewals of determinations, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.

asked the Minister of Labour how many cases for transitional payments have been dealt with by the Lincoln Public Assistance Committee to the latest date for which figures are available; in how many cases have full benefits been allowed; in how many eases partial benefits; and how many applicants have failed to sustain any claim?

Between 12th November, 1931, and 23rd January, 1932, the Lincoln Public Assistance Committee gave determinations on 4,166 applications for transitional payments. In 3,328 cases payment was allowed at the normal benefit rates and in 667 eases at lower rates, while in 171 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payments being made. The figures include revisions and renewals of determinations, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.

16.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for transitional payments examined by the Salford Public Assistance Committee where the whole of a disability pension has been taken into account and those cases where only part of a disability pension has been taken into account?

I regret that there are no statistics on this point.

17.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage allowance made by the public assistance committee in London when dealing with men in receipt of disablement pensions who have applied for transitional benefit; and the number of cases in which the whole of the pension has been considered as part of the family income?

I am not in a position to furnish this information. As I have explained in answer to previous questions, an authority is required under the law to deal with these cases in the light of their individual circumstances, having particular regard to any extra need arising out of the disability, and I have no reason to believe that committees in London are not observing this principle.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he cannot give the figures asked for in this question?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman at once. It would involve my going to the public assistance committees and cross-examining them on every payment in order to ascertain the reasons why any particular allocation was made, and that I neither ought to do nor should I care to do it.

Statistics (Wigan)

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed at the Wigan Employment Exchange on 31st January, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931, giving the number of men and women separately?

Persons on the Registers of the Wigan Employment Exchange.
Date.				Men.	Boys.	Women.	Girls.	Total.
30th January, 1928	…	…	…	5,661	167	1,997	118	7,943
28th January, 1929	…	…	…	6,372	184	2,067	173	8,796
27th January, 1930	…	…	…	6,158	200	2,841	252	9,451
26th January, 1931	…	…	…	8,233	341	4,675	547	13,796

Royal Commission (Report)

13.

asked the Minister of Labour about what date a report may be expected from the Royal Commission on Unemployment, Insurance?

I cannot, of course, give any guarantee, but I hope to receive it soon after Easter.

Is the question of the means test included in the Commission's terms of reference?

Yes, clearly it is, and I have reason to know that the British Legion either have brought or are about to bring that very point before the Royal Commission.

Grants Committee

14.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will furnish a statement on the present and proposed future work of the Unemployment Grants Committee, and, in particular, state the numbers and cost of schemes for which grants through the Unemployment Grants Committee have been approved since the rates of grant were reduced; at what percentage of the total cost and on what conditions each of the grants was made and for what type of scheme; and whether grants for new schemes are now being made?

A report by the Unemployment Grants Committee, which will shortly be published as a Command Paper, will give such particulars as are conveniently available with regard to the schemes approved and the conditions under which grants were made. As

As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

regards the last part of the question. I would refer to the statement. I made in yesterday's Debate.

Salmon Fishermen, Scotland

18.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that hardship is being caused to Scottish salmon-net fishermen by their being now deprived of unemployment benefit on the ground that they are seasonal workers; and whether, in these circumstances, he will consider introducing such legislation as may be necessary to bring that class of worker within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts?

19.

asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that under the present arrangements salmon fishermen get no benefit under the unemployment insurance scheme while paying full contributions during the period in which they are employed, he will consider the introduction of legislation to bring them effectively into the range of benefit under the scheme?

In accordance with a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance, and under powers given by the Anomalies Act of last Session, Regulations are in operation under which seasonal workers are not entitled to benefit in the off-season unless they have in the past two years followed insurable employment in the off-season, and could reasonably expect to do so again. I have undertaken to watch the working of these Regulations carefully, and will in due course take steps to amend them, if I am satis- fied that amendment is necessary. Meanwhile I am afraid I cannot make any special exception for particular classes of workers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, no matter how far these men go, they are unable to find insurable employment during the off-season, and that, therefore, their case is a very hard one; and does he not think that some special consideration might be given to it?

I am very fully aware of the point which my Noble Friend has in mind, and it is one of those points which, clearly, will have to be considered after I receive the report of the Royal Commission. To make an alteration would, of course, need legislation.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, in considering the whole question, not to forget the case of the fisher girls?

Certainly, I will not forget it.

Can the Minister say why this and some other classes of work-people are compelled to pay insurance premiums, without any chance of getting any benefit from doing so?

That again raises the same question. In many cases the statistics show that there are industries of a seasonal nature where a considerable amount of benefit is received during unemployment, while in other cases it seems to be shown that the employment is continuous, and it was that sort of case that I had in mind in replying to my Noble Friend.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when he expects the report of the Royal Commission, because thousands of girls are affected by this procedure?

I have already answered that question. I think it was before the hon. Member came into the House.

I have been in the House all the time.

Building

45.

asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to encourage building by local authorities in view of the widespread unemployment in this industry?

I do not think I can do more than refer the hon. Member to the general observations which I made on this subject in this House on the 17th instant.

Training Centres, Scotland

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of boys being trained under unemployment training schemes in Scotland; and what are the trades and the allowances paid?

There are about 3,340 boys under the age of 18 attending approved courses of instruction in Scotland; the majority of these attend as a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit. No fees are paid by these boys, nor are allowances, other than unemployment benefit, paid to them. They are given general instruction in certain trades with a practical bias calculated to facilitate their re-absorption into industry.

Cotton Industry (Dispute)

asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has taken any action towards trying to settle the dispute in the Lancashire cotton industry; and, if so, in what direction have their efforts been made?

As the hon. Member knows, this is a complicated and difficult matter, but I am glad to say that the negotiations between the parties are proceeding satisfactorily towards a settlement.

Joint Industrial Councils

asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken by his Department for the establishment of further joint industrial councils; and whether there have been any recent additions to or removals from the list?

As the hon. Member is aware, the Whitley Committee recommended the establishment of joint industrial councils only in industries in which both employers and workers are effectively organised. I am always ready to give assistance in any way which can be helpful, but I think that such industries are in a position to decide for themselves the form of joint machinery best suited to their needs. If the hon. Member is aware of any industry which desires action to be taken I shall be glad to consider the matter. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

If the Minister will not have a trade board for the catering industry, will he consider having a joint council?

That question is really covered by the answer I have given. As I have said, I am always ready to give assistance when I am asked to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman doing any propaganda to get this idea into the minds of those engaged in industry—to educate public opinion; or is he just remaining passive in the matter?

Judging from my own experience, I do not think that unsolicited interference is always very welcome.

Cost-Of-Living Index

10.

asked the Minister of Labour whether any estimate has been made by his Department as to the probable effect of the Import Duties Bill upon the cost-of-living index figure; and, if so, at what conclusions his Department has arrived?

There is nothing that I can add to the statements on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Debates on 4th and 16th February.

Workmen's Compensation

21.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take the necessary steps to prevent any medical referee or medical assessor being appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act where such medical referee or medical assessor is acting from time to time in his professional capacity on behalf of the employers, indemnity companies, or workmen's trade union?

It is a condition of the appointment of a medical referee that he shall hold no regular employment either on the employers' or on the workers' side, and the medical referees are enjoined that in their private practice they should, as far as possible, avoid cases which may come before them in their official capacity. It has not been considered necessary or practicable to impose more stringent restrictions, but if the hon. Member has some individual case in mind, and will send me particulars, I shall be glad to make any necessary inquiry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it happens in practice and that private consultants are called upon to act as referees?

They cannot be called upon to act as referees in any case in which they have previously been engaged in the course of their private practice.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that although the said referee or assessor may not be called upon in a specific case to act as referee he receives fees for other cases from an indemnity company or association, and to that extent creates grave suspicion in the mind of injured workpeople?

If more stringent rules were applied it is the opinion of the Department that it might be very difficult in particular areas, and especially with regard to cases in which specialists have to be employed, to obtain men of the requisite standing to act as referees at all.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the setting up of a Central Board of Referees who would be strictly impartial towards either employers or employés?

They may not be available for the districts, but I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider, when appointing a medical referee, taking into account the individual qualifications of such medical gentlemen without taking into account any outside appointments that they may happen to hold?

Individual qualifications are taken primarily into consideration, but among those qualifications a reputation for impartiality must be taken into account.

29.

asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, owing to the increased use of explosives and other causes in coal mines, carbonic oxide gas is generated which causes incapacity and, in some cases, death; and will he consider placing this among the scheduled diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Act?

As the answer is long, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Are inquiries being made?

Perhaps the hon. Member had better await the reply, which is rather a long one and which goes into the matter fully.

Following is the answer:

This question is not a new one and has been examined more than once. In particular, a proposal to schedule poisoning by this gas was considered and rejected by the Industrial Diseases Committee of 1907, on evidence that the effects of such poisoning are invariably sudden and therefore in the nature of accidents, and already covered as such by the Act. The question whether all cases are so covered has, however, been recently referred for further examination to the Industrial Diseases Committee, now sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Humphry Rolleston, and if the hon. Member is aware of any cases showing the need for an extension of the schedule, I would suggest that he should send full particulars to the Secretary of the Committee at the Home Office.

Murder, Notting Hill

23.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the verdict of the coroner's court of murder by person or persons unknown in the ease of Vera Page, of Notting Hill, he will ensure that everything possible will be done to apprehend the murderer and that all suspects will be closely watched with a view to preventing other offences by the same persons?

The police have taken the most energetic and pains taking measures to identify the person guilty of this abominable crime, and no effort is being or will be spared to obtain further evidence.

Will the Home Secretary consider the advisability of appointing a number of women police in the district, especially in view of the anxiety of parents?

That is rather a separate question, but I will convey the point to the Commissioner.

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure the police have sufficient powers to enable them to make inquiries and investigations and examine and cross-examine any individuals whom they suspect?

There is another question on that.

Is it not true that the Home Secretary said that one of the reasons for the increase in cases of criminal assault on children was the absence of women police? Does he not think it is really vital to have more women police?

Grand Juries

26.

asked the Home Secretary if he will furnish the number of occasions on which grand juries have cut bills at assizes and quarter sessions for the last year for which figures are available; and what is the percentage of the so cut bills to the number of indictments examined?

The latest figures available are those for 1930, and are as follows: At assizes, 3,324 persons were sent for trial and 42 bills were ignored. At quarter sessions, 5,060 persons were sent for trial and 39 bills were ignored. These figures do not include cases where a bill was ignored, but subsequently a true bill was found against the same person on a lesser charge. Figures for those cases are net available.

In view of the small number of bills out by grand juries at quarter sessions, and for reasons that I advanced on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman, when time permits, consider the advisability of introducing legislation for the abolition of grand juries at quarter sessions?

That question is under consideration.

Publication (Sentence Of Iniprisonment)

27.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will review the sentence of six months' imprisonment passed on Mr. de Montalk, in view of the facts that such publication as occurred was merely technical; that part of the offending matter was a translation; and that a limited circulation only was intended?

The prisoner has applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and I cannot take any action in the matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain on what principle of law discrimination is made against this gentleman and in favour of all the works of Aldous Huxley and all the books of the Apocrypha?

That is a matter for the court.

Police Investigations

28.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that since the order as to the interrogation of suspects issued to the police, following the Savage inquiry, there has been an increase in the number of crimes of violence with which no arrest has been effected; and whether he proposes to rescind such order?

The order which the hon. and gallant Member apparently has in mind was one issued to the Metro- politan Police on 1st August, 1928. It was provisional only, pending the report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Procedure; and following a recommendation made by the Commission it was revoked on 11th August, 1930. As regards the general question of police powers, I would refer the hon. Member to replies which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Chester (Sir C. Cayzer).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if police powers were increased, it would not only lead to a decrease in the number of undetected crimes of violence but would also prevent coroner's courts from branding with lifelong suspicion both the innocent and the guilty?

The question of coroner's courts is an entirely separate matter. I have received no representations from the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police or any police authority that they are unduly hampered in the exercise of their powers of investigation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied in his own mind that, the police have sufficient powers in their hands to enable them to examine and cross-examine any of those whom they think guilty?

I have no reason to think to the contrary.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House some idea of what is being changed in the instructions and what attitude they have to the large amount of undetected crime in the country?

I have already stated that there has been no change of instructions.

Has the right hon. Gentleman reviewed the instruction himself in the light of the facts disclosed in unsolved cases?

Yes, I have gone carefully into it and made inquiries. The whole position is misconceived. There has been no change of practice at all. Hon. Members appear to have been misled possibly by some articles in the Press on the subject.

Larceny

31.

asked the Home Secretary how many cases of bag-snatching from pedestrians have been reported in the Metropolitan area during the past 12 months; and how many convictions have been secured during the same period?

Statistics of this special type of larceny from the person are not available and could not be collected without much expenditure of time and labour, but I can give the figures of all kinds of larcenies from the person for the latest period for which they are available, namely, the 11 months from January to November, 1931, inclusive. There were in the Metropolitan police district 517 cases known to the police, who made 262 arrests, resulting in 100 convictions. In addition, 47 persons were dealt with as guilty without formal conviction, and 20 were discharged for want of sufficient evidence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this type of crime is on the increase; and is he prepared to consider taking additional precautions to protect the public?

Yes, Sir, the Commissioner of Police has this matter very present to his mind.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if the public themselves would assist, in this matter, many of these fellows could be pinched without very much trouble?

32.

asked the Home Secretary haw many cases of theft of baggage, or other articles, from ears have been reported in the Metropolitan area during the past 12 months; and how many convictions have been secured during the same period?

Figures of this kind have to be specially collected and are available only for the period between 1st November, 1931, and 17th February, 1932, and for the centre of London. In that period 479 cases of this kind took place, and 46 persons were arrested.

Dartmoor Prison

33.

asked the Home Secretary if he interviewed or spoke to prisoners when he visited Dart-moor Prison recently; if any complaints were made to him; and, if so, what action did he take?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the remainder does not therefore arise.

Public Health

Milk

38.

asked the Minister of Health how many samples of fresh liquid milk were taken during the last three months by the port sanitary authorities of London, Harwich, and Newhaven, respectively; and whether any of these liquid milk imports were rejected for not being up to standard requirements in cleanliness and butter fat?

The answer to the first part of the question is eight, 49 and 13 respectively. Three samples taken at Harwich and seven taken at Newhaven failed to comply with the bacterial standard laid down, and the importation of milk from the sources of supply of these samples has been discontinued. Ninety-three samples taken at the ports in question were examined by the Government Chemist, and none was reported as deficient in butter fat.

40.

asked the Minister of Health the number of prosecutions that have taken place in England during 1929, 1930, and 1931 in connection with milk deficient in fat, together with the number of convictions obtained?

42.

asked the Minister of Health how many prosecutions for too low a percentage of butter fat under the Milk Adulteration Order came before the courts in 1931; and in how many of these cases were convictions obtained?

I regret that I am unable to give all the information asked for, but in 1931 there were 98 prosecutions for the sale of adulterated milk in London, and convictions were obtained in 51 cases, two being still outstanding. The total number of samples of milk reported as adulterated in England and Wales is roughly 15 times the number so reported in London.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that those figures show a very unsatisfactory state of the law with regard to the milk prosecutions at the present time, and will he not consider introducing legislation in order to have the law amended?

No, Sir. I should say that on the whole the figures indicated rather that there was a very efficient administration of the law.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the very large percentage of prosecutions which failed to secure conviction means almost the permanent branding of those farmers who have been wrongfully accused of watering their milk.

As the Minister stated in reply to Question No. 38 that there were no adulterations in respect of the importations of milk, and that five samples—

The hon. Gentleman cannot go back to Question No. 38.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the reply given to Question No. 38, namely, that none of the imported milk was deficient in fat, there is not room for a great deal of improvement, since so many convictions have been registered in this country?

Does not this show that the officials of the Ministry of Health are not doing their duty at the ports in inspecting foreign milk?

I cannot really accept any of those implications upon the facts given. The facts which have been given appear to show a very efficient administration of the law.

60.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of reclassifying the various grades of milk produced in this country, and thus end the present position, in which the consumer is led to believe that Grade A milk is the highest class produced, whereas it is in reality only of third-class quality?

I will consider the matter in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. But any re-classification of graded milks on the lines suggested by my Noble Friend would require legislation, and I regret that at present I cannot contemplate the introduction of legislation on this subject.

Refuse Disposal

44.

asked the Minister of Health if it is proposed to take any action on the report of the departmental committee on London Cleansing, issued in May, 1930; and whether any regulations are to be issued prohibiting the dumping of crude refuse in dumps adjacent to villages or occupied houses in the Home counties?

The Metropolitan authorities have been pressed to discontinue the insanitary tinning of refuse, and active measures have been taken by some of them. The main recommendations of the Departmental Committee would require legislation, of which I see no prospect this Session. But the Town and Country Planning Bill now before Parliament contains proposals for empowering local authorities to control the deposit of refuse by provisions in planning schemes.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the provision of a large destructor for destroying the refuse as is done by many local authorities today?

These modern methods, no doubt, will deserve attention from the authorities concerned.

Mental Deficiency

55.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has now considered the setting up of a committee of experts to investigate and report on the question of the sterilisation of the mentally deficient; and when he will be in a position to announce the names of the members of the committee?

I have not yet determined the precise form of inquiry which is likely to yield the best results, but as soon as I have done so I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.

Tuberculosis (Spahlinger Treatment)

57.

asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive the observations of the Medical Research Council and other competent research bodies on the statement by Mr. Spahlinger containing a formula for the treatment of tuberculosis?

I am unable at present to say when it is likely that these observations will be received.

In view of the overwhelming importance of this matter to a very large number of people, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the advisability of making a statement as early as possible?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the public interest taken in the matter will not be lost sight of.

Education

Royal Commission On Licensing (Recommendations)

35.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state what steps he proposes to take with reference to the proposals contained in paragraphs 697 to 700 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing with reference to education?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have been carefully studying the educational recommendations of the Royal Commission on Licensing. I greatly appreciate their commendation of the publications on the teaching of hygiene and of health which were issued by the Board in 1920 and 1928, and these are now being reviewed to see if any modifications can be made which would increase their usefulness. I am also considering what other steps I can usefully take to promote effective instruction in these subjects.

League Of Nations

36.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether full effect has now been given to the recommendations of the sub-committee of experts of the League of Nations with regard to education and the League as well as those of the joint committee of associations of local education authorities and teachers?

The recommendations of the two bodies to which my hon. Friend refers are so detailed and numerous that it is not possible for me to say that full effect has been given to them; but I can assure him that great and increasing attention is being given in this country to the subject of the instruction of the young in the aims and achievements of the League of Nations. I may add that a full report on this subject has recently been furnished to the League by the Board of Education.

Housing

Slum Clearance

39.

asked the Minister of Health how many slum clearance schemes have been approved in Lancashire, and in which towns, since the passing of the Housing Act of 1930?

72 clearance areas have been declared in Lancashire. I am sending my hon. Friend a list of the towns concerned.

The right hon. Gentleman has said he will send a list of the towns to the hon. Gentleman who asked the question, and I wish to ask whether we cannot have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as it may be useful to us all.

In order to meet the wishes of the hon. Member, I will see that the list appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the list:

County Borough Councils:
Bolton.
Bootle.
Liverpool.
Manchester.
Preston.
Rochdale.
Salford.
Wigan.

Non-County Borough Councils:

Ashton-under-Lyne.

Eccles.

Leigh.

Rawtenstall.

Urban District Councils:

Atherton.

Dalton-in-Furness.

Farnworth.

Leyland.

Newton-in-Makerfield.

Orrell.

Prestwich.

Swinton and Pendlebury.

Whitefield.

Subsidised Houses (Building Conditions)

54.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the need for houses to be let at working class rents, he will consider modifying the conditions as to floor area and density per acre required in connection with subsidised houses?

I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular letter recently issued in regard to the size of subsidised houses. The density per acre is determined by Section 7 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, but I am always prepared, in suitable cases, to consider an application from a local authority for variation of the limit there laid down.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the further use of ferro-concrete with a view

HOUSING—SCOTLAND.
Act	Number of Houses.
	Completed in				Authorised but not completed in
	Burghs by		Counties by		Burghs by		Counties by
	L.As.	P.E.	L.As.	P.E.	L.As.	P.E.	L.As.	P.E.
At 1st January, 1931.
Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919.	18,097	317	7,032	104	—	—	—	—
Housing (Additional) Powers Act, 1919.	—	797	—	1,527	—	—	—	—
Housing, etc., Act, 1923	14,122	11,355	2,456	7,853	2,511	1,113	78	975
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.	38,710	2,887	9,352	175	7,854	44	620	11
Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930	—	—	—	—	500	—	12	—
At 1st January, 1932.
Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919.	18,097	317	7,032	104	—	—	—	—
Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919.	—	797	—	1,527	—	—	—	—
Housing, etc., Act, 1923	15,915	12,349	2,511	8,714	1,127	1,653	24	2,700
Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.	44,224	3,359	9,940	187	6,932	936	762	9
Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930	286	—	79	—	4,207	—	1,416	—
Not allocated	—	—	—	—	262	—	168	—
L.A.=Local Authority			P.E.=Private Enterprise.

91.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will furnish a statement showing for 1931 the number

to cheapening the process of house construction

I do not think that point arises out of the question.

Scotland

90.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will furnish a statement showing at 1st January, 1931 and 1932, respectively, the number of houses completed and the number authorised, but not completed, under each of the Housing Acts by local authorities and private enterprise in Scotland, distinguishing between burghs and county districts, in continuation of the information given on 17th February, 1931?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the desired information.

Following is the statement:

of houses completed in Scotland by local authorities with State assistance; by private enterprise with State assistance and without assistance, respectively; the total with State assistance; and the total of all houses, in continuation of the information given on 17th February, 1931?

Number of Houses Completed in Scotland from 1919–1931 inclusive.
Year.				By Local Authorities with State Assistance.	By Private Enterprise.
				By Local Authorities with State Assistance.	with State Assistance.	Without State Assistance.
1919–1930 inclusive	…	…	…	89,786	25,015	17,364
1931	…	…	…	8,315	2,339	1,814
Total	…	…	…	98,101	27,354	19,178

Total houses with State Assistance	125,455
Total houses without State Assistance	19,178
	144,633
In addition there have been erected by the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust) Ltd. on behalf of the Government, Steel Houses	2,552
Grand Total	147,185

Statistics

47.

asked the Minister of Health the number of houses under State-assisted schemes approved by his Department during each month of last year?

The answer involves a tabular statement, and I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The following statement gives the desired particulars:

MONTH and NUMBER of State-assisted houses included in proposals approved for England and Wales during the month:
January, 1931	…	5,532
February, 1931	…	4,240
March, 1931	…	5,321
April, 1931	…	10,273
May, 1931	…	6,627
June, 1931	…	8,543
July, 1931	…	8,917
August, 1931	…	7,816
September, 1931	…	1,433
October, 1931	…	3,797
November, 1931	…	2,409
December, 1931	…	4,868

Census Reports

41.

asked the Minister of Health when he will be able to publish the results of the Census, 1931?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement containing the desired information.

Following is the Statement:

It is anticipated that the series of Census Reports will begin to be published about the middle of this year; but it cannot at present be stated when the publication of all reports will be completed.

Can my right hon. Friend say when the volume on housing is likely to be issued?

I am afraid that I should require notice of that question.

Will my right hon. Friend ask whether the matter can be expedited?

Local Government Officers (Superannuation)

43.

asked the Minister of Health whether the temporary voluntary abatements of wages and salaries which local government officers and servants have been subjected to as a result of the national economy measures are to be taken into account for the basis of pension; and, if so, whether he will consider making amendments to the Superannuation Acts that affect local government officers and servants, so that their pension rights shall not be reduced as a consequence of these temporary abatements?

I have asked the several associations of local authorities for their views as to the desirability of legislation for this purpose. The further consideration of the matter must await the receipt of their replies.

If I put down a question at a later date, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a reply?

indicated assent.

Contributory Pensions Act

46.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will institute a fund or provision for assistance to poor widows who have been deprived of pension owing to the employers not stamping the husbands' insurance cards, seeing that the Ministry states that the only remedy for loss of pension is a civil action against the employer, and that in certain cases counsel has advised action but the widow has not had the necessary funds?

As legislation would be necessary to give effect to the proposal of the hon. Member, I have not examined it in detail but have noted it for consideration on its merits when amending legislation is contemplated.

Is there no power now?

No, there are no powers to go outside the law now.

53.

asked the Minister of Health if he can give the figures of persons who have been refused national health benefits and the number of widows who have failed to qualify for pension under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act owing to the failure of the employers to stamp the cards of their employés according to regulations?

I regret that I am not in a position to furnish the desired information. As regards health insurance benefits, the information, if available, could only be obtained by inquiry of all the approved societies and branches, and as regards pensions, a scrutiny of all the rejected claims would be involved.

When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the question of introducing legislation with regard to question 46, in order to put the matter right, will he consider the same thing in connection with the first part of my question?

I am afraid that, in view of the present position of public business, I cannot hold out any promise of legislation.

56.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Mrs. McDermott, of 57, Oakeywell Street, Dudley, has made an appeal for an old age pension to his Department; that the appeal was disallowed on the ground that, in the last three years of insurance, when an average of 39 stamps are required, making 117 altogether, Mrs. McDermott had only 116 to her credit; and whether seeing that Mrs. McDermott would have had the necessary number of stamps had her employer properly stamped her cards, she can be granted a. pension, since she was in the necessary insurable employment and the onus is on the employer to see that an employé has health insurance cards?

I have looked into this case and find that the position is as stated in the first and second parts of the question. As regards the third part, I have no power to grant a pension in a case where the statutory conditions are not complied with.

Are we to understand that in these matters, because the employer breaks the law, the employé is to be penalised?

Apart from the actual conditions of the case, if the statutory conditions are not complied with the Minister has no power to grant a pension.

If the statutory conditions have not been complied with by the employer, cannot action be taken for the recovery of what has been lost by the person affected?

That is subject to the statutory limitation of three years.

Provided that it is taken within the three years, it is possible for the person to take action against the employer?

Inter-Allied Debts

61.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is taking any and, if so, what steps to prevent this country from defaulting in the repayment of our debts to the United States of America Government in the case of other countries defaulting in the payments due to us and our inability to supply gold?

I cannot add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the 2nd February and to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) on Tuesday last.

Am I right in assuming that the retention of a 6 per cent. Bank rate—[HON. MEMBERS: "5 per cent now !'] Am I right in assuming that the retention of a high Bank rate is the chief method of obtaining dollar currency to repay the interest on this debt?

A method.

Is any other method being adopted?

I hope the hon. and gallant Member will put that question on the Order Paper.

63.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will furnish a statement of the funding agreements with foreign Governments since the War, and the amount of debt cancelled in each case?

The Debt Funding Agreements have all been published as Parliamentary Papers. The hon. Member will find the information which he desires conveniently summarised on page 5 of the War Debts Supplement to the "Economist" newspaper of 23rd January, 1932.

Is it not the case that these particulars are numerous and difficult to separate; and is it not desirable to inform public opinion by setting them out in some short, authoritative form?

I am afraid that my hon. and learned Friend did not attend to the answer that I gave. I said that they were conveniently summarised in the "Economist" newspaper, to which I referred.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this particular compilation which he has been good enough to send to me altogether satisfies the requirements of the position?

I am not sure that it does not satisfy my hon. and learned Friend.

National Finance

Bank Of England (Issue Department)

62.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the figure of the profits of the Issue Department of the Bank of England which were transferred to the Treasury during the last financial year; and what they are estimated to amount to during the current year?

These figures are shown in the Annual Finance Accounts, the amount for 1930 being £6,211,000. I am unable to give estimated figures in advance.

The figure for this year will be materially affected, I presume, by the loss on the repayment of the £80,000,000 loan?

Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member will await the publication of the figures.

The right hon. Gentleman informed me last week that the Issue Department would show whether there was a profit or loss on that transaction. In that case, cannot we have some estimate of what it will be?

Not at this stage.

Beer Duty

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the reduction of the tax on beer on account of the hardship the present tax is inflicting on the working-classes?

I would assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I shall have regard to every relevant consideration in this matter.

Entertainments Duty

66.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the reduction of Entertainments Duty on the cheapest-price seats in view of the fact that the present tax is depriving many of the poorer classes of their chief recreation in attending cinemas?

I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but it must not be assumed that I accept his view us to the effect of the present rates of Entertainments Duty.

May I ask whether, seeing that in our large towns numbers of people have nothing else to do except to stand about in the streets, with no hope of any recreation, steps should not be taken to provide some recreation for them during the day, for the sake of their morale and contentment?

I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has called my attention to this matter, and I shall note it.

Stamp Duties

69.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the size of the amounts remitted in respect of Stamp Duties payable on Royal Warrants, letters patent and dockets conferring baronies, as set out in the Command Paper just issued, he can state the reasons why these sums have been remitted and have to be paid for by the taxpayer?

It is the normal practice to remit fees chargeable on documents conferring baronies on distinguished public servants and in cases where advancement to the peerage serves the public interest by providing for the due discharge of the responsibility of Government to Parliament.

North Wales Power Company (Guarantee)

72.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury under what circumstances a Treasury guarantee was given for the sum of £206,000 on behalf of the North Wales Power Company, Limited?

This guarantee was given under Part I of the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee set up under the Act.

Income Tax

76.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a number of Income Tax payers, either through ignorance or in consequence of the complicated nature of the formalities to be carried out, do not claim the Income Tax refunds to which they are entitled; and whether he will consider taking steps to simplify the necessary procedure by including with every Income Tax form sent out a reminder as to how and on what grounds refunds of Income Tax may be reclaimed?

I cannot agree that the position is as suggested in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. In reply to the second part I would point out that information such as he has in mind is issued with every kind of Income Tax form to which it is relevant. Furthermore, Inspectors of Taxes are definitely instructed to offer repayment, without waiting for a specific request by the taxpayer, where the particulars available make it clear that a repayment is due.

Is it not the case that each year large sums remain unpaid?

I must have notice of that question.

American States (British Investors)

64.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the last representations were, made to the United States Government with regard to the default of the State of. Mississippi and other States; what the reply was; and whether this matter will be pressed at any future financial conference between the two countries?

I am informed that no record can be found of this matter having at any time formed the subject of representations to the United States Government. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears) on Thursday last

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very great and growing feeling in this country that this matter should be brought up in the near future, because we seem at the moment to be turning the other cheek on too many occasions. Is it not time to say that, if we have to pay America, they should pay us what they owe us?

Can we not adopt the same measure that America has adopted, and say that if we do not receive our money the money shall not be paid by this country?

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider pressure being brought on America in the same way that they bring pressure upon us?

It has frequently been stated that this is not a debt by the United States Government.

Is not this case very much the same as the case of New South Wales and the Commonwealth Government of Australia?

Trade And Commerce

Import Duties Bill (Transferred Machinery)

67.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether foreign firms establishing factories in Great Britain in order to produce inside the British tariff will be permitted to import their machinery free of duty provided that machinery has been already in use in their factories abroad?

If my hon. and gallant Friend refers to machinery of foreign origin there is no provision in the Import Duties Bill which would permit it to be admitted free of duty in the circumstances described.

Safeguarding Duties (Ignition Cables)

71.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that high tension ignition cables for motor cars, which should be subject to a 33⅓ per cent safeguarding duty, are now being imported free into this country under the guise of cables for radio purposes; and will he issue instructions that such cables will only be admitted free where it is definitely proved that they are not for use for motor cars?

I am not aware that this is the case. If my hon. Friend will give particulars of any instances where ignition cables for motor cars are being imported into this country without payment of duty I will certainly have inquiries made.

Imports

85 and 86.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) what proportion in value of the imports shown in the Trade and Navigation Returns for 1931 in Class I., Groups A, B, C, D, and E, are consigned from and grown, produced, and manufactured in the Empire overseas as defined in the Import Duties Bill after excluding from the calculation all imports of Class I. mentioned in the First Schedule of the Import Duties Bill;

(2) what proportion in value of the imports shown in the Trade and Navigation Returns for 1931 in Class II, are consigned from, and grown, produced, or manufactured in the Empire overseas as defined in the Import Duties Bill, after excluding from the calculation all imports of Class II, mentioned in the First Schedule of the Import Duties Bill?

After deducting articles already liable to budgetary duties and those excluded by the First Schedule to the Import Duties Bill, the proportion of the imports into the United Kingdom during 1931 of the remaining articles in Class II, that were consigned from British countries was about 26 per cent. Similar information respecting Class I. is being compiled and I will circulate the desired particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible. I am unable to state what proportion of the goods consigned from British countries was grown, produced or manufactured within those countries.

British Museum (Elgin Marbles)

68.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether public funds will defray the cost of the transfer and temporary housing of the Elgin Marbles pending their removal to the new room to be erected at the British Museum?

70.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a Government Department will be responsible for the safety of the national property to be housed temporarily pending transfer from the Elgin Marbles Room at the British Museum to a new room to be erected at the British Museum on a site owned by the public; and, if so, upon what Vote will the expenditure fall?

There is no intention of moving the Elgin Marbles until the new room has been completed. The removal will be carried out by the British Museum staff.

Is it desirable to have these foreign-made articles in this country at all?

Trustee Securities (New South Wales Loans)

73.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the interest on certain New South Wales Government securities placed on the Treasury trustee list under authority obtained by the Treasury in 1900 is now in arrears; and what steps the Treasury is taking to have such securities removed from the Treasury trustee list or otherwise to warn would-be investors of the risks attendant on holding such securities?

74.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the default of the New South Wales Government on some of their securities now on the Treasury trustee list under the Act of 1900, he will lay the matter before the Ottawa Conference with a view to the conference agreeing to amendments of the Act calculated to meet cases of a similar kind?

75.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will now obtain funds, under is powers defined by the Colonial Stock Act, and pay the interest on such New South Wales Government stocks as are on the Treasury trustee list and have defaulted in interest payments?

77.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the New South Wales Government has till recently defaulted on its obligation to pay interest on certain of its stocks on the Treasury trustee list, he will now publish the fact in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, and in such other manner as may give the public full information on the subject, as provided by Section 2 of 63 and 64 Vic., c. 62, stating which conditions ordered and notified by the Treasury have not been observed?

I need hardly say that the absence of payment of the interest on certain New South Wales loans on the date when that interest fell due was a matter of deep concern to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I am, however, glad to say that I understand that the necessary funds have now been made available in London; and in the circumstances the question of action on the part of the Treasury does not arise.

Are we to understand that, notwithstanding the default of the New South Wales Government, these particular securities are still trustee securities within the meaning of the Act for the purposes of investment?

Is it not the case that the interest has already been paid and was received to-day by the holders of the 6½ per cent. stock?

The interest, as the hon. and gallant Member says, has been paid and the necessity for action on the part of the Treasury does not arise. These stocks remain as they were before.

Are they trustee stocks?

They remain as before; the interest on them has been paid.

Tithe Rentcharge

79.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give facilities for a short Bill to make the disclosure of tithe rentcharge obligatory in all transactions for the sale of land so encumbered?

On the occasion of the sale and purchase of land in England and Wales, the presumption is that it is subject to tithe rentcharge unless the contrary is established, and it is open to the purchaser to ascertain the liability, if any, of the land to tithe rentcharge by inspection of the original tithe apportionment and map deposited with the Ministry. Copies are also deposited in the parish, usually in the custody of the incumbent and churchwardens. In the circumstances facilities for a Bill on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend cannot be given.

Agriculture (Reorganisation Commissions)

80.

asked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to set up the three commissions for the reorganisation of the milk, bacon, and potato trades; and whether, when these commissions are appointed, he will fix a date by which they will be instructed to furnish their reports?

I propose to set up a Reorganisation Commission for milk and an inquiry into bacon without avoidable delay. The appointment of the potato commission will be proceeded with as soon as I am satisfied that this course is desired by growers. With regard to the second part of the question, I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Is there any reason why these commissions should not have been set up three months ago?

Yes, Sir, every reason.

Cilgwyn And Moeltryfan Quarries

82.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present position with regard to the reopening of the Cilgwyn and Moeltrytan quarries, in the county of Carnarvon?

Negotiations have been nearly completed, which it is anticipated, will result in work at the quarries being started at an early date.

Is it not the case that that has been the reply of his Department for the last 12 months? Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get something done in this matter

I have made inquiries into this matter, and I am satisfied that work will be resumed shortly.

Cunard Steamship Company

84.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there have been any recent consultations between representatives of the Cunard Steamship Company and the Government on the question of restarting work on the new liner; and if he can state the position to date?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The position remains as stated by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, on the 2nd February.

Kenya (Goldfields)

88.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now make any statement as to whether the recently discovered goldfields in Kenya are in native reserves or not; whether the Government has the right of imposing any conditions on prospecting; and, if so, what action it is taking in the matter?

The area in which the recent discoveries of gold have been made in Kenya is situated in the North Kavirondo Native Reserve. Special provisions regulating prospecting on land within native reserves are contained in the Mining Ordinance, 1931. Unauthorised prospecting is forbidden. The position has been carefully explained to the local natives at a baraza and they have been assured that the Government will safeguard their interests to the fullest possible extent.

Can we have an assurance that, if any land is taken from the natives, land of equal value elsewhere and as convenient for the tribe will be found?

That point will be borne in mind.

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

89.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of cases within the last 12 months in which pensions have been refused to widows whose husbands had been receiving pensions as a result of disabilities due to war service but who died, according to the medical opinion of his Department, from causes unconnected with the disability specified?

During the last calendar year some 1,200 claims had to be rejected because the husband's death could not be certified as having resulted from his military service, and in the great majority of these cases the Ministry's decision was confirmed on appeal by the Independent Appeal Tribunal.

Electricity Supply Schemes

92.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the number of schemes for lines of cable-carrying pylons in connection with the electricity grid which have been refused permission or essentially modified by his Department; and if he will give the districts and the reasons in each case?

As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Up to the present one application from the Central Electricity Board relating to an overhead line and five applications for wayleaves in connection with the "Grid" schemes have been refused. The applications related respectively to an overhead line at Wanstead, Essex, and to way-leaves at Dagenham, Essex; Nuneham, Oxford; and Bolney Crawley and Hollington in Sussex. Four cases were refused after local inquiries and consideration of all the circumstances, including representations that there would be undue interference with local amenities. The other two refusals were based on legal grounds. In certain other cases, consents to overhead lines for the "Grid" schemes have been given after local inquiries, subject to modifica- tions, including variations of the route originally proposed. My hon. and gallant Friend will find various particulars relating to consents for overhead lines and wayleaves in the annual reports of the Minister of Transport on the Electricity (Supply) Acts and in the annual reports of the Electricity Commissioners.

India (Kashmir)

94.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make any statement as to the situation at the present time in Kashmir; and whether any British troops are now being employed in that country?

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) on the 15th February, to which he has at present nothing to add.

League Of Nations

Poland (Ukrainian Minority)

95.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions British representatives at the League of Nations have been given in reference to the Ukrainian petitions to the League, alleging oppression of the Ukrainian minority in Poland?

As I stated in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the 16th of September last, the British Delegate at Geneva has throughout been fully acquainted with the views of His Majesty's Government on the questions raised in these petitions, though no formal written instructions were given to him. As my hon. Friend will have seen in the Press, Lord Cecil made that attitude plain at the recent session of bile Council where, in commenting upon the report then submitted, he expressed the hope that the question of compensation to sufferers might be reconsidered, and drew attention to recent statements regarding the treatment of Ukrainian prisoners.

Shanghai (Commission's Report)

96.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange for the publication, as a White Paper, of the report to the secretary-general of the League of Nations of the Shanghai consular committee of inquiry?

As the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was informed on the 15th of February, my right hon. Friend cannot undertake to make public on his own motion a document submitted to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. The two reports rendered to the League Council by the local commission which it constituted at Shanghai have been summarised in the Press of the 9th and 15th of February respectively.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the document in question has actually been published in Geneva and circulated to all the other Governments concerned?

Geneva is the place where it should first be published.

If it has been printed there, is there any reason why this House should not possess an official copy?

My right hon. Friend hopes that a copy will be made available for publication by all the Governments as soon as possible.

Japan (Loans)

97.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to whether any loans to Japan have recently been arranged either in this country or elsewhere?

I have no information on this subject.

Royal Navy

Canteen Funds

98.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion of naval canteen profits is given to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust; and what is the representation of the lower deck on the administration of the Trust?

The contributions payable to the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust are subject to periodical review in the light of reports obtained from the Fleet. At present they are:—

(a) One-fifth of the amount of rebate on purchases, which is payable by Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes to Ships' or Establishment funds, or one-fifth of the rent payable by canteen tenants on the China Station.

(b) 40 per cent of any amount that may be available for distribution annually in respect of surplus revenue accruing to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes from Naval canteen trading.

The Central Committee of the trust includes 15 representatives of the lower deck out of a total of 25 members.

Loss Of Submarine M 2 (Pensions)

100.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of granting pensions to the widows, children, and parents of the officers and ratings who lost their lives in Submarine M 2 at the rates payable under the warrants and Orders in Council governing pensions following death from injuries in the Great War?

The scale of pensions referred to in the question is not applicable to dependants of those who have lost their lives subsequent to the period of the War, and I regret I can hold out no prospect of its being granted in the case of the M 2.

China And Japan

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is able to state whether British troops have been in action in Shanghai or its vicinity; whether any casualties have been suffered, and what branch of the Service has been involved?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I regret to state, however, that two British naval ratings, who were part of a guard on duty at Hongkew Wharf at Shanghai, were wounded by shell fire early yesterday morning and subsequently died of their wounds. From the direction of the shells it seems almost certain that they were fired from Chinese guns. His Majesty's Minister has accordingly addressed a note to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs calling his attention to these facts, and requesting that strict instructions be issued to the Chinese military authorities concerned with a view to preventing any possible recurrence of such incidents, and reminding His Excellency that His Majesty's Government must, in this unfortunate conflict between China and Japan, bold each side responsible for any loss to British life and property that may be caused by their respective armed forces.

If casualties like those can occur among the Forces, is the Secretary of State satisfied that all proper steps have been taken to safeguard the civilian population?

I am sure that that was one of the first concerns of the most competent and trustworthy British authorities on the spot.

Are representations being made to the Chinese Government for compensation in the case of the loss of these two lives?

My answer is all that I can state. Of course, one has to see what the answer of the Chinese Government may be.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any further statement to make on the situation in Shanghai?

There is some further information on various points which I am able to give to the House to-day. We have information from Shanghai that a meeting was to take place this morning between representatives of the Chinese and Japanese military authorities with a view to trying to arrange for a cessation of hostilities. The meeting was largely brought about by the efforts of our Minister, Sir Miles Lampson, and was, I understand, fixed for nine o'clock this morning, Shanghai time. I have not yet received any official information as to what, if any, was the result of this meet- ing. But the House will have regretted to observe that the latest Press messages indicate that it has not secured agreement.

I have already stated, in answer to the question addressed to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) what is known of the serious incident at the Hongkew wharf.

On a point which was raised in the House yesterday, I am glad to state that His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai reports that Mr. H. G. Parkes, who is not a schoolmaster, but the proprietor of a small business, was interfered with, but was not assaulted by Japanese civilians. He was subsequently assisted by a Japanese naval officer to whom he applied for help.

Then, the most recent news from Geneva connected with the Sino-Japanese dispute is as follows:

Japan has raised certain legal points in connection with the Chinese request for a reference of the dispute from the Council to the Assembly. These points have been referred by the Council to a committee of jurists, who are meeting in Geneva this morning, and are expected to report to-day. As soon as this committee has reported it is anticipated that the Chinese application will be dealt with by the Council without delay.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the truth or otherwise of the report in the Press about a very heavy explosion in the centre of the International Settlement?

I have noticed a reference to it in the Press, but I have no information about the matter myself.

May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps can be taken to evacuate our nationals from the Settlement if the negotiations have broken down? Is it not obvious that if hostilities continue, neither side, with the best will in the world, can prevent non-combatants coming within the range of fire, seeing that the operations are taking place from the International Settlement?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman gives a very proper description of the risks that are involved and the matter which he has mentioned is naturally one of those which is being very carefully considered. I do not think I can give any further answer other than that. Of course, the practical difficulties of the matter have to be examined on the spot.

Is not the best thing to do to stop the war?

Business Of The House

May I ask the Leader of the House in the absence of the Prime Minister, to state what the business will be next week?

I am sure that if the Prime Minister were here he would be glad to answer the right hon. Gentleman. The business for next week is as follows:

Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday: 3rd, 4th and 5th Allotted Days in Committee on the Import Duties Bill.

Thursday: Report and Third Reading of the Import Duties Bill.

Friday's business will be announced later.

If time permits on any day other Orders will be taken.

As the House will soon be going into Committee of Supply on the Estimates, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it would not be possible this year, in view of the numerical state of parties in the House, to arrange that Government supporters should have some share in the selection of the Votes to be discussed in Committee?

The practical difficulty is that it always has been the right of the Opposition to select the subjects of debate on these occasions, and hitherto the size of the Opposition has not affected that principle. That is the short answer to my right hon. Friend.

But is the position not rather more urgent now, in view of the fact that private Member's opportunities have been taken away from them, and that the Estimates will provide the only occasions on which private Members can raise various matters?

I do not think that we ought to grudge to them the little amount of amusement which the Opposition can have. After all, it is the right of the Opposition to challenge the Government on all these matters. It so happens that when the Opposition are small in numbers they can have a better time in many ways as regards these matters, but I do not think that that ought to influence us.

We are not responsible for the large number of Members opposite.

Apart from the entertainment aspect of the matter, which makes as big an appeal to me as to any other Member of the House, is it not a definite part of the Constitution that the Opposition have the right to criticise expenditure proposed by His Majesty's Ministers, and that that is no part of die function of hon. Members who are sitting behind the Government?

In view of the fact that there is no Constitutional justification for this practice or custom which has grown up of selection by the Opposition, and in view of what my right hon. Friend said the other day about the flexibility of the Constitution, might he not enter into friendly negotiations through the usual channels with the Leader of the Opposition to see if this custom which has led to a great deal of hardship, could not be altered at any rate to this extent—that if, say, 150 Members of all parties desire it, certain days should be set apart for certain subjects not asked for by the Opposition?

On behalf of those who sit here, and no one else, may I say that we would be perfectly willing through the usual channels to discuss the matter and to make whatever arrangement might be considered best. The one thing that we are anxious for is that the goodness or the badness of His Majesty's Government should be brought out by its own supporters as well as by us.

As the point has been raised about consultations through the usual channels, may I, speaking for the smallest group in the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]— and one not likely to be consulted, intimate that we hope the leaders on both sides will not think it discourteous if we decline to be parties to any arrangement.

Is there not a smaller group than that of which my hon. Friend speaks? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is a group "on his own."

Following what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, to whom we are all very grateful for his reception of this suggestion, may ask if my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council would at least enter into a discussion on this matter with the Leader of the Opposition to see if some way could not be found of meeting the wishes expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), which represent a large body of opinion in the House.

I have not the slightest objection to consultations taking place with the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.

Questions To Ministers

I had given notice of a Private Notice Question which has not been called.

I did not consider that it was a question of sufficient urgency to justify it being put as a Private Notice Question.

Bills Presented

Rating And Valuation Bill

"to extend the duration of certain temporary provisions contained in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1928," presented by Sir Hilton Young; supported by Mr. Ernest Brown; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

Juries (Exemption Of Firemen) Bill

"to exempt firemen from service on special, common, and other juries,' presented by Mr. Annesley Somerville; supported by Sir John Withers, Mr. Wells, Mr. Savery, Sir Joseph Lamb, Mr. Hopkin Morris, Mr. Knight, and Sir Walter Greaves-Lord; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

Message From The Lords

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm and give effect to a certain agreement made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State with respect to the registration and control of veterinary surgeons." [Veterinary Surgeons (Irish Free State Agreement) Bill [ Lords.]

Navy Estimates, 1932

Copy presented,—of Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Estimates (by Command); to lie upon the Table.

Air Estimates, 1932

Estimates presented, —for the year 1932 (by Command); referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee B

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Colonel Ropner; and had appointed in substitution: Viscountess Astor.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Import Duties Expenses

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the imposition of a general ad valorem duty of customs and of additional duties on any goods chargeable with the duty aforesaid and of a certain other duty of customs, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, to such amounts as may be approved by the Treasury, of—
(a) the expenses of the Committee to be constituted for the purpose of giving advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under the said Act (including the expenses of the staff of the Committee and such salaries or other remuneration paid to all or any of the members of the Committee as the Treasury may determine); and
(b) the expenses incurred in pursuance of the said Act by the Board of Trade in obtaining and presenting to Parliament a summary of, information as to the condition and progress of trades and industries engaged in the manufacture in the United Kingdom of goods of a class or description which, if they were imported into the United Kingdom, would be chargeable with the said general ad valorem duty or any such additional duty aforesaid."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Major Elliot].

4.0 p.m.

This Motion relates to the expenses for the Advisory Committee and I ask the Committee in the first, place to observe that it does not cover the larger expenditure dealt with in the Financial Memorandum to the Import Duties Bill which is the expenditure on the Customs and Excise Department in connection with the Bill. This Resolution merely covers the expenditure of the Advisory Committee, and that expenditure is reckoned at £6,000 for this financial year and an amount not exceeding £50,000 in the years 1932 and 1933. There is a provision which will be considered later that the Committee should be composed of some six members, and I think it will be generally agreed that those members should be paid by this House and that the expenditure of the Committee should come under review by this House. The actual duties to be per- formed by the Committee will fall to be considered later in the day and the schedule of time has been carefully drawn so as to allow an opportunity for discussing the functions and duties of the Committee. All we are discussing at the moment—the House having decided that there is to be a committee—is the question of whether it is to be a paid committee and whether it is to be paid a reasonable sum. I think in all parts of the Committee there will be general agreement that that should be so. Consequently, I ask the approval of the Committee to the Resolution standing in my name, and I hope that it will be possible for the Committee to pass on as rapidly as possible to the consideration of Clause 1, which raises many subjects of the greatest importance, for which the time before us may be by no means too great.

On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir Dennis, if you will put the question in such a way as to safeguard the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name?

I will first read the Resolution.

I presume that at the commencement a general discussion on the Money Resolution will be convenient to the Committee. We are not anticipating devoting a large part of this afternoon to dealing with this comparatively minor item, if the Financial Secretary's words mean anything at all. I am not, however, sure that this Money Resolution is quite so narrow or so unimportant as the Financial Secretary would have us believe, for although the suggestion is that the Money Resolution merely concerns expenditure of approximately £6,000, we must look forward to an expenditure in the month of March of £43,000, and during a full year to an expenditure of £550,000.

This Motion does not cover that sum. This sum is limited to the expenditure on the Committee, and not the larger sum which will arise.

This Money Resolution deals only with that portion of expenditure which is allocated exclusively for the Advisory Committee. Once the Committee begins to function, it will call forth a hoard of new officials, against which the right hon. Gentleman would have fulminated had he been in Opposition. While this may be a very small matter this afternoon, the significance of it is very great. The Government came into existence for the purpose of practising economy, but it seems to me that this is a curious method of applying economy, seeing that this proposal will involve us in further expenditure of a sum of £550,000 ultimately, while the present expenditure is confined merely to a sum of £6,000. I want to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who may be a good Scotsman, but who, I fear, if this Money Resolution and the Bill are any indication, is a very poor economist, on what the £6,000 referred to is going to be expended in the month of March? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have made some sort of estimate as to the cost of the Advisory Committee and all the expenses which will be involved, and I think that we are entitled to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman what the estimate is. Has he made up his mind what salary the Chairman is to receive, and what salaries the members of the Advisory Committee are to receive? We are entitled to know that, because Members were very anxious to obtain similar information when our Government happened to be in office.

The present Government, or their immediate successors, who were pretty much the same, decided that the maximum amount permissible for the salary of a Member of Parliament was £360 per annum. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to tell us what salaries they intend to pay the chairman and members of the Advisory Committee, and we shall then be able to compare the practices of the present Government with their professions when in Opposition. When dealing with the Coal Reorganisation Commission I am not at all sure whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself made any reference to the salary of the chairman of the Commission. but I think that you, Sir Dennis, at that time on the Opposition benches did make some reference to the salary of £7,000 paid to the chairman of the Commission. While I realise that it would be unfair to attack you while you sit in the Chair, without an opportunity of replying, I cannot help recalling that you spoke for a large number of Members of the Conservative party when you said that there were many people in this country who would be quite ready to accept that position at half the salary. I want to know if your words had any weight with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if they are going to appoint this superman to carry on this function at a salary less than half of that paid to the chairman of the Coal Reorganisation Commission? I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who professed himself a sound economist, saying that no economist would vote for such a salary as was then under review. I remember that the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) said that the salary of £7,000 was excessive and that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies said that it was in excess of what it ought to be. Are we, then, not entitled to know what salaries the Government have in mind for the chairman and members of the proposed committee?

Secondly, I want to ask who are to be these great men who are to be endowed with almost unlimited powers to raise Customs Duties almost to the sky, to impose burdens upon the working-class population of this country, and, very possibly, to endanger a goodly proportion of our entrepot trade, our shipping trade and other trades which have been so successful for many years past? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his concluding speech on Tuesday evening, said he was convinced that there were plenty of men who could fulfill the functions of the Advisory Committee. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said, they would have to be archangels, almost endowed with superhuman power if they were to be of any use at all. He also concluded that the Advisory Committee to whom the Government are delegating these powers would not only be persons who would make the law, but they would act as judges at the same time. Seeing that the powers of these men are to be so comprehensive that they can raise duties to 100 per cent., we ought to know before we pass a vote for their salaries who these men are to be, because that is very vital at this moment.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making his first speech on this subject, said that what the Government required was scientific, moderate Protection; they wanted a Protection that would be flexible and elastic. They wanted a Committee who would adopt a judicial attitude. I want to know, since the right hon. Gentleman told us so little, what guarantee we have that this Committee is going to be a Committee with a judicial attitude? I think in the past fortnight I have listened to as many speeches on this subject as any Member of this House, and I cannot forget an observation made by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) when referring to this Advisory Committee. He said:

"I think we can take it for granted that the Committee will be composed of men who believe in protection as a policy. I hope that the chairman will not be a judge who will look at the thing from a judicial point of view in the legal sence, but will be a statesman of wide experience who believes in the principles on which the Government's policy is based. I would like to see someone like the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) as chairman of the Advisory Committee, someone whose personal character is above suspicion and is a believer in the policy, and one who means to carry it out thoroughly. It is no use trying any policy if you try it in a half-hearted and left-handed fashion; it must be carried out thoroughly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1932; cols. 1363-4, Vol. 261.]

Surely if illustrious Members of the Conservative party are indicating already that they do not want a committee who will adopt a judicial attitude, but a committee consisting of pronounced Protectionists who will have no consideration for the consumers generally, at least we are entitled, before passing this Vote for their salaries, to know who these wonderful men are going to be. Further, I want to remind the Financial Secretary that the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), in his speech on Tuesday, told us not only what he wanted but what the Conservative party wanted, too. He said to the right hon. Gentleman that they wanted no Committee which would hinder them from getting the maximum of Protection, and he said they wanted a general clean sweep, and sudden action over the whole field. He added that the Committee would have plenty of assistance from enthusiastic Protectionists who had been studying the subject for a very long time. If that is the sort of Committee that we are likely to get, some Committee which will believe in Protec- tion and insist upon having Protection instantaneously in its most comprehensive sense, some Committee which will give us full-blooded Protection without examining industries and trades at all, then I think we are justified in refusing to pass this Resolution until we know the personnel of that very vital Committee.

After all, we are not without some experience of advisory tariff boards. We have had such experience in South Africa, Canada, Australia, and the United States, and I do not think it would be out of place to remind the Committee of what that experience has been. I am sure that hon. Members will not wonder then at our hesitation to feel much enthusiasm for this proposal. The National Government of South Africa, in 1924, immediately on resumption of office, all its members having sympathy with Protection, established a tariff board.

"Rarely is it made known that the board is contemplating the amendment of a tariff item; rarely is evidence invited; no public sittings are held; and the whole proceedings are in camera…. Critics, knowing that the board regards itself purely as an instrument of Government policy, right or wrong, deny the likelihood of its suspecting the existence of, and taking steps to seek out, evidence which might prove Government policy to be mistaken, and which would be presented if advertised public sittings were held."

That is the experience of all the trades in the Dominion of South Africa. The tariff board is made up of men who believe in Protection; they ignore all else, and they ignore the effect, not only—

There is a professor of economics in South Africa who was a very keen Free Trader and who was a member of that board for five years.

That may have been so, but that does not alter the fact that no public sittings are held, that the tariff board do just as they like, and that all experience has gone to show that they carry out the wish and the will of the Protectionist Government in that Dominion. The Canadian Government wanted to be much more precise and fair than their colleagues in South Africa, so they set up a similar tariff advisory board, and they provided for public sittings, for evidence to be taken in public, and for plenty of advertisement to be given when the sittings were to be held, but as the result of their experience over a period of four years, that it happened to hamper the Protectionist desires of the Government, at the end of four years that tariff board was dispensed with. The Australian experience was very much like that of South Africa. All that I need say in referring to the United States of America is that one of the illustrious politicians in that country said—

I do not think we can have a general discussion on tariff boards under this Resolution.

I shall hesitate to contest your Ruling, but as we are considering the passing of £6,000, mainly for salaries to be devoted to an advisory tariff board, it seems to me that the experience of tariff boards in other countries is strictly relevant to the point at issue.

I think that is a discussion which should come on the Bill, not on this Resolution.

I thought that to make reference to existing tariff boards would be strictly relevant. However, I have no desire to pursue that question further, except to say that, as a result of all the experience that has been, obtained in South Africa, Canada, Australia and the United States, no one need wonder at our hesitation at all events in not accepting such a discouraging innovation in this country. Moreover, when we note statements made by hon. and right hon. Members sitting in all parts of the House, but not on the Labour party benches, as to their feeling on the question of a tariff board, not only is hesitation caused in our minds, but a good deal of apprehension too. The right hon. Member for Hillhead again on Tuesday issued a warning to the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he asked if we were to have separate investigations into each industry, and said that, if so, eternity would do. He asked if the Committee were going

"to be snowed under and suffocated from birth by innumerable petitions from all the industries of the country concerned?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1482, Vol. 261.]

That indicates that the right hon. Member for Hillhead is already irritated with the possibility of this Committee hampering and delaying action on Protectionist lines. Therefore, I think we are entitled to know, not only what salaries are to be paid to these supermen, but who these men will be. Now I want to deal with the duties of this Committee.

I do not think the hon. Member can deal with those duties now within the limits of our discussion.

But surely, if we are dealing with the salaries of the Advisory Committee, it ought to be relevant to make reference to the duties to be performed by the Committee, and unless some reference can be made to those duties, it is merely a question whether we shall or shall not give the Government this Resolution for nothing in particular, and just allow it to go through.

The hon. Member can refer to the duties of this Committee, but only in so far as they are specified in the Resolution. He cannot discuss those things which will appear in detail in the Bill.

I have no intention, of course, of resisting your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but the Money Resolution reads:

"The expenses of the Committee to be constituted for the purpose of giving advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under the said Act."

Very well. It is only if the Act is passed that this Resolution will become effective, and it is on the Bill that those matters will be properly discussed, not on this preliminary expenses Resolution.

It seems to me to be very difficult to be able to deal with this subject if we are to be limited to talking merely about the expenditure of £6,000 without making any reference to the duties of the Committee.

That is the exact point. There is a difficulty in the hon. Member's way of discussing things which are more properly discussable on the Bill and which are not properly discussable on this Resolution.

The Resolution distinctly states that the Committee has to discharge certain duties towards the Treasury. Are we not entitled to make reference to the duties which they are to discharge?

The Resolution says:

"In connection with the discharge by the Treasury of their functions under the said Act."

We cannot discuss what those functions will be until we have the Bill before us which sets out those functions.

If the discussion is to be limited to such a narrow point, I have no desire to waste the time of the Committee, but with regard to your ruling, Sir Dennis, if the duties of the Committee, involving as they do all kinds of interference with all sorts of trades and industries, are not to be discussed, then clearly the discussion is very limited.

The hon. Member will see that he does not know what those duties are. At the moment he has not got the Bill before him; he has only got this Resolution.

That is true, but we have had the Bill before us for several days, and it has now secured a Second Reading. We know, of course, that technically we are without a Bill and only have a Money Resolution before us, and to that extent perhaps your ruling is strictly correct. Although I am hesitant to accept it, I am obliged to do so in the end. What I was saying was that in attempting to trespass beyond the point where one is permitted to go, it was merely to emphasise that from three to six persons are to be paid salaries for performing certain functions involving all sorts of things with which I should have thought we might have been permitted to deal this afternoon.

4.30 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the choice of members of the committee and the determination of their salaries. He informed the House, when concluding the Second Reading Debate that Parliament would ultimately be responsible for any decisions that were taken. He knows full well—and this is our great concern—that while Parliament in theory may be ultimately responsible for the decisions taken, really the Committee will be responsible, and not Parliament, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is an avowed Protectionist, who will be willing to accept every decision the Committee may make that is suitable to his particular point of view, while ignoring every other recommendation. I do not see where Parliamentary responsibility will come in at all. There are no safeguards of any kind. As this committee is to deal with the main industries that are consuming industries, as well as trades and industries that are producing industries, we are entitled to know what safeguards are to be applied for the general mass of consumers. We ought to know what guarantees and safeguards there are to be in regard to efficiency and price; what guarantee we are to have that useless directors will be turned off many companies; and what guarantee there will be that what are called nonessential or luxury articles are not articles generally consumed by working-class people. The Government have been very ungenerous in the information that they have placed at our disposal.

We shall oppose this Motion, although we know that there is not the ghost of a chance of success. We oppose it firstly, on principle, and secondly, because there is such a lack of information available for the Committee on which to take its decision. We think that the Advisory Committee might easily develop into such an advisory committee as they have in South Africa, Canada, Australia and the United States and, instead of becoming a real safeguard for all industries and consumers, might become the biggest burden the country has ever had inflicted upon it. The right hon. Gentleman will go down to history. I am not sure if he will go down as the dutiful son of a Protectionist father. I am confident, however, that he will go down in history as the Minister who first of all denied children milk, and who followed that up by denying their parents of wage values by a proposal which may ultimately be the deadliest blow aimed at the workers of the country.

After that very cheerful oration from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) who says that he is fighting the Motion on principle, although after half an hour's speech I have not the vaguest idea of what the principle is, I rise to move my Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "moneys provided by Parliament, to," and to insert instead thereof the words:

"the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of"

I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member to move the Amendment, because it is out of order.

Would it be trespassing on your kindness to ask you to indicate why?

Because it proposes to charge upon the Consolidated Fund an indefinite sum. Perhaps I may add that if the hon. and gallant Member suggested that the sum should be defined in the Bill, he would then find himself faced with the words in the Motion:

"to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, to such amounts as may he approved by the Treasury."

Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member cannot in the Bill put in a fixed amount, because that amount might be more than was approved by the Treasury, and he would then be requiring a larger sum than had been asked for with the King's Recommendation.

But if the sum is put in the Bill, it would not be open to the Treasury to approve a larger sum. The Treasury is the servant of this House, and cannot enlarge the scope of the Bill.

The Treasury might refuse to approve as large a sum as was in the Bill. I cannot alter my decision.

I must bow to your Ruling, but perhaps I may make the point which I wish to put before the Committee, because I think that it is really fundamental to this Bill. You very properly stopped the hon. Member for Don Valley in dilating on the functions of the Committee in any detail. Those functions, as laid down by the Motion, are to give advice and assistance in connection with the discharge by the Treasury of certain Treasury functions. That raises the whole question as to whether the committee is to be an advisory committee in the ordinary sense of being a sort of servant of the Treasury, or whether it is to be an impartial tri- bunal such as I have always understood to be the policy enunciated by the leaders of my party in connection with a tariff Measure. I understood from the speech of the Lord President of the Council at Hull only last summer, in which he laid down the principles on which this Bill should be worked, that it should be a judicial committee and that the persons on the committee should be outside the scope of Parliament. It is for that reason that I tried to move that their salaries should be on the Consolidated Fund, which would have carried with it a corresponding Amendment in the Bill that they could only be removable by a Motion of both Houses, as in the case of the Judiciary.

In that case, therefore, the committee would be quite independent of the Government of the day and of this House. It would be able to make its recommendations, and the Government of the day would be responsible for the legislation or the orders which were brought before Parliament. The Government of the day always will be responsible; they cannot disclaim responsibility. If we accept the Motion, however, and find the money out of the Votes, it will be open to the Opposition to put down the Vote of the unfortunate committee every single Supply Day and initiate interminable discussions on the fiscal question, which we hoped that the passage of this Bill might make fewer instead of more numerous. Not only will that occur, but it will hamper the work of the committee, because they can only report their views to the Government and the Government have to bear the responsibility. It will be very invidious if this Motion is passed putting their salaries upon the Vote.

I understand from your Ruling that it is out of order for me to move this Amendment on the Money Resolution, but, of course, it is not out of order for the Government eventually to introduce another Motion to carry out the sense of the country with regard to the nature of this Committee. I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to indicate why this decision has been made. There are two alternatives. Either we have an advisory committee generally following out the known lines of policy of the Government of the day, or of the majority of the Government of the day; or we have an impartial tribunal whose views cannot be impugned by anybody partly because of the personnel and partly because their salary is on the Consolidated Fund and therefore taken out of the purview of the criticism of this House. These are the only two alternatives, and the Government have apparently come down on the side of putting the Advisory Committee on the Estimates. From such study as I have made of this question, I have come down on the other side.

I consider that it would be better to be a judicial committee outside the range of political issues and irremovable like the judiciary. We remember the trouble there was in regard to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the comings and goings there were about the fresh appointments. If we put this committee on the Consolidated Fund and outside the purview of the House and only removable by direct Motion of both Houses we avoid another accident of that kind. We shall also enable the committee to think out a reasonable and reasoned line of general policy for a period of years instead of being, as it otherwise would be, liable to possible expulsion with a change of Government. I hope that, as it is out of Order to move my Amendment and to have a Division on it, the Government will explain why they have come to this decision instead of adopting the line of policy advocated by the Lord President of the Council.

On a point of Order. There are certain Amendments to the Bill to be moved later for making the decisions of the Treasury subject to Parliament. Would it not be in order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to move an Amendment fixing the maximum to which the Treasury might go?

I think that it is quite possible that some Amendment of that sort might be in order, but I cannot say until I have seen the Amendment. I am bound to point out that it is asking rather a lot of the Chairman to expect hire to select Amendments on a point of this kind if they are in manuscript. At present I have not got one before me.

The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has raised some valuable points which were in my mind and have been worrying very many of us who approach this subject from a different angle. We have to accept the fact that the Bill has had a Second Reading by a very large majority, and our purpose now is to make the Bill work so that it will not do more damage than is possible. The right hon. Member for Spark brook (Mr. Amery) thinks that it will do an immense amount of good and wants to make it better. We are therefore very much of a mind. The nation would be more satisfied if the Advisory Committee bore a judicial character and was not a mere wing of the Treasury under the direction of the Minister of the day. On the other hand, although we want to see it judicial, we do not want to see it entirely independent of Parliament. We want the House of Commons to keep as tight a grip on finance as in the past, and, although we want the committee to be judicial, we do not want it to be independent of and out of control of the House of Commons. I want to raise the question of the sum of £50,000, which is the figure contained in the Financial Memorandum.

We are not now dealing with a sum of money, but are merely deciding the principle.

But if we pass this Motion we are committing ourselves to a certain scale of expenditure. When a department of this kind is set up, we must take the only figures available, which are the figures in the Financial Memorandum. I understand that the suns is £50,000, and that suggests something more than a mere committee. In the Bill we are told that there is to be a committee of from three to five members. If this Parliament was voted in for anything, it was voted in for economy. There was general agreement that the National Government was first brought into being in order to face the unpopular work of cutting down expenditure. One of the earliest things this new House of Commons is going to do, if £50,000 is to be accepted as the figure, is to create a new Department, a new organisation and a new staff. The wildest dreams as to the salaries of the gentlemen who are to constitute this committee would not go beyond £6,000 or £7,000, and therefore the figure in the Memorandum suggests that behind the members of this committee there will be a, Government Department. Will that Department be on a Civil Service basis? Already I have had letters asking me to do what I can to get jobs for various men out of work, though nothing could be more undesirable than that hon. Members be subject to such pressure. On what basis is the staff of this committee to be appointed? Is it to be a permanent basis? Are the officials to be appointed by the Treasury? If so, are they to be appointed from the Civil Service, and on what terms?

If the committee are to be a judicial committee, something like the committees set up under the safeguarding legislation, no staff or organisation will be necessary, but if the committee take the form of a Government Department we must assume that a large staff will be appointed, that officers will be going about the country collecting information, and that before long we shall be committed to the very thing we want to prevent—the creation of a new Government Department involving large expenditure. I think we are entitled to know a little more about the mechanism of the committee, and particularly to know whether it is to be a judicial committee. Is the spirit of the suggestion of the Lord President of the Council to be carried out? I should be more satisfied in my mind as a Free Trader if I knew that men were to be appointed with a judicial training and a judicial outlook, who would inquire impartially into all the issues that are at stake, not only giving consideration to those who want tariffs, but also looking after the interests of the consumers and of the general public. After all, their interests are just as important as the interests of those who are looking forward to acquiring advantages under the Bill. I hope the Financial Secretary will give us a statement explaining the character of the appointments, the conditions, what the staff will be, and whether a new Department is to be set up.

I shall do my utmost to respond to the appeal of my hon. Friends, but it will be clear that it is not possible for me to give all the detail which has been asked for in the very limited discussion which is open to us at the moment. We are discussing merely whether in principle the committee should be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and on that the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) very properly comes in. The points raised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) will come in more reasonably when we are discussing the actual composition and duties of the committee under Clause 2 of the Bill. To state the salaries, who are to be appointed and so on, would be as much out of place now as the giving of similar information on the early stages of, say, the Coal Mines Act would have been; then he would have regarded it as a most unreasonable demand. We are not being asked to approve now payments of £6,000 or £7,000 or of any thousands of pounds, but to establish the principle that if such a committee is set up we should be able to pay it out of moneys provided by this House.

The hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough suggested that their salaries should be put on the Consolidated Fund and not on the Votes. He seemed to consider that thereby it would be possible to make the committee a permanent one, not subject to alterations by successive Governments. But no Parliament can bind its successors. Anything done by a Parliament can be undone by a succeeding Parliament, and if they were put on the Consolidated Fund another Parliament would find it equally possible to take them off. We suggest that the method proposed in the Bill is a reasonable one, and we shall be prepared to defend it when we come to the Bill. It would not be in order to go into all the details now; we are fettered in discussion at the moment. All we are asked to do is to assent to the principle that these gentlemen should be paid, and paid by the Vote of the House. No other method will give them greater security. With the assurance of the Government that it is their desire to make these appointments as nearly judicial as possible, I ask the Committee to pass this Resolution, and let us get on to the wider issues raised by the Bill itself.

The Financial Secretary has made a most disappointing reply to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). The hon. and gallant Member realises, naturally, that if we put the salaries of the advisory committee on to the Consolidated Fund it would be open to another Parliament to take them off, but that is not really the point at issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Financial Resolution, laid great stress on the point that the members of the committee ought to be independent of political influence and that their findings should be judicial. It is utterly impossible to constitute this body as a semi-judicial body and expect them to give findings which will be regarded as not subject to political influence unless we put their salaries on to the Consolidated Fund. Otherwise, they will be open every year to criticism when the Vote is put down, as obviously it will be —I should not blame the Opposition for putting it down—on various Supply Days.

Division No. 65.]	AYES.	[4.55 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Everard, W. Lindsay
Albery, Irving James	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)	Falle Sir Bertram G.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Chotzner, Alfred James	Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Christie, James Archibald	Fraser, Captain Ian
Apsley, Lord	Clarke, Frank	Ganzoni, Sir John
Aske, Sir Robert William	Clarry, Reginald George	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Gibson, Charles Granville
Atholl, Duchess of	Colfox, Major William	Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Baldwin. Rt. Hon. Stanley	Colville, Major David John	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Balniel, Lord	Conant, R. J. E.	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Cooke, James D.	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Cooper, A. Duff	Goff, Sir Park
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Courthope, Colonel Sir George t.,	Goodman, Colonel Albert W
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Craven-Ellis, William	Gower, Sir Robert
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Crooke, J. Smedley	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Bird. Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)	Grimston, R. V.
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Cross. R. H.	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Crossley, A. C.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Blindell, James	Dalkelth, Earl of	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Borodale, Viscount	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Davison, Sir William Henry	Hanbury, Cecil
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hanley, Dennis A.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Harbord, Arthur
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Denville, Alfred	Hartington, Marquess of
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Hartland, George A,
Brocklebank, C. E. R	Dickie, John P.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Donner, P. W.	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Browne, Captain A. C.	Doran, Edward	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Buchan, John	Drewe, Cedric	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Duckworth, George A. V.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Burghley, Lord	Duggan, Hubert John	Hillman, Dr. George B.
Burnett, John George	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Dunglass, Lord	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Caine, G. R. Hall-	Eden, Robert Anthony	Hare-Belisha, Leslie
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Edge, Sir William	Hornby, Frank
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Waite E.	Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Howard, Tom Forrest
Carver, Major William H.	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Eimley, Viscount	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Castle Stewart, Earl	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Marc)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Their actions can also be criticised on the Public Accounts Committee and on the Estimates Committee, and in many ways their findings will be continually subject to political influence. That is the one thing we do not want, and I am bitterly disappointed that at the very beginning of this Bill the Chancellor should proceed practically to nullify the one thing which he said was essential to it.

When we come to discuss the character of this committee later, shall we be ruled out of order on the ground that we have already passed a Resolution which brings it into being?

No, the hon. Member is wrong. The Resolution does not bring the committee into being. It merely authorises the expenses of the committee if the committee should be brought into being.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 50.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Moreing, Adrian C.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Iveagh, Countess of	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.	Morrison, William Shephard	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Moss, Captain H. J.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ker, J. Campbell	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Smithers, Waldron
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Kimball, Lawrence	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Soper, Richard
Knatchbull, Caption Hon. M. H. R.	Normand, Wilfrid Guild	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Knebworth, Viscount	North Caption Edward T.	Spencer, Caption Richard A
Knight, Holford	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Hebert H.
Knox, Sir Joseph Quinton	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Palmer, Francis Noel	Stewart, William J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Patrick, Colin M.	Stones, James
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Peake, Caption Osbert	Strauss, Edward A.
Leckie, J. A.	Pearson, William G.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Peat, Charles U.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Levy, Thomas	Pertherick, M.	Templeton, William P.
Lewis, Oswald	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Liddall, Walter S.	Potter, John	Thomas, James P. L. (Herford)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillp Cunliffe-	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton
Llewellin, Major John J.	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Lloyd, Geoffrey	Purbrick, R.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)	Pybus, Percy John	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Loder, Caption J. de Vere	Ramsay, Capt A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Loder, Caption J. de Vere	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Mabane, William	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)	Ramsden, E.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
McCorquodale, M. S.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Reid, Dravid D. (County Down)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Watt. Caption George Steven H.
McKie, John Hamilton	Remer, John R.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Wells, Sydney Richard
McLean, Major Alan	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Weymouth, Viscount
McLean Dr. W H. (Tradeston)	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Renell	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Ropner, Colonel L.	Williams. Charles (Devon, Torquay
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.	Ross, Ronald D.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Runge, Norah Cecil	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.
Margesson, Capt, Henry David B	Russsell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Martin, Thomas B.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo	Wise, Alfred R.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Salmon, Major Isidore	Withers, Sir John James
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Salt, Edward W.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Millar, Sir James Duncan	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Young Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Savery, Samuel Servington	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mitcheson, G. G.	Scone, Lord	Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Selley, Harry R.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Batey, Joseph	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Briant, Frank	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil	Maxton, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfiled)	Harris, Sir Percy	Nathan, Major H. L.
Buchanan, George	Hicks, Ernest George	Parkinson, John Allen
Cape, Thomas	Hirst, George Henry	Price, Garbriel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hopkinson, Austin	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cove, William G.	Jenkins, Sir William	Thorne, William James
Cowan, D. M.	John, William	Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Wallhead, Richard C.
Daggar, George	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwardes, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Lunn, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McEntee, Valentine L.	Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mckeag, William

Resolution to be reported forthwith, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th February.

Resolution reported accordingly, and agreed to.

Order Of The Day

Import Duties Bill

Considered in Committee.

[1st ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

I am going to ask you, Sir, for your Ruling as to whether it will be in order to move to omit items from the first Schedule of the Bill Having regard to the way in which the Bill is drawn and the terms of the Financial Resolution, I submit that it would be convenient that a Ruling should be given at this early stage. The effect of Amendments to omit items from the first Schedule of the Bill would be to remove those commodities from the free list and bring them under the taxation in the clauses of the Bill.

I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for asking a question. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I give a Ruling now. The Ways and Means Resolution provides for a charge of a Customs Duty on the value of all goods imported into the United Kingdom, except goods of any class or description which may be exempted by the contemplated Act. Therefore, under the Ways and Means Resolution, this House can pass legislation imposing this duty upon all goods imported into the United Kingdom, either without any exception or with such, or so many or so few, exceptions as Parliament may choose to decide. Consequently, any Amendment to the first Schedule either to add items to that Schedule or to remove items from that Schedule would be in order, as being within the Financial Resolution.

I think perhaps it will be convenient that I should add that in those circumstances, such an Amendment can be moved by any member of the Committee, and that it is not confined to Members of the Government to do that. The Government have exhausted their exclusive right of initiating taxation or of the imposing of a duty, by initiating and getting passed the Ways and Means Resolution, and therefore, within the terms of that Resolution, Members of the Government and other members of the Committee are all equal, the Govern- ment, having so to speak, exhausted any right of veto that might result from their exclusive right of initiating legislation. Of course if the Government had desired that certain items should not be removable from the Schedule they would have drawn the Resolution in such a form that those particular goods would not be exempted from the taxation.

May I ask on that same point, whether when we come to the Schedule it will be in order only to add to the Schedule certain individual goods, such as cork wood, cork shavings and so on, or will it also be in order to add to the Schedule a, whole class of manufactured goods?

Yes, I think it will be in order, if those classes are properly defined. I cannot give an exact Ruling until I know the exact form of such Amendments. I may say that there are certain Amendments down on the Order Paper by hon. Members which propose to exempt certain goods not by means of Amendments to the Schedule but by Amendments to Clause 1. When we come to those Amendments I intend to rule that they should not be taken on the Clause but should be taken as Amendments to the Schedule.

In view of the fact that we are not selecting those Amendments that raise broad questions of principle, I think the fact that we cannot move them here means that we shall be able to raise questions of principle on the Schedule.

A principle which is embodied in the Clause may of course be discussed on the question that the Clause stand part.

Does that mean that as the Ways and Means Resolution included iron goods, an Amendment to limit the class of goods to manufactured articles would, he out of order?

No, I say that any Amendment to exempt from the duty a class of goods would come as an Amendment to the Schedule instead of as an Amendment to Clause 1.

Would it not be more convenient to discuss it on the Clause rather than on the Schedule?

That perhaps is a matter of opinion. My opinion is the opinion I have just given to the Com- mittee, and the hon. Member will know that in this case it is my opinion which "goes."

I beg to move, in page 1, line 4, after the word "view," to insert the words:

"to the promoting of mutually beneficial trade with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions."

It would be a pity—

It seems that these Amendments appear in a different order in the Blue Paper. On the White Paper there are three Amendments which come before the Amendments to Clause 1. I think hon. Members who have the Blue Paper will find them right at the end.

It would seem to be a pity if, in a recital of the objects of this Bill, we left out an object which, I think, is certainly not the least important from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of most Members of the House, and with which I think all Members, irrespective of their views as to method, would sympathise. We have laid down among the objects the making of an addition to public revenue, the restriction of importation, and the securing of better terms for British trade from foreign countries. Surely it would be a pity if we omitted from this recital of the objects of the Bill the greatest object of all, namely, the promotion of inter-Imperial trade. Moreover, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can justly claim that this object is already fulfilled in large measure by a Bill which gives Empire trade the advantage of free entry, as against a 10 per cent charge on foreign goods, over so large a field of our whole importation, and we all hope that at the Ottawa Conference we shall see some more substantial structure of inter-Imperial trade built up on the foundations of this Bill. Therefore, I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would meet the feeling of the House generally, and, I think, avoid any possible misunderstanding in the Empire outside, if the greatest of our objects were clearly stated in the recital. I attach no importance, of course, to the actual wording of my Amendment, and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers any alternative form of words expressing the same point, I would willingly accept it.

May I say, in supporting the proposal of my right hon. Friend, that I am sure the whole Committee will desire to see these words inserted. In fact, the whole spirit of the Bill seems to be along those lines, and the Government themselves have founded their Bill on the principle which these words are intended to convey. Although we shall, naturally, be very much divided on subsequent Amendments, I hope that we may be unanimous on this one.

I am afraid I am a little taken by surprise by this Amendment, for I had not been aware that it would be taken at this stage, and, really, I have only just seen it. Therefore, what I say in regard to it must be taken as coming from me without my having had adequate time for consideration. With the object and the spirit of the Amendment I have, of course, every sympathy, but I have some doubt as to whether it is quite proper to put it in the form in which it stands here. The Preamble states that we, His Majesty's dutiful and most loyal subjects, with a view to accomplishing certain objects, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and grant unto His Majesty certain duties. I am not sure that it would he appropriate to say that one of our objects in giving and granting duties to His Majesty would be:

"the promoting of mutually beneficial trade with other parts of His Majesty's Dominions."

Certainly that is an incidental advantage which will be derived from the giving and granting of duties to His Majesty, and one to which, as the Committee knows, we attach great importance, but I should not quite like to accept the Amendment at this stage without further consideration. If I might make the suggestion to my right hon. Friend, perhaps he would withdraw the Amendment now, in order that I might have time to look at it further and might consult with him before the Report stage.

Naturally, I am ready to fall in with my right hon. Friend's suggestion. In doing so I would only point out to him that in one case at least, namely, where foreigners discriminate against us, the provision of a remedy is contemplated in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 4, to leave out the words "in the national interest."

It might appear that everything that we propose to do would be in the national interest, but many of my friends believe quite sincerely that this Bill will not help the national interest, and therefore we consider it inadvisable to put in these words. One of the objects of these proposals, as stated in the Preamble, is the restriction of importation. That is a matter of opinion, but this Bill is for that purpose. I t seems to us, however, that to state that this is done in the national interest would be to convey the idea that it would help the national interest, that it would be an advantage to this country to have such a Measure. On the other hand, we believe that it would be detrimental to the national interest, and calculated to restrict trade and lower our credit, though no doubt there are many who do not agree with us.

On a point of Order. I should like to ask you, Sir Dennis, for the guidance of the Committee, whether it is your intention to exercise what I understand is your right, even when working under the Guillotine, of selecting Amendments? I would respectfully point out that there are on the Paper Amendments of great importance which will have to be discussed in a very short time, and, without in any way commenting upon your selection—which it would be most improper to do—I merely desire to raise the question, and to ask you whether, if I may put it in the most respectful way, you will exercise your judgment in choosing those Amendments which are of some importance?

I am afraid that I shall have to submit myself to the Noble Lord's judgment later on, after he has seen what course I shall take.

I am very much obliged.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 1—(Charge Of General Ad Valorem Customs Duty Of 10 Per Cent)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, at the beginning, to insert the words:

"Subject to inquiry and report as hereinafter prescribed, and"

The object of this Amendment is to enable us to have an inquiry before these duties are levied. Statements have been made in the Debates of the last few days to the effect that the Opposition have not put forward anything that was really worth consideration, but I suggest that the same applies equally to the supporters of this Measure. I suggest that no adequate reason has been given for putting forward these proposals, and that the House of Commons, and, through the House, the country, should be told why these proposals are put forward. If the Government's case for these proposals is a good one, surely they have nothing to fear from putting the results of their inquiries before the House, and I suggest that we are entitled to know the grounds on which they have come to the conclusion that they have. At the election, the electorate was clearly told that there would be ample inquiry before any tariff proposals were brought forward. The Prime Minister himself, after referring to the trade conditions throughout the world, said that it would not only be reasonable but advisable to examine our conditions and requirements, to see how far, if at all, pre-War policy should be modified or improved upon. Further, he said that, on the other hand, we know that tariffs have not cured the economic ills of countries like the United States and Germany. The Prime Minister also said:

"If it is necessary to limit our imports and so forth, we have open minds to explore the whole situation."

The Lord President of the Council, also, after saying that this was not the real issue of the election, said that the Prime Minister and Mr. Snowden had both stated the position fairly and accurately, and that the National Government must be allowed to consider any and every expedient which might help to establish the balance of trade. Lastly, the Lord President of the Council said that the question of a tariff applied at any point must be examined from the point of view of the complete national interest, and that the strongest Free Traders were perfectly willing that that examination should take place. The Home Secretary, in his speech on the Financial Resolutions, deplored the fact that the Government had not taken the considered opinions of leading men in finance, trade, and so on. I suggest, therefore, that up to the present we have not had from the Government any adequate reason for bringing forward these proposals. Why is it that we cannot be told who was consulted before the Government came to this decision Were the Economic Advisory Committee consulted, and, if so, why cannot we be told what their opinion was? Were the shipping interests of this country consulted? The President of the Board of Trade stated the other day in this Chamber that the shipping industry was one of the most important in this country, and had at least 100 industries dependent upon it. He further stated—and I almost hesitate to remind him of this—that our shipping industry has been built up on freedom. I would ask if the shipping industry of this country has been consulted with regard to the proposals which are before us to-day?

5.30 p.m.

I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the most substantial items in the adverse balance of trade which we have to-day is the loss of our shipping earnings, and, as we are the greatest carriers of goods in the world, I should have thought that it would have been of some importance, to say the least, that that industry should be consulted and that the House of Commons should be told what their opinion was. Again, have the financial interests been consulted? Then there are the users of raw materials. I do not know whether they have been consulted, but Members of the House have received within the last few days a few intimations from users of raw materials, giving their opinions on the proposals. Everyone seems to be awaking now to the fact that their particular raw materials will come in under the tariff of 10 per cent, at least, and is beginning to realise what we have always said, namely, that you cannot protect one industry without damaging others. Judging from the Amendments on the Paper, there are many supporters of the Government in the House who want to get certain raw materials left out. Will the Government tell us whether any of these industries were consulted before these proposals were decided upon? Further, might I ask was any inquiry at all made as to the condition of industry in Protectionist countries at present? It would be very interesting to know the results of an inquiry in America, which is a fully Protectionist country and which is suffering the economic depression that other countries are suffering. Surely it is relevant for us to be told whether the Protectionist system in America is enabling America to come through its troubles any better than we are doing.

Judging from things which I have heard from America, and which for some reason or another do not appear as freely as they might in the Press of this country, conditions there are very much more serious than they have been here at any time since the War. I heard the other day of an airship being used to fly over New York with a loud speaker attached calling upon the people to bring out any old clothes that they had or any food that they could spare to give to the unemployed. That is in the richest city, I suppose, in the whole world. I do not know of any town in this country where the teachers have not been paid for seven weeks and where the municipal employés have not been paid and are living as best they can on the charity of their friends. Seeing that we are taking this revolutionary step, and that the reason given for depression in this country is that we have Free Trade, I should have thought it would have been relevant and interesting for us to be given the results of Protection in other countries, because, after all, we are trying to get this country out of its depression and we can learn something from countries which have this system already.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said that things were not really very bad. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) at the end of his speech, in most of which he advocated Protection, said he did not see any country in the world that we need envy, and I entirely agree with him. If there is no country in the world that we need envy, I want to know why we are making a change. There must be, surely, an overwhelming case for placing these proposals before us, and the only reason why my friends and I have put this Amendment down is because we feel that before adopting proposals of this sort, which are going to affect this country in every section of the community and every industry in it, the House is entitled to know what inquiries were made and what the results of those inquiries were.

I rise to support the Amendment. I may, perhaps, be allowed to refer to a speech that I made on the Second Reading, and to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in commenting upon what I said. I suggested that the figures upon which the right hon. Gentleman has based himself were open to criticism. I should be sorry if he read into the remarks I made any suggestion of a doubt in my mind that any difference in the figures was other than purely unintentional, or by reason of a different interpretation of the figures from that which I put upon them. The right hon. Gentleman said he was of the opinion that, in ascertaining the balance of payments, movements of bullion should not be included. I had indicated my view that these movements of bullion were just as relevant as movements of goods. While I recognise that there may legitimately be a difference of opinion, and that the right hon. Gentleman speaks not only with personal high authority, but as having the advantage of the most skilled advice, yet I would fortify myself by a statement on this subject in the "Economist" of 12th December. There will be few who will dispute the reputation or standing of the "Economist" in matters coming within its special sphere. It said:

"Though bullion imports and exports are strictly not eligible for inclusion in an income account, they may legitimately be included when the object of inquiry is to ascertain how far excessive demand for devisee arising from a debtor balance is straining the sterling exchange."

The problem with which we are confronted is, What is the nature and the extent of the strain upon the sterling exchange. I found myself upon that statement and I do not withdraw the suggestion that, by the omission of the figures relating to the movements of bullion, the calculations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers are of less usefulness than might otherwise be the case.

On a point of Order. Could you, Sir, for our guidance, indicate what you think is the proper scope of the discussion on this Amendment? At present we seem to be entering into a continuation of the Second Reading Debate and referring specifically to arguments used on that occasion.

I was very near making that observation to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. This seems to give the opportunity for almost a general discussion on the Clause itself within certain limits, but certainly not on anything outside the Clause.

It will be my aim to keep myself within your Ruling, Sir. The Amendment is directed to procuring the setting up of an inquiry on the ground that no adequate inquiry, as promised by the Government, has yet been held. An inquiry was promised to the nation by the Prime Minister and his principal supporters in the Government, and no indication has yet been given as to what the result of that examination was or what evidence was produced. We hold the view, in the first place, that the promise made by the Prime Minister and his colleagues yet remains to be fulfilled, and, in the second place, that, before any of the duties contemplated by the Bill become operative, it is essential in the national interest that the appropriate inquiry should be held to ascertain whether or not the national interests demand it. It is relevant in that connection to consider how far the information which the Government has up to this time disclosed is, or is not, an indication that an adequate examination has already been held. In my submission, there is no such indication, and I was referring to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to calling him to my aid. I questioned the accuracy of certain figures, independently of this question of the movement of bullion, and I suggest that, whereas the right hon. Gentleman had given the figures for the invisible exports for 1929 at £482,000,000, they were shown by the February, 1931, Board of Trade Journal to be £504,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman very fairly dealt with that point by saying:

"I frankly admit that the hon. and gallant Member was at a disadvantage, because I have access to information which I know is not in his possession, and, therefore, the position is exactly the opposite. The Board of Trade are in the habit of correcting the figures of the balance of trade in the light of new information which comes to them from time to time, and since issuing those corrected figures the Board of Trade have again corrected them and the new corrected figures are identical to those that I gave to the House and will be found in the next issue of the 'Board of Trade Journal.'"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1596, Vol. 261.]

Let us check that.

I really cannot understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have been listening to him for some considerable time without finding how he really can attach this to anything that he can properly discuss on this Amendment. It is quite true that, if he had not the Chair to check him, he could make the Amendment asking for an inquiry a peg on which to hang a discussion on any earthly subject in the world; but I do not propose to allow him on this occasion to go into a discussion as to how figures obtained by the Board of Trade are calculated or checked.

Not only do I submit to your Ruling, Sir, but I find myself in complete agreement with it. It is far from my intention to embark upon any such investigation as that which, unfortunately, I must have misled you into thinking I envisage. I will not proceed with the subject, but I will ask for your Ruling upon this point. An Amendment is on the Paper asking for an inquiry before certain taxes are imposed under this Bill. The National Government stated more than once that they proposed to hold an inquiry. No evidence has been forthcoming as to any inquiry being held of any specific character which is capable of criticism or of examination, except certain figures which have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The point upon which ask your guidance is, whether it is or is not within the rules of order in speaking to this Amendment for me to adduce in support of the Amendment the contention that the information given to the House so far by the Government, as a result of the examination which it purports to have held, does not bear a sufficient test to justify this being called an examination at all?

I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for referring the question to me. He has called my attention to the further Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment and in the name of other hon. Members—in page 3, line 2, at the end, to add the words —

"(5) The duty imposed by this section shall not be levied unless and until a tribunal of inquiry, appointed by the Treasury, shall have reported to Parliament that the economic situation is such as to render the imposition of the duty imperative, and Parliament shall have signified its approval of the tribunal's recommendation and of the arguments upon which it is based."

I think I may reply in this way. The hon. and gallant Member must keep this discussion at least strictly within the terms of the prescribed inquiry which is proposed in the second Amendment, which is consequential upon this Amendment.

This Amendment provides that the duty shall not be levied unless a tribunal of inquiry shall have reported to Parliament that the economic situation is such as to render the imposition of the duty imperative. That is the very task which His Majesty's Government, out of the mouth of the Prime Minister, pledged themselves to the nation to undertake, and it is clear, in my submission, that if the Government were able to show that they had already undertaken that inquiry, it would be, I will not say a conclusive, but a very substantial answer to the suggestion put forward in this Amendment. I submit to you, Sir, that I may properly justify a comment upon the figures so far disclosed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the foundation upon which I may found the request for the tribunal referred to in this Amendment. If I should unwillingly trespass upon your Ruling, you will no doubt at once inform me. The reason for calling for a fresh inquiry is—and it is the contention advanced by my hon. Friends with whom I am associated in this Amendment—that no inquiry such as was promised by the Prime Minister has so far been held.

I come back now to the figures published to-day, I think, at two o'clock this afternoon, in the "Board of Trade Journal." I will try to keep myself strictly within your Ruling, and I hope that I shall succeed. It will not be for the want of effort if I do not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his financial statement, informed the House that the 1929 figures of the excess of imports of merchandise were£382,000,000 as compared with £409,000,000 for 1931, and that the invisible exports for 1929 amounted to £482,000,000, and for 1931, £296,000,000. I challenged those figures, and I challenge them to-day. In February, 1931, by a recalculation, the invisible exports were figured by the Board of Trade at £504,0000000 as against£482,000,000 given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which, he said, would be substantiated by the issue of the Journal of the Board of Trade, a copy of which I hold in my hand.

Really the hon. and gallant Member cannot do that. He is, apparently, trying to base his demand for inquiry upon the fact that, as he alleges, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given information which turns out to be incorrect. He is proposing to prove that to his satisfaction from information which has apparently been obtained by the Government, and he is thereby destroying his own case by saying that the Government have obtained the information.

May I make the point clear? I have no desire to impose upon the indulgence of the Committee, but this is a, matter of some national importance. It is of no importance to me.

But there are many questions of importance which the hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss on this particular Measure. I have extended a great deal of latitude, and I have been endeavouring to follow a somewhat long argument in order to see whether the conclusion brings it within the limits of the discussion which is admissible upon this Amendment. I have not been able to find any evidence in his speech during the last five minutes or more to justify my coming to such a conclusion.

I can only make every effort to try once again to keep myself within your Ruling. Will it be within or without your Ruling if I were to quote from the "Board of Trade Journal," which is issued by and on the authority of His Majesty's Government, figures which differ from the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

No, I do not think it would. I have already dealt with that point, which was the first point upon which I ruled. It was information which, as he says, had been obtained by His Majesty's Government. If either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else has made a mistake, there is no reason for blaming His Majesty's Government for not obtaining information, when apparently, they have obtained it, according to the hon. and gallant Member himself.

I shall have another opportunity, which I shall not fail to take, subject to your Ruling, of expanding and extending the point to which it was my desire to direct the attention of the Committee. I will leave those figures for a later opportunity. I say that an inquiry having been promised to the nation by the Government, it would be a breach of faith on the part of the Government, unless the details of inquiry, and the recommendations made by the Government, and, not only the recommendations, but the reasons upon which they were founded, were placed fully and frankly before the country. If it were clear that those recommendations were not justified by the figures which His Majesty's Government put forward as purporting to support them, it would be an ample reason for setting on foot a new inquiry such as that contemplated by the Amendment now under discussion.

It should be an inquiry, not of Members of His Majesty's Government sitting in Cabinet, but an inquiry by skilled investigators examining into all the relative material, not only in this country but abroad, into the state of our industry, and into what the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to as the reactions and the inter-actions of each part of the policy upon every other part. Such an inquiry, obviously, has not yet taken place. The facts which emerged from the inquiry, such as it was, which has already been held have not been disclosed to the nation, and the country will, I feel sure, be loth to be, and should not be, placed in the position of having to accept a Bill imposing these onerous duties, and altering permanently the whole fiscal system of the country, without first having the authority, full and complete, without equivocation, of the information and data available.

My hon. and gallant Friend has based his argument very largely upon the assumption that those who collect and prepare statistics for the Government are amateurs, and, apparently from his arguments, incompetent amateurs. The one test which he has applied to these investigations, as they have been published, is whether or not they have included as export from this country the carriage of bullion from this country to foreign countries. There was a time when, as everybody in the House knows, the passage of bullion to and fro between countries was the normal way of finishing a series of transactions The amount transferred was comparatively small. But our advisers have taken the view—and we entirely agree with them—that during the last three years, and certainly during the last year, the export of bullion from this country was not a transaction in the ordinary way of trade exports, but was directly connected with our capital movements. This we have set out in full so that my hon. and gallant Friend may be able to read it, and read it at leisure. He will find on page 216 of the "Board of Trade Journal" published to-day the reasons given at the foot of the second column for our technicians telling us that the movements of gold with which they deal here are dealt with as movements of capital. When you come, some four pages later, to the final table it will be seen, at the foot of that table, that the excess of exports of gold bullion and specie from this country in 1931 was £35,000,000. In the ordinary way, export from this country would be regarded as being an addition to our national wealth. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will find in his leisure moments that this transfer of £35,000,000 was not for our enrichment but for our impoverishment. We were the poorer by £35,000,000 as a result of that transfer, and not the richer.

6.0 p.m.

The reason why I have mentioned that matter is to draw attention to the fact that he and my hon. and gallant Friend opposite fall back upon the assumption that people altogether outside the official circle, who are not connected with Government Departments, men who, however estimable they may be as political economists, have none of the responsibility of Government and none of the ordinary practice, must of necessity be wiser than those actually engaged in the Government Departments themselves. I have had a pretty long experience of skilled investigators in one Department or another, and I have never met investigators outside Governments who are more skilled than those inside the Civil Service. They are augmented by some of the best opinions in the country. The assumption is made that there has been no inquiry which has led up to our present position. Let me tell the Committee, very briefly, what actually occurred. It was quite clear last September that we had to deal with an entirely new situation. We had to make investigations of a new order with the greatest rapidity. That could only be made by people who were within the Government rather than outside the Government. An undertaking was given during the General Election that that inquiry would be prosecuted with the utmost speed, and it was in pursuance of that promise that, immediately the election was over, without any delay the Government set to work, with the assistance of their skilled advisers, to obtain the materials which were requisite for the forming of a judgment. Of course, the judgment must rest with the Government; they accepted that responsibility. They were well aware of the fact that when they set to work they were going to cover a great deal of ground. They also knew that it would be foolish to throw away the information which had been accumulated, which was well known to many people and which did not need to appear in the report of a Royal Commission, or whatever the inquiry might be.

During the weeks before the Christmas Recess we were very hard at work in the Departments obtaining all the material that we thought necessary. Immediately the Christmas holidays were over the Cabinet Committee set to work, with the assistance of those on whose services we had the right to call, to deal with the problem as a whole, taking it in the bulk, in the mass. We lost no time in that way. If we had followed the advice of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) we should have been setting up something like a Royal Commission, or something with equal dignity, covering as wide an area and containing members of the most varied views, particularly representative of the great science of political economy. What would have been the result? I am perfectly sure that if we had had on that Commission six economists we should at the end, when the report was published, have had seven different opinions. Sooner or later the Government have to make up their mind and accept responsibility.

My hon. and gallant Friend opposite would have them inquire into the effect upon shipping, and what is to be the effect upon the numerous raw materials that are used in our industries. They would have to make elaborate inquiries into the conditions which rule abroad. They would, in particular, have to make inquiries into the state of America, to report on how the poor are maintained in America, and what has brought about the depression in America. If one cared, one could make out a list of inquiries which would cover the whole conditions of trade in every country of the world. What would have been the good of it when we had got it all? It would only have enabled us to form a judgment such as the Government have formed. Of course, we must watch very carefully what is happening abroad, but nothing has happened abroad that would make us believe that their state is comparable to ours. We were in a peculiar economic position. We had become up to last year the clearing house of the world, but in the autumn, in the process of clearing Europe into America, it was this country that had to bear the strain, and in bearing the strain we very nearly broke down under it.

Seeing our position, knowing the situation with which we had to deal, knowing the problems with which we were faced, were we to have an inquiry which was independent of us? Obviously, it would be outside the area of the Civil Service. We have the Civil Service available, but it was something additional that my hon. and gallant Friend wants. According to him, we were to go right outside to find those who were to make the inquiry, and we were to give them this very long reference as to the countries and the subjects into which they were to inquire. What is to happen in the meantime? Are we to go steadily downhill? Are we to see one risk after another before us and not to attempt to meet it? We had to make a rough-and-ready attempt to meet the situation before the House rose. We issued the Abnormal Importations Orders, and they had an immediate effect, an effect which was psychological as well as economical. They showed the world that we were determined to deal fearlessly with our conditions. The mere promptitude of that action had as good an effect as the proposals themselves. Any further delay in making further inquiry before we make up our minds as to what we would do is totally unnecessary. We have not the time to spare. We have our materials at our disposal, and I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment, which would be an utter waste of precious time. At the present time we want to see action taken, and taken with great rapidity.

It seems to me that the doctrine of Cabinet irresponsibility is going very far when we hear such a speech as that which has been delivered by the President of the Board of Trade. He has gone out of his way to pour scorn and ridicule upon the Lord President of the Council. During the election the Lord President of the Council said that he was in favour of an inquiry taking place. He did not suggest a foolish sort of inquiry such as the President of the Board of Trade suggests. Re did not say that we should have six or seven economists on the Commission, all of different opinions. What he did say was that he was in favour of setting up an impartial commission to consider the question of setting up a scientific tariff. He said that last October during the election. He did not say anything about its composition, but he did want a businesslike commission. That was his suggestion, and the President of the Board of Trade is now making fun of it. It is easy to do that by setting up a man of straw and then knocking it down.

I am strongly in favour of inquiry because it is quite clear that although the Government may have secured a mandate to tax manufactured articles they did not get a mandate to tax raw materials or food. I desire the inquiry because I think that the proposal to put a 10 per cent. duty on everything coming into the country is absolutely unscientific from the Protectionist point of view. The ablest tariff reformers have always admitted that imports have to pay for exports. They say that they do not want to stop imports by means of tariffs. They always say, "We do not want to reduce imports but we want to change their character." They say that the proper policy for this country is to get in our raw materials, to work them up into manufactured goods and then to sell them for five or six times their original value. That policy was advocated years ago by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). I lent the book containing the right hon. Gentleman's statement of policy to a relative, and he returned it with the remark that it was too Socialistic. There is a good deal to be said for that sort of argument, but for the argument to put a flat rate upon every sort of goods that comes into this country, whether raw material or manufactured articles, there is nothing to be said. That is why the Government are closuring the Debate, in order to apply their majority to the support of an indefensible position.

In view of the financial position of the country an inquiry ought to be made into the whole question of the taxation of raw materials. I will not go into the matter in any detail, because it was very ably put by the Home Secretary. He pointed out that we buy £160,000,000 worth of goods a year from foreign countries in the shape of raw materials, and he further pointed out that although we might get, say, £1,000 of tax under such a scheme that might mean that a firm would lose an order worth £50,000. By taxing raw material the Government will hamper production. They have admitted that, because they are proposing to let in the raw materials for our big staple industries —wool, cotton, iron and shipbuilding. What do the Government intend to do with regard not merely to the staple trades but those various trades which depend upon certain semi-manufactured goods coming into this country, which they have to work up and finish?

The hon. Member is now going beyond the Question before the Committee. The Question before the Committee is whether there should be an inquiry before the duty is put on.

I maintain that there ought to be an inquiry. I will not argue the question, but I would ask what the Government policy is so far as the staple trades and other trades are concerned. Is it the idea that in future this country is to depend upon the population employed in our staple industries, and not upon the other industries? If so, it is clear that under a Protective tariff we shall not be able to maintain as large a population as we do at the present time. Seeing that we shall only be able to maintain a small population, Protection and birth control will have to go together, and the Cabinet will have to be enlarged by the inclusion of Dr. Marie Stopes, unless the Home Secretary makes way for her. Then there is the case of foodstuffs. By imposing a 10 per cent. duty on foodstuffs the Government will make the economic position very much worse than it is to-day. In my constituency many of the people are very poor. Many of them earn only about 30s. to 35s. a week or even less. If they have to pay more for their cheese, butter, margarine, tinned fruits and condensed milk it will be a very tragic thing for them. I am not given to sobstuff or to sentimental utterances, but I do feel the tragedy of that position. I say quite coldly and calmly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is quite obvious that the result of bringing in a duty of this sort will be that the infantile death rate will increase.

The hon. Member is now making a speech which should be delivered on the question, "That the Clause stand part."

I will endeavour to keep within your Ruling. Another reason in favour of an inquiry is that at the present time we are getting into so serious a position that many people believe that sooner or later in this country there will inevitably be a social clash. I hope that that will not happen, but I am afraid that the steps the Government are taking will bring that clash nearer. The Government in putting on these duties seem to have lost the old aristocratic touch. In the old days the governing class knew how to rule because they knew exactly when to retreat. To-day, the Government are no longer represented by the Cavendishes and Cecils and others who possessed the governing instinct, but by representatives of capital and finance who treat the workers of this country with the ill-bred insolence of the nouveau riche—

Order!

These proposals are a reflection of the present condition of the world, which is plunging every day more deeply into insanity. We suggest that an inquiry might mitigate the Government madness so that instead of having a Bill fit for the padded cell we may reduce their proposals to a state of genial and harmless idiocy.

I rise to support the Amendment, and as this is the first opportunity I have had of speaking in this House, I hope the Committee will extend to me that consideration which they usually exercise on these occasions. This particular Clause is, perhaps, the most important of the Bill. Without this 10 per cent. tariff the whole Bill and the superstructure that is to be built upon it could not proceed. I have listened with great care to the statements made regarding the promises given for an inquiry before tariffs would be levied. At the time we were given to understand clearly that some form of inquiry would be held as to the necessity for tariffs before any measures were introduced. It may be repetition, but I must say that I agree with those who contend that the Government have not carried out their undertakings to the electors in this respect. While listening to the President of the Board of Trade putting forward some strong arguments as to why a separate and independent inquiry is not necessary, it struck me that the Government in the Bill have already admitted the principle of an independent inquiry. It sets up some form of a judicial inquiry. It recognises that there is a need for inquiry, and in this Clause there is a provision that after six months alterations may be made, duties may be reduced, goods may be added to the free list. If these measures are necessary at the expiration of six months, if inquiry is necessary during that time, there is every possibility that some goods may be taxed under a flat rate without inquiry, and that serious damage may be inflicted on the trades themselves.

I look at it in this way, that it would be well for the Government to satisfy the people of this country that there is a genuine need for these taxes and customs duties on certain articles before imposing them, rather than put on a small tax and strike a blow at their solar plexus from which they may not recover. Some goods are already exempted; and I presume that the reason why no inquiry has been made in the case of raw cotton and wool is because they are big commodities, concerned with big trades, and that it is so obvious that a tax on these raw materials would damage these trades that there is no need for an inquiry. The principle is admitted by the Government, and they come in free, simply because they are big trades; but it makes the case for an inquiry all the stronger in the case of small trades, which are likely to be overlooked, and whose difficulties may be even greater if a tax is put upon their raw material.

I do not want to run the risk of being called to order, but I want to say this, that, if inquiry is necessary in regard to raw materials it is particularly necessary in regard to foodstuffs. I have always before my mind the condition of many people whom I represent. I know the case of one colliery where 2,000 men are employed, and where it is only by the forbearance of the debenture holders and the county council that the colliery is kept going. Furthermore, the men employed in the colliery are returning week after week a proportion of their wages to the colliery owners in order to keep the place going. They are living on the border line. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that the result of these proposals, into which no inquiry has been made, will be a rise of what he described as two or three points in the cost of living index figure. A rise of two or three points may mean very little to some people, but it means a great deal to others. I know that the short answer to this is that possibly some of these duties will assist trades which use coal and thus put the colliery right, but that is a purely problematical possibility; and in the case I have in mind there is no doubt that they will increase the cost of living. The case for an independent inquiry is strong and evident, and the principle is admitted in the Bill through the free list, and by the fact that alterations may be made at the end of six months. I desire to support the Amendment.

Being a very new Member myself, and having addressed the House only once before, may I take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts) on his speech. Hon. Members who hold similar opinions were glad to hear the views he expressed and all members of the Committee must have been delighted with the manner in which he expressed them. I hope that he will on many future occasions assist the Committee in its deliberations. When the country was confronted with the crisis, when everybody was hurrying and scurrying from one corner to another, inquiring what was to be done to put matters right, we were told by those who were anxious to have a united National Government that there was to be a thorough inquiry on the question of tariffs before any steps would be taken. I say to my Liberal friends who accepted what was known and understood as the doctor's mandate, that they are not entitled to accept the Bill without this Amendment, although they may be entitled to place themselves in the doctor's hands.

I take it that the doctor in this instance is the general practitioner, who was to submit his patient to a thorough X-ray examination, and, after having made a very careful examination of the X-ray plates, on the advice of a physician of renown, was to come to conclusions which were appropriate to deal with the disease. [Interruption.] With the greatest respect to hon. Members, the question at issue is not how much longer; the question is whether we are going thoroughly to examine the complaint, or are we going to put the patient through it before we know the nature of the disease? Are we going to apply the surgeon's knife without having decided the nature of the complaint? I am not satisfied, like many more hon. Members, with the old arguments and the old investigations which were used for the purpose of proclaiming throughout the length and breadth of the land the importance of tariffs. The question is what is the remedy for the present occasion, not whether the old theories which have been propounded for years are satisfactory merely because of the arguments used to advance them years ago. I say this because I feel that in the last words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was referring in such a dignified manner to one who had preceded him, that he had accepted wholesale and without investigation the proposals which were preached by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain.

At this stage we must re-examine the position and ask ourselves whether the difficulties are such that they can be coped with by the methods suggested by the Bill before they are actually put into practice. My reason for saying that I am not satisfied is because I would like to know, apart from any question of the United States of America and apart from any question of foreign countries, what inquiries have been made of our Colonies; and what answer has been given if such inquiries have been made. How far are we going to commit ourselves to such proposals, of which we shall not be able to relieve ourselves without the possibility of six months' torture, without asking what has been the experience of our Colonies, how they feel about it, and what their experience has been during the time they have been practising the policy which we are attempting to put into operation in this country?

I am not satisfied that inquiry has been made, because I cannot conceive that any one who has made an inquiry coming to the conclusion, when times and circumstances are so bad, that a tax should be put upon any specific item of food. Even if we reduce our millions of unemployed by one-third or by one-half, there will still be large numbers of unemployed dependent upon the food they get to keep body and soul together. How can anybody say that they have made a thorough inquiry and investigation, sufficient to justify the introduction of a Measure of this description, when they must know that it means an increase in the price of food to the unemployed, who will be unable to maintain body and soul together?

60.30 p.m.

I want to know what inquiries they have made with regard to the average man and woman in the street. I want to know whether they have had a thorough investigation into the conditions of people who are living on the miserable dole that is paid to them at present. I want to know whether they have inquired into the conditions of people who have to depend on various charitable institutions, whether they have inquired into the possibilities of these various methods of providing necessities at the present time without increasing the cost of food. If I were satisfied that such inquiries had been made, I would not have supported this Amendment. But I am not satisfied, and I am sure most Members of the House are not satisfied that the necessary inquiries have been made. Hon. Members know very well that this proposal is based to a considerable extent on old-fangled ideas which have been in their minds for years. Every Member of the House should think very carefully before he allows a Measure of this description to go forward without inserting words which would mean that before anything can be put into practice thorough and proper inquiry, such as was promised, will take place.

I do think that my hon. Friends opposite are most unreasonable in asking the Government to have an inquiry before anything like this is done. When it is necessary to do something in order to get some money, the holding of an inquiry first is almost suicidal. I am not anxious to-day to discuss the question whether this proposal is going to raise the cost of living by three points or by 10 points. We shall find out. I do not think that any amount of inquiry will satisfy the Government that they are wrong in what they propose. I see before me the results of inquiry by the Government into the question of going off the Gold Standard. They inquired and inquired and inquired, and made up their minds that it would be absolute ruin to go off the Gold Standard. And then they did it. What is the use of inquiry? They have not learned much yet. They still have not the faintest idea whether the imposition of a 10 per cent. duty will send the pound up or down. They have not thought about it.

I am more particularly interested in the potting trade, one of those unfortunate small trades that are inadequately represented in this House. The cotton trade has all that it wants, free raw material; the shipbuilding trade has free raw material; the iron and steel trade has free raw material. But what about the potting trade? Why should we be picked on in this way for penalising? If the people of this country have to find £30,000,000 in the most foolish way, let them all find it and do not leave the unfortunate small trades that cannot make a fuss, to bear all the burden. We get our raw material in the shape of flints from France. The price has already gone up 40 per cent. owing to the fall in the value of the pound. Shove it up a bit more. The trade cannot get on as it is. We are all in debt to the banks. You have not brought the bank rate down very far yet. Borax—pure raw material—taxed colours—all taxed.

I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is not in favour of inquiry, so I fail to see where his speech is leading.

I thought it was rather unkind to urge the Government to inquire. The longer we can postpone the taking of this step, the better. Everything depends on whom you inquire from. Up to now the Government appear to have inquired from the people who make the largest noise, from the big trades. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has been having a sort of joy-ride around all the steelworks of the country, finding out something about the business, and he has come to the conclusion, and rightly, that whatever else we do we must exempt shipbuilding and iron ore. A little more of that inquiry in the less vocal trades might be equally useful. I still think that it is almost more than we can expect of the Government. It is essential that the Government should make up its own mind. I am convinced that every one of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite is really doing this business against the grain; they are doing it, not because they like it, but because they have to get the money somehow. If inquiry will enable them to face the music, to say what they think, to be honest about this business, then it will have a good result, but if inquiry merely provides them with further evasions of the main issue, it will do no good.

The main issue really is this: The putting on of a 10 per cent. duty prevents imports coming into the country. It has exactly the same effect in that respect as a further fall of 2s. in the value of the pound. Will inquiry make it any clearer to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the difference between a 10 per cent. tariff and a 10 per cent. fall in the value of the pound is not merely a difference affecting the imports into this country, but a fatal difference so far as the exports are concerned? A fall in the value of the pound would save the potting trade, would save our export trade. It would enable us to compete in all the neutral markets of the world. A tariff, instead of helping the export trade in any way, makes our raw materials more expensive, even if it does not push up the cost of living or wages. It increase the overhead charges on the industry and prevents us from competing in neutral markets. There are more people out of work. What I say of the potting trade is equally true of every other trade in the country. Of the two alternatives, a fall in the value of the pound or a tariff, the Government have selected the tariff. I do not believe they have selected it in the interest of the trade of the country. They have selected it purely with the object of getting £30,000,000 of money out of the taxpayer, and, gild the pill as they will, they cannot make it agreeable to the people of this country to pay £30,000,000 more taxation. The Government are levying it in indirect taxation, and it is all falling on industry in some way or other.

The right hon. Gentleman is now engaging in a general discussion of tariff policy. That would be more appropriate on an Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies).

I was thinking that inquiry was the only thing that could save us from a Government which has not quite made up its mind on which horse it is going to run. If it is riding on the necessity for revenue, let it, do so. If, on the other hand, Members of the Government really believe that a tariff of 10 per cent. is to benefit the industries protected, let them boldly say that. But do not let them try to ride both horses at once. Inquiry might make that clear. Certainly we ought to give them an opportunity of clearing their own minds on this question.

Division No. 66.]

AYES

[6.44 p.m.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Batey, Joseph

Briant, Frank

Attlee, Clement Richard

Bernays, Robert

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

Until the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), the whole of this Debate has been carried on by Members of the Liberal party. The speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has been attacked in a very eloquent and charming maiden speech from an hon. Member below the Gangway, and has been attacked on all sides because it is said to have been against the pledges given at the election. I maintain that the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, and the steps which the Government are taking without going into an endless inquiry, fulfil the pledge given at the election by almost all of us who were returned to support the Government. If there is anything on which there must be a clear distinction between this Government and the last Government, it is that this Government is pledged to direct action and to doing its best on every occasion, and not to have inquiries which would merely drag out their length over the forthcoming years until another election is due and more inquiries are called for.

The Government cannot do other than oppose this Amendment. If any of us at the election had said that we favoured prolonged inquiries we should not have been returned to this House. What many of us did say was that we were prepared to accept the findings of the Cabinet, that we regarded the Members of the Cabinet as sufficiently competent to make up their minds about what was going on in the world to-day, and that they were just as good as professors or anyone of that kind outside. I am perfectly prepared to place confidence in the decision of Members of the Cabinet, provided that they stand for action and for carrying on the business of the country. It is pure humbug to take up the time of the House in asking for a prolonged inquiry of this kind, and I hope that the Debate on this particular subject will soon cease.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 61: Noes, 293.

Buchanan, George	Hirst, George Henry	Nathan, Major H. L.
Cape, Thomas	Holdsworth, Herbert	Parkinson, John Allen
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Janner, Barnett	Pickering, Ernest H.
Cowan, D. M.	Jenkins, Sir William	Price, Gabriel
Cripps, Sir Stafford	John, William	Rea, Walter Russell
Curry, A. C.	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Dagger, George	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Samuel, Rt. Han. Sir H. (Darwen)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kirkwood, David	Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Edwards, Charles	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Thorne, William James
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)	Logan, David Gilbert	Tinker, John Joseph
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Lunn, William	Wellhead, Richard C.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	McEntee, Valentine L.	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro^', W.)	McKeag, William	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Groves, Thomas E.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grundy, Thomas W.	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Major Lloyd George and Sir Percy Harris.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Maxton, James

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Conant, R. J. E.	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Cook, Thomas A.	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Cooke, James D.	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles	Cooper, A. Duff	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Albery, Irving James	Craven-Ellis, William	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Allen, William (Stoke on-Trent)	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hillman, Dr. George B.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Crooke, J. Smedley	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Apsley, Lord	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Aske, Sir Robert William	Cross, R. H.	Hornby, Frank
Atholl, Duchess of	Crossley, A. C.	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeevil)	Hurd, Percy A.
Balniel, Lord	Davison, Sir William Henry	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Iveagh, Countess of
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Dickie, John P.	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Donner, P. W.	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Doran, Edward	Ker, J. Campbell
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Drewe, Cedric	Kerr, Hamilton W.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Duckworth, George A. V.	Kimball, Lawrence
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Duggan, Hubert John	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M, H. R.
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Dunglass, Lord	Knebworth, Viscount
Blindell, James	Eastwood, John Francis	Knox, sir Alfred
Borodate, Viscount	Eden, Robert Anthony	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Boulton, W. W.	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Law, Sir Alfred
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Leckie, J. A.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Leech, Dr. J. W.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Levy, Thomas
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Lewis, Oswald
Broadbent, Colonel John	Erskine, Lord (Weston-super Mare)	Liddall, Walter S.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Brown, Ernest (Lelth)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Llewellin, Major John J.
Browne, Captain A. C.	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Lloyd, Geoffrey
Buchan, John	Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G, T.	Ford, Sir Patrick J.	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Burghley, Lord	Fraser, Captain Ian	Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Burnett, John George	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter	Ganzonl, Sir John	Lymington, Viscount
Caine, G. R. Hall-	Gibson, Charles Granville	Mebane, William
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Gillett, Sir George Masterman	MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John	McCorquodale, M. S.
Carver, Major William H.	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	McEwen, J. H. F.
Castle Stewart, Earl	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	McLean, Major Alan
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Gower, Sir Robert	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Grimston, R. V.	Magnay, Thomas
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Manningham-Buller, Lt-Col. Sir M.
Chotzner, Allied James	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Margesson, Capt. Henry David B.
Christie, James Archibald	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Martin, Thomas B.
Clarry, Reginald George	Hales, Harold K.	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Clayton. Dr. George C.	Hail, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Meller, Richard James
Colfox, Major William Philip	Harbord, Arthur	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Colville, Major David John	Hartland, George A.	Millar, Sir James Duncan

Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Mitchell, Harold P, (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)	Tate, Mavis Constance
Mitcheson, G. G.	Road, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Templeton, William P.
Monsen, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres	Ross, Ronald D.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Runge, Norah Cecil	Thompson, Luke
Moreing, Adrian C.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Morrison, William Shepherd	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Moss, Captain H. J.	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Mulrhead, Major A. J.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-On-T.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J, J. H.	Salt, Edward W.	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)	Train, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersl'ld)	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	Torten, Robert Hugh
Normand, Wilfrid Guild	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A, G. D.	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Homey)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Savery, Samuel Servington	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Scone, Lord	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Palmer, Francis Noel	Selley, Harry R.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Peake, Captain Osbert	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Pearson, William G.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Peat, Charles U.	Skelton, Archibald Noel	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Penny, Sir George	Smiles, Lieut.-Col, Sir Walter D.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Perkins, Walter R. D.	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)	Weymouth, viscount
Petherick, M.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Eveiyn G. H.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Purbrick, R.	Smithers, Waldron	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Pybus, Percy Jobs	Somervell, Donald Bradley	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Ramey, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Soper, Richard	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-colonel George
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Ramsden, E.	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Wise, Alfred R.
Ratcliffe, Arthur	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)	Withers, Sir John James
Reed. Arthur C. (Exeter)	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)	Womersley, Waiter James
Reid, David D. (County Down)	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Stones, James	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)	Strauss, Edward A.
Remer, John R.	Strickland, Captain W. F.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Captain Austin Hudson and
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Summersby, Charles H.	Commander Southby.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out the words "first day of March" and to insert instead thereof the words "fifteenth day of November."

The reason why the date 15th November has been selected will appear from the short remarks which I am about to make. We do not propose to divide the Committee on the Amendments dealing with this point because Divisions take a long time and we want to get as much useful discussion as we can; but although we may not divide on these Amendments we hope to show that it is desirable that they should be made. It is difficult to understand how far the Government have considered questions such as this, involving the inter-relation of Dominion preferences and foreign preferences with the incidence of taxation in this country. I say that it is difficult to know how far the Government have considered it, because, on the last Amendment, the President of the Board of Trade told the Committee that a careful inquiry had been made by the Government before putting on this taxation, but, when I went into the Division Lobby I found that one Member of the committee which was supposed to have made that careful inquiry, namely, the Home Secretary, was voting against the Government, presumably because no proper inquiry had been made. One is in a difficulty if one member of a committee of inquiry states decisively that that inquiry has been full and careful, while another—though he did not describe the inquiry to this Committee—goes into the Lobby to show, by his vote, that he considers that there has been no adequate or proper inquiry. We do not know, therefore, how far the various questions which will arise on this matter have been considered by the committee which was charged with inquiry into them.

Under Clause 4, Sub-section (2) the ad valorem duty is not to apply to any Dominion goods until 15th November, 1932 and thereafter under Sub-section (3) the Treasury may, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State—presumably it is not the Home Secretary in this case, because that would be rather grotesque, but the Dominions Secretary—by order direct that as regards certain goods taxation may be levied upon them though they come from the Dominions. I imagine the object is to give time to come to any arrangements at the Ottawa Conference which are found necessary.

Under Clause 7 there is power in certain cases, on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, for the Treasury to direct, as regards goods from certain foreign countries, that as from a date to be specified the general ad valorem duty shall not be chargeable or only some specific part of it shall be chargeable. Clearly that preference as regards foreign countries could not be given—indeed it has been said that it will not be given—until after the Ottawa Conference. The Dominions, I understand, are to have the first opportunity of getting preferences as one would expect so that these two matters incidental to this ad valorem duty, namely, the preference to the foreigners and the preference to the Dominions cannot be decided, under the Bill, until 15th November, 1932.

7.0 p.m.

In addition to that, the House was told the other night that it was the intention and had now been arranged to have a general conference on the economic situation in Europe, especially with regard to Reparations, some time in June next. Clearly that conference will not complete its labours before the autumn. In that state of affairs it would not be right to bind the country to a general ad valorem duty until the negotiations have been carried through both with foreign countries and with the Dominions. I am not dealing at the moment with the additional duties, but with the general ad valorem duties. It is, in our view, most desirable that no such duty should be put on until the matter has been fully discussed both at the economic conference of Europe and with the Dominions. If the Government feel it is necessary to do so, they have the method of abnormal duties, which we believe to be bad but in which they believe. To adopt this policy of a permanent ad valorem duty on all the goods in the Bill—and on those which will be forced upon the Government by their supporters—on the eve of a European conference and of a conference with the Dominions, is in our view folly. It would be far better to leave it until after those conferences and thus have gone into them with an open mind to decide what policy to follow. That is better than laying down your policy first and then talking with other people about altering it. We, therefore, suggest that the date of 1st March should be omitted and the 15th November substituted, as that is the date which the Government have themselves put in the Bill with regard to Dominion preferences.

I desire to support the Amendment and to give some reasons why it would be an advantage to the country. It is obvious that large sections of the Government's supporters are dissatisfied with the course which they have taken and with the results, which are only now commencing to be understood, which will follow on this legislation. I have just received two letters on this subject. One of them is from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, who express themselves as profoundly disturbed at the provisions of Clause 11 and ask us all to see that that Clause is struck out of the Bill. At the same time I was handed another letter from the Papermakers' Association of Great Britain and Ireland who say that they view with consternation and dismay the inclusion of esparto grass, which is the raw material for a very large section of the paper-making industry. They say that will undoubtedly result in increased unemployment, which will not only affect the trades specifically concerned but a number of other trades more or less related to the paper trade.

It must be obvious to Members that in almost every industry to-day there is a demand for the exclusion of certain goods from the Bill and the inclusion of others. There appears to be nothing approaching unanimity even among the Members of the Government as to what should be included under the 10 per cent. tariff or what should be allowed to come in free. This legislation has been hastily conceived and is going to affect adversely not only the people who will have to pay the increased costs, which will necessarily arise from the duties, but the country as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the other night that there was going to be a general increase of prices in consequence of these tariffs. None of the hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been prepared to have made that admission in their election speeches. This is panic legislation which has been very little considered. No adequate inquiry has taken place. It must be obvious to all who, like myself, are receiving letters like those which I have quoted that there is a general feeling of consternation in the country. The Amendment proposes to postpone these duties until 15th November which would give the Government time to consider the Bill as they have not yet considered it. I hope that, in view of the general dissatisfaction expressed by Chambers of Commerce and industries all over the country with the Measure in its present form, the House will ask the Government to reconsider the whole matter and to bring forward Amendments which will allay the consternation in the country to-day.

The hon. Member has just suggested that we should reconsider the whole subject matter of the Bill and should have an inquiry. He quoted a letter from a Chamber of Commerce, who wanted more Protection than there is in this Bill—

On a point of Order. They are asking that the Clause should be struck out and that they should be relieved from this duty.

That is not a point of Order.

Clause 11 allows materials to come into this country free and to strike it out, as they ask, would give more Protection. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment said he was not going to divide upon this and some other Amendments. We appreciate that course, because we would like to have as much discussion as possible before 9 o'clock, and I hope he will not think me discourteous if I say that there are some Amendments of greater importance than this one. I was curious to know why he thought 15th November was the proper date for the 10 per cent. duty to come into force and I was astonished at his moderation. I suppose he only took that date because he thought he could tie it up with the provisions of Clause 4. The effect of the Amendment would be to destroy any advantage which the Dominions may receive between now and the time when we shall have made the final arrangements with them that we shall discuss at Ottawa. Whether that is the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman or not I do not know, but that would be the unfortunate effect of accepting the Amendment. If I take his argument that it is folly for us to fix our rates of duty until we have concluded not only the arrangements with the Dominions, which we are to discuss at Ottawa, but any other treaties which we may in the future negotiate with foreign countries, that means, in effect, that we are to put off the operations of this Bill until the Greek Kalends. That is not the practice of other countries and, when the hon. and learned Gentleman says that we are not to pay any attention to our own policy until we see what alterations we may hereafter make in the policies of other countries, I confess that I am not able to follow him. I shall not take up any further time in discussing the Amendment, but will ask the House to reject it.

I support this Amendment and hope that the Government will see their way to agree to this postponement, which will put them in a much stronger position at the Ottawa Conference. I hope the result of the arrangements there will be to increase trade with the Dominions. That will, however, not be too easy to attain, and we are approaching these negotiations far too much in a mood of sloppy sentimentality. The Secretary of State for the Colonies said the other day that the fact that these preferences were freely given would encourage those territories to give voluntary preferences to British goods. They are not going to give a voluntary preference. Any agreement we arrive at in the Ottawa Conference will he a very hard bargain indeed. It will be a difficult matter to get our goods into those territories, and we should have our hands as free as possible.

I will give an example to show how important it is that we should have our hands free. My own constituency, the centre of the lock and key trade, has been accustomed to export largely to Australia, but has been entirely shut out by high duties put on against the goods of this country. I am not in sympathy with the general plan, but I hope that one result will be to obtain ingress into markets of this kind. If something of that sort is not done, we shall not gain any advantage. I hope very much that the Government will keep their hands as free as possible, so that when the time tomes it will be clear to the Dominions that we can put duties on in any direction unless they come to some businesslike arrangement with us, without any question of sentiment, which will not play a large part in the question of tariffs. It is because I am anxious to see this particular side of the Government successful that I consider they will be well advised and in a stronger position if they are willing to postpone the date as suggested.

This is another Amendment for delay. The country last August was passing through one of the most serious crises in its history. A National Government was formed, a General Election was held, a mandate was given to the National Government, that Government has held an inquiry, and this Bill is one of the first important results. In these circumstances, I can imagine no course more calculated to bring this House of Commons into contempt than to sit down and inquire and have nothing but delays. Hon. Members have instanced one trade after another in which inquiries might be held for the alleviation of hardships, and one hon. Member not long ago compared the body politic to that of a patient and said that the patient ought to be most thoroughly examined by X-rays and have all the specialists that could be produced. It sometimes unfortunately happens that when a patient is in that condition, and when he has innumerable doctors to examine him, and all the latest scientific processes, he dies before the attempt to operate, and I think this patient too might die while these delays are taking place. I think it important that this Parliament should take action immediately on this question.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor-General, who moved the Amendment, laid stress upon the fact that there is to be a Conference in Europe this summer, and he argued that these decisions should be taken, not before, but after that Conference. He said that it would be improper for us to come to these decisions now, before that Conference took place. I think that most hon. Members of this House, and most of the members of the public outside, will consider that the very fact that this Conference is to take place in the summer is one of the strongest reasons for facing up to this problem now, so that we can show other countries that we are prepared to do with tariffs as we think fit for the defence of our own trade. We do not want any repetition of what we saw in the last Government, with the President of the Board of Trade going about the Continent and trying to get other countries to agree to a tariff truce, when he had no weapon in his hand. I think the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman brought forward in support of the Amendment is really one of the strongest arguments against it.

Amendment negatived.

The Amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks)—in page 2, line 13, after the word "all," to insert the word "manufactured"—of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. A. Roberts)—in line 13, after the word "goods," to insert the words

"other than foodstuffs, raw materials, and articles mainly unmanufactured as defined in the Trade and Navigation Accounts."

—of the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays)—in line 13, after the word "goods," to insert the words "other than foodstuffs"—and of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown)—in line 15, after the word "section," to insert the words

"but including goods to which those provisions are made applicable as hereinafter provided."

—are all covered by the Ruling given by the Chairman earlier this evening.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."

The Amendment raises a point of considerable substance, and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to say how he can meet us, and it may be that he will be able to accept the Amendment after we have discussed it. The first thing that I want to know is, What is there about 10 per cent. that is sacrosanct as compared with, say, 5 per cent., 7½ per cent., or 9 per cent.? What is there about 10 per cent. in particular that has struck the imagination of the Gov- ernment? There is in this Bill a general duty of 10 per cent., there are additional duties on special kinds of goods, preferences for the Dominions, Colonial preferences, and there are discriminations against foreign countries, but there is a general duty of 10 per cent. on all goods except those that are exempted in the Schedule.

We, on this side, are definitely opposed to any tariff at all, and I have no hesitation in saying, speaking on my own behalf, that these proposals of the Government have convinced me more than ever that. Free Trade is the best fiscal policy for this country. It may be that some hon. Members opposite, if they are lucky enough to get elected again at the next election, will probably be found sitting on this side and demanding that the Government then in power shall abolish the whole of the proposals that they are now putting into operation. Those who are interested in this problem, especially the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, whom I am glad to see sitting there, will remember the history of the fiscal policy of this country. It took only three years to build a tariff ring round this country about a century ago, but it then took a quarter of a century to abolish those tariffs. Consequently we ought to-night to be very, very chary as to what we are doing in this matter.

There is no attempt here to impose a scientific tariff. All that the Government are doing is to put 10 per cent. on all goods except those exempted in the Schedule, and we want to know why 10 per cent. has been fixed. Other Governments have experimented with tariffs. This is not the first Government to impose tariffs, nor is this the first time that tariffs have been imposed in this country, and I venture to strike a prophetic note and to say that after this experiment has been proceeding for a few years, it will be proved in this country, as it has been proved in other countries, that the experiment was not worth while.

Let me pass on to another consideration. The United States of America is often quoted here as an example of a tariff country, and there they imposed long ago a general tariff of 20 per cent. I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have taken his cue from the United States, but instead of putting on a duty of 20 per cent., as they imposed there in 1842, we are to be satisfied with a 10 per cent. duty and exemptions for several articles. It is interesting, therefore, to see how this 20 per cent. universal tariff, imposed in America so long ago, was applied to the commodities that came under it. We are told by a very high authority that the manipulation of this 20 per cent. uniform tariff was so putrid that the tariff was dubbed in the end "the tariff of abomination," and it has been known in America ever since as "the tariff of abomination."

I would like to see this experiment tried, not with a tariff of 10 per cent., but with a tariff of 5 per cent., and I shall be glad to live long enough to see what will happen when the experiment has been tried and failed. I am interested in it from this angle; and this is the main reason why I move this Amendment: There is no doubt now, whatever may have been said at the introduction of these proposals, that the cost of living is going up as a result of the imposition of this tariff. May I repeat what the late Lord Melchett, who is a man well worth quoting, said in this House many years ago? Every Member of this House will, I am sure, bow to his name, because he was one of the most capable industrialists and commercial men that this country has ever produced, and this is what he said: "What is the use of arguing that tariffs do not raise prices? Tariffs would be of no use at all unless they did raise prices." That statement, I think, still holds good at the present time.

What is the date of that statement?

Perhaps the hon. Member will look it up. He is not quite so busy as I am. There is an element of unfairness in stipulating a duty of 10 per cent., because there is in this Bill a provision for the setting up of an Advisory Committee, and is it not unfair that they should be faced, first of all, with a uniform tariff of 10 per cent., when in fact, once they are faced with the details of this problem, they themselves might feel inclined to say that the tariff should be reduced in some cases to 5 per cent.? There is no chance for that Committee to do its duty properly below the 10 per cent., and if our Amendment were carried, it would give them discretion, at all events, to do anything they liked above 5 per cent. I want them to have the opportunity, if necessary, to say 5½ per cent., 7½ per cent., 9 per cent., or any percentage they like, because I think they are entitled to say that something below 10 per cent. ought to operate in relation to some commodities.

7.30 p.m.

There is another fact that must be borne in mind. The President of the Board of Trade told us to-day that the imposition of the tariffs that have already been applied under the horticultural products proposals had not only had an economic effect favourable to our markets, but in fact had had a great psychological effect upon the whole of Europe. We have heard a great many statements made in this House recently as to what is happening in connection with these tariffs. An hon. Member opposite said, "Look at the factories budding forth in Lancashire owing to tariffs." Well, I live in Lancashire, and I claim to know it better than the hon. Member who made that statement, but, I have yet to know—and I should be very pleased if any hon. Member would stand up in this House to-night and tell me—of the spot in Lancashire where any new industry has cropped up consequent upon these proposals. I have not found one yet. I shall be very glad to see employment increasing and industry improving, but really hon. Gentlemen must, whatever they may say in speeches at general elections, give us facts in the House to prove how this experiment works.

I will give the hon. Gentleman one. A well-known Czechoslovakian boot manufacturer—Thom Bata of Zlin—who started 20 years ago, completed the purchase two weeks ago of 600 acres of land at East Tilbury to start a boot factory in this country in order that he may have free access to the Colonial markets and avoid the 10 per cent. duty in this country.

Would it surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that Leicester people tell me that they cannot sell the boots they are making?

The gentleman I mentioned is the biggest boot manufacturer in the world outside America.

I have seen his factory, and I regard him as a great industrialist and as a man of genius, but I cannot understand how a Czechoslovakian can come to Great Britain and manufacture goods and sell them when our own people, who are better skilled than he is, cannot sell their products.

The fact remains that he is coming.

I want to see him here before I believe it.

A very large German firm wants to come.

We hear about all these foreign capitalists coming here, but I want to see them actually here before I believe anything of the kind.

Is it not true that the land has been actually purchased for this boot factory?

I heard once that the great Henry Ford bought some land, but he never built a factory on that land. I have heard all these stories before, but I want to know the spot where the new factory is situated and how many people are actually employed—[Interruption.] I am glad that the Committee has at last been roused a little, and that the Government benches are taking more interest in the Debate than they have done hitherto. The President of the Board of Trade will have it that the mere introduction of this Measure has had a great psychological effect upon the foreigner. Surely, the percentage of the duty cannot in itself have all that effect. A duty of 5 per cent., I should imagine, would have the same psychological effect upon the foreigner. According to the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if we reduce the duty to 5 per cent, we would have all the Czechoslovakian boot manufacturers coming to this country. The bargaining power of the Government will be quite as strong with a 5 per cent. as with a 10 per cent. duty, because the Advisory Committee will be entitled to build upon the 5 per cent. to any figure they like, just as they are entitled to build on the 10 per cent.

The most important point of all is that every percentage that is put on goods coming into this country means a depreciation in the real value of wages. A 10 per cent. tariff may reduce the real value of wages, say, by 4 per cent., and a 5 per cent. duty will reduce it by only 2 per cent. I prefer a reduction in the standard of life by 2 per cent. rather than 4 per cent. Will the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to tell the Committee what there is sacrosanct about 10 per cent. rather than 5 per cent?

Mr. Henderson's suggestion was 10 per cent.

The hon. Member does not know the inner history of this controversy. The percentage is the pivot on which this Amendment turns, and having, I feel sure, convinced the Committee with the arguments I have put forward, I now leave it to the Parliamentary Secretary.

I would not have intervened but for the fact that the hon. Gentleman did not give way in the middle of his speech when he challenged the point whether factories had actually come to this country. I am glad to be able to accommodate him, because in the borough of Macclesfield certain looms are going into an old cotton mill, which has been closed down for five years. That is the result of the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at the end of this week these works will be actually employing British labour which for so long has been unemployed. I am sure that in view of that, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment. I would prefer a larger duty because I am informed that the real reason for foreign manufacturers coming to this country is that they hope the protection will be very much more than 10 per cent. and will give them a real chance of employing British labour in this country.

I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will resist this Amendment, because I am one of those who think that the 10 per cent. will be the basis of a permanent tariff which will come into operation shortly. As the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) said that no businesses have come to this country because of the tariff, I will read for his information a statement made the other day by the chairman of Listers, of Bradford, the finest makers of velvet in the world. He said:

"The announcement in the House of Commons regarding tariffs had given fresh confidence both in the present Government and in the outlook on the future trade. Manufacturers could now look ahead and face the problem of replacement and development and expenditure on machines, which they dare not contemplate during the past few years."

If the tariff stopped at 10 per cent. it would spell disaster in the woollen industry, which is now enjoying a greater measure of prosperity than it has known for 10 years. The firm of Listers have amalgamated during the past few weeks with a German firm named Peltzer, and at the present moment 300 tons of machinery are coming over from the German firm to Bradford. This firm amalgamated with Listens to manufacture a particular kind of velvet here—

With German machinery.

I do not mind that so much if it provides employment for our people in this country. I am sick and tired of listening to members of the Opposition speaking about the unemployed and unemployment payments and about the difficulties of the unemployed, but we on these benches say that we want to provide them with work and wages by the protection of their industry through the medium of tariffs. I can give the hon. Gentleman another instance. One of my friends in Leeds has three woollen mills. During the boom in 1910, one was built at a cost of £40,000, and it has cost him money ever since. For two years it was never run. He opened it out two weeks ago as a result of the 50 per cent. duty under the Abnormal Importations Act. Last week he was in London and he took home to Leeds district £40,000 worth of orders for his workpeople—orders which had always been placed in Germany. All his three mills are now working overtime. I hope that the 10 per cent. tariff is only the commencement of a systematic adaptation of our industries to the tariff system in order that we may look after our own people instead of looking after the foreigners.

We have been told by the hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Mr. Gibson) what has been done in this and that industry in order to establish his case for a tariff. I do not know whether his post-bag is the same as mine, but employers who probably voted for the National Government are continually sending circulars to Members of the House pointing out that what the Home Secretary and the other Liberal Members of the Cabinet have contended, namely, that tariffs will be ruinous and detrimental to industry, is perfectly true. I do not know whether the hon. Member has received such circulars.

No, I have not.

They come from shipowners, shipbuilders, tin plate and sheet manufacturers, and many other industries. It is no good the hon. Member trying to persuade the Committee and the country that the tariff will not increase prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, on the Second Reading of the Import Duties Bill, said:

"If we cast our minds back again to 12 months ago, what farmer in February of last year could possibly have expected that today he would see given to him not only a certain 10 per cent., but also a possible additional duty upon his oats, eggs, poultry, butter, milk, cheese, canned meat, in addition to a promise of a quota system which will give him a guaranteed price and a secure market for his wheat, and further assistance in other directions provided that proper arrangements for organisation are made? Surely there is occasion for something more than the intense disappointment which has been voiced in some quarters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1603, Vol. 261.]

If that does not mean an increase in prices, what does? That is a quotation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer declaring that this 10 per cent. is to give an advantage to the farmer; but that is bound to be passed on to the consumer, who will have to pay much higher prices. Let me give one quotation from the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I was in Oxford at the time when he and the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) broke away from the distinguished statesman, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, in 1903. The Tory Press used to dub them "The two jumping cats," and the right hon. Member for Epping has been jumping ever since, as we know. I do not forget what he said, because I agreed with him. I was attending a lecture at Oxford by Professor Edgeworth, the greatest authority on international trade in this country. The right hon. Member for Epping said:

"What does Protection mean? It means increased prices to the consumer, a reduction of purchasing power to the working man, and, in the end, causes more unemployment in the country than under any other system."

Will the hon. Member also tell us what was said on this subject during the reign of Queen Anne?

I think the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) is more accustomed to the history of Queen Anne and the old maids in Bournemouth whom he represents, than other history. I have seen some of his constituents when I have visited Bournemouth. They listen on the wireless for the Stock Exchange prices. If the market is firm they keep the wireless on, but if it is reported that the market was dull they turn it off at once. Those are the sort of Queen Annes the hon. Member represents. I am not going far back into history in quoting what the right hon. Member for Epping said in 1903, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us how delighted and proud he was to introduce a Bill giving effect to the proposals which his distinguished father put forward in 1903. If the Chancellor can cite 1903 I do not see why I should not cite 1903 as well.

I would not have given that quotation but for the hon. Member. I rose to deal with another point, a statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for King's Norton (Major Thomas). I wish he were here. I gave him notice that I was going to call attention to a statement he made in my constituency last week. He was answering questions at a meeting, and the report says:

"When questions were invited, Mr. S. Barnes asked Major Thomas what benefit the tinplate trade or the galvanised sheet trade would derive from a 10 per cent. tariff on steel bars? Also, what inducement would the heavy steel merchants have, seeing that there would still be a margin left of 14s. to 15s. a ton in favour of the foreign manufacturers?"

The hon. and gallant Member for King's Norton replied that nobody was going to be satisfied with the 10 per cent. duty. He is a steel manufacturer. I represent the men in the steel trade. He is looking after his interests, and I am looking after the interests of our men. The report goes on:

"Major Thomas replied that nobody was going to be satisfied with the 10 per cent. He had had a good deal to do with this question, and although a duty of 10 per cent. was absolutely useless it was the thin end of the wedge, and was the basis upon which the scientific tariff would be built up. He added, I do not often bet, but I am willing to bet that the iron and steel trade generally is going to be protected at a higher rate than 10 per cent. during the next two or three months.'"

There is a tip from the horse's mouth, a tip from the stable! By whose authority did the hon. and gallant Member for King's Norton stand up before an audience and say, "I will bet that in less than two or three months we are going to have a higher tariff than 10 per cent. in the iron and steel trade"? I will give the reply. The reply is that the steel manufacturers of this country and the members of the Federation of British Industries have given their orders to the Government. The Government have not carried out the national policy which the people asked for, but are doing the bidding of the Federation of British Industries and the manufacturers in the iron and steel trade, without any consideration for the users of steel, the re-rolling trade, and others. As the hon. and gallant Member for King's Norton said, this 10 per cent. is not a bit of good, and we say that the 50 per cent. does far less good from the point of view of its indirect attack on the wages of the men in the iron and steel and other industries. If my hon. Friend put forward strong arguments I claim that I have put forward stronger arguments, and therefore I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

I wish to give in a few words two instances of how this 10 per cent. duty is affecting trade. Last week a manufacturer of cycle tyre pumps at Birmingham placed a contract with a firm at Twickenham for the rubber connections for the pumps. The manufacturer told him, "If there is only a 10 per cent. tariff put on we shall not raise the price; if it is above 10 per cent. we must raise it." Immediately the 10 per cent. was confirmed the order was placed in Germany. Otherwise, the order would have gone to the Dunlop factory. That is but one instance of where the foreigner pays the tax. I have a business in India. The fall in the pound and the probability of a 10 per cent. preference for India has altogether altered the state of affairs. I have been enabled to engage extra hands and raise the wages of my staff out there. We are now inundated with orders for British goods, made at Cricklewood, which formerly were made in Detroit and Flint in America. The only trouble is that the duty is too small. If it were 20 per cent. we should have far better results both as regards raising revenue and finding work for our unemployed. As a man who employs a large staff in the export trade I can assure the Committee that we are in for the finest time in the history of this country for the last half century when we get going with the new tariff.

There is one short point which I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are told that the Government are introducing a moderate protective tariff, but I ask whether that is the case. Having regard to all the surrounding circumstances, and if one admitted the contention that Protection is a remedy for the evil against which it is directed I should agree that a 10 per cent. duty was not a very high duty properly could be described as a low tariff; but a 10 per cent. tariff which is applied to specific articles is a different thing from a 10 per cent. tariff applied to a fluctuating rate of exchange. This, it is true, will be a 10 per cent. tariff when applied to those countries whose currencies are linked with sterling, but in the case of countries still on gold, like the United States of America, France, Belgium, Holland, South Africa, Switzerland, Dantzig, Lithuania and Poland, the position is different. Take the present depreciation of sterling in relation to the dollar. I will call it a 30 per cent. depreciation, and say the £ sterling is worth 14s. In order to acquire £100 worth of goods a British importer has to pay £140. That represents not a 10 per cent., but a 14 per cent. revenue tariff, a total differential figure since last September of 54 per cent. Again let us assume that sterling depreciates by 50 per cent., that is that the pound goes down to 10s. In order to acquire £100 worth of goods the British importer will then have to pay £200. That £200 will attract a 20 per cent. duty—it will work out at the rate of 20 per cent., and will involve a total differential since last September of 120 per cent. That is the position if sterling depreciates relatively to Gold Standard countries. In addition to the automatic tariff provided by the depreciation of 50 per cent., there is the artificial tariff of 20 per cent. imposed by this duty.

What is the position if sterling appreciates instead of depreciating? If sterling returns to parity the duty will be limited to 10 per cent. This seems to be Protection turned upside down—the topsy turveydom of the tariff theory. The greater the automatic tariff the greater the artificial tariff. On a return to parity the automatic tariff disappears altogether, and the duty is reduced to the 10 per cent, prescribed by this Bill—but only at the point of parity in relation to the gold standard countries. In other words, the moment when the British manufacturer is protected most by the depreciation in exchange is the moment when he gets the most assistance from the Bill. Immediately he is left open to all the winds that blow and without the protection of depreciated currency, his protection under this Bill is reduced to 10 per cent.

8.0 p.m.

May I raise a point in answer to the hon. Member for North. East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan)? The hon. and gallant Member makes the mistake that is so often made, in stating that the manufacturer in this country always benefits from the fact that we have a depreciated currency. It does not follow that because we have pound sterling at its present-day figure we have the benefit of a tariff in the difference between our present pound sterling value and its parity value. If an American buys raw materials in any country or in any part of the Empire which is on a sterling basis, he buys his goods more cheaply than myself, and this fact cancels out almost entirely the disadvantage in which he is placed when selling his finished product to this country. My advantage in operating on a sterling basis is very small when competing with the man buying on a sterling basis with his gold basis currency.

There is no calculating at all. I am speaking, not of the case where the currency is linked with sterling, but where the currency is that of any gold standard country. I say, and I do not think it is contradicted, that that is Protection topsy turvy. The point upon which I was inquiring was as to whether this aspect of the Bill as it stands had received the attention of His Majesty's Government. We were told that it was to be a moderate tariff and a scientific tariff. When I hear of a scientific tariff I think of the question which was put to the immortal Juggins of Mr. Bernard Shaw's imagination in "Fanny's First Play." He was asked what was a gentlemanly method of jilting. "There is no gentlemanly method of jilting," was the reply. "Jilting is not gentlemanly in itself." So it is with Protection. There is no such thing as moderate or scientific Protection, because Protection is not moderate or scientific in itself.

The remarkable thing about the arguments on this Amendment is that none of them are relevant to the Amendment. Whether the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) considers that all the cases he raised are covered by the Amendment which is under discussion I do not know. I think he admits that his speech had nothing to do with the Amendment.

I admit that they will not be covered by the Amendment, but I assert that the defects, the discrepancies, and the inconsistencies to which I have referred would be reduced by 50 per cent. by the acceptance of the Amendment.

All I can say is to compliment the hon. and gallant Member on the Parliamentary skill, which he has used to get in, on this exiguous support, a speech which he was obviously bursting to deliver on some other subject. Let me say that the considerations which he has raised have not escaped the attention of His Majesty's Government. When you are faced with such a problem in exchange, the limiting factor consequent upon the depreciated pound is reinforced by the factor of the tariff. That is a scientific effect, and in such a ease this tariff has a 100 per cent. scientific application. I do not say that it is so in every case, but in this case it is thoroughly, completely and absolutely scientific, and the hon. and gallant Member ought to be satisfied with it.

We had an engaging turn from two hon. Members opposite. Neither of them knew which was the strongest man. The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths) was saying that, strong as the arguments were which had been advanced by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), they were nothing to the arguments which he himself was advancing. I think there was not much in what either said. I was not terribly impressed by the arguments used by the hon. Member for Pontypool, and I was not impressed at all by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. To that extent certainly I thought the arguments of the hon. Member for Westhoughton were much less strong. When we are considering a great change in the fiscal system of this country, is it treating the House with full seriousness to come here and ask us why we thought of 10, and why not five? We thought of 10, because one must take some figure, and that is a figure which places us among the low-tariff countries and yet is one which will bring in an amount of Revenue reasonable enough to pay for the collection of it. Surely the hon. Member for Westhoughton would not suggest that the reduction of the tariff from 10 to 5 per cent. would wipe out all the evils of a tariff, which he describes, nor would the hon. Member for Pontypool.

The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that this is not giving anything away, because the additional duties can be put on to any amount. What is the use, then, from his point of view, of naming any figure at all? He said let the Committee go on, and place on additional duties as high as ever it will. Why take up the time of the House in moving these Amendments, if the result is not to make any change in the condition of affairs? The hon. Member for Pontypool argued for the steel workers as against hon. Members on this side of the House, who he said are only arguing for their profits. Surely he is aware that that is a trade where the profits of the employers and the wages of the men are closely related by a sliding scale on the price of steel.

I do not wish to go into the whole question of the rise in the cost of living by a 5 per cent. tariff as against a 10 per cent. tariff. In answer to the hon. Member who raised arguments against taxation which would fall upon the poor such as a tariff of 10 per cent. upon tinned milk, no doubt it would be a great hardship if a tariff of 10 per cent. were placed upon tinned milk, or a tariff of 15 or 20 per cent. Would the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green be surprised to hear that there is a tariff on tinned milk, that it was supported by him in the last Government and by hon. Members opposite, and that they had maintained that tariff not at 10 per cent. and not at 15 per cent., but at 27 per cent. on tinned milk? Yet we are told that this 10 per cent. is going to cause such a rise in the cost of living that people are going to be starved and enslaved all over the place because of a 10 per cent. tariff. Let those who have maintained for years tariffs of 133 per cent. on sugar and of 26 per cent. on sweetened condensed milk, which is used by the same poor people, look into their hearts and see if without hypocrisy they come down and raise a rhodomontade about the effect that a tariff of 10 per cent. will have when applied to articles which are not more indispensable than they themselves have been taxing for many years past.

I would like to say a word or two about the great industry of agriculture and about the effect that the Amendment, if carried, would have on those articles which it is proposed to bring under this 10 per cent. tariff. With poultry, eggs, butter and flour, a reduction of 5 per cent. would make a difference that would be almost imperceptible. I do not mean when I say imperceptible that there would be the slightest difference to the consumer in any case, but I am quite convinced that so low a tariff as 10 per cent. on the wholesale price, where such a very large fall of prices has cone about in recent months, would make the slightest difference to the retail price. It is going to make a certain amount of difference to the producer, and I think, if we consider the consider the condition in which those engaged in agriculture are to-day, facing a crisis and a ruin greater than any within living memory, we should not begrudge them the small amount of protection which this Bill affords. In regard to what the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) said just now, about gold countries and non-gold countries, it is pertinent to observe, in respect of importations of foodstuffs, that most of the importing countries are not on a gold standard, and that countries such as Denmark, the South American countries, and our own colonies are able to import into this country and compete very successfully indeed with our own agricultural industry.

The production of eggs which has recently sprung up in this country and has now attained very considerable proportions, deserves consideration from this House. It is proposed that one of the raw materials, namely, maize, should he taxed, and it is very important therefore that the foreign product should also be taxed, since there is now such a very considerable production in this country and a very considerable importation from the Dominions that it is very improbable that a 10 per cent, duty would have any effect at all. The effect of a duty must necessarily depend upon the proportion of the untaxed supply. In regard to eggs, the untaxed supply is very considerable and is growing very greatly. Therefore, I am very pleased indeed that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has set his face against any reduction of this 10 per cent., and I am sure his attitude will greatly encourage those engaged in agriculture.

I did not intend to speak on this Amendment, but for the remarks which were made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

The Financial Secretary said that this Measure would help to regulate the exchange and lessen the strain on sterling. I wonder if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows what really controls or affects sterling. It was ably pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little while ago, when he drew attention to the fact that, with the amount of currency remaining the same and the amount of trade considerably reduced, we were really suffering, as is indeed the case, from a, certain measure of inflation. The Financial Secretary evidently believes that this Bill, like the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill, will have some effect on the pound. If it has any effect at all, it will be, not a controlling effect or an effect leading to stability, but a damaging effect. The argument for the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Bill was that it would improve the value of the pound, but the pound slumped immediately after the Bill was passed, for the simple reason that interference with and a tendency to contract trade, while the note issue remains the same, must cause the value of the pound to fall. While I admit that this Bill will give some fillip to employment in certain directions, and perhaps, as has just been mentioned, will help the woollen industry in certain local directions, we on these benches believe that it will tend naturally to a reduction of our aggregate trade. Take the case of the shipping industry. We are the common carriers of the world. We build about half the ships, and own about one-third. Do the supporters of this Measure seriously suggest that it will tend to increase our foreign trade?

The hon. Member seems to be discussing the main principle of the Bill. The Amendment before the Committee is one merely to substitute "five" for "ten."

In view of the fact that the Financial Secretary said that he could control or attempt to stabilise the exchange by means of this Bill, I thought that, if it could be shown that it would tend to lessen trade, the reason for the Bill would disappear. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument is that this Measure would tend to enable the exchange to be stabilised, but he does not seem to understand what controls our exchange.

I am not quite sure what was the statement of the Financial Secretary to which the hon. Member is referring. He may well have made a mere statement, but it is not in order for the hon. Member, as the result of that statement, to raise a new debate on a subject which is not within the terms of the Amendment.

My only object was to try to show that, if the tariff could be reduced from 10 per cent. to five per cent., that would lessen the evil. I think it would 'be a distinct advantage if the Amendment were carried, because it would tend to reduce what we believe to be a very serious interference with our trade.

Amendment negatived.

There are no other Amendments on the Paper that I select prior to the Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in page 2, line 29, to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the paragraph. That proposed Amendment is merely introductory, I think, to two others in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I am afraid I must rule out of order, as being beyond the terms permitted by the Financial Resolution on which the Bill is founded.

On a point of Order. May I submit for your consideration, Sir Dennis, reasons why those Amendments should he selected? This is a matter of considerable importance to a number of hon. Members in the House. If you still maintain your view, that is the end of the matter so far as I am concerned, because I can deal with it in the Finance Bill at a later stage, but I should much prefer, if possible, to get it settled here. I take it that the part of the Ways and Means Resolution on which you rely is paragraph (b) of the proviso, which says that the duty is not to be charged on—

"goods of any class or description which may be exempted by the Act aforesaid from the duty charged by this Resolution.

If the Amendments which I have on the Paper were carried, the effect would be that, in addition to the actual articles specified in the Schedule, further articles could be exempted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and by order of the Treasury. That, in effect means, I submit, that—

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he made a slip. The effect of the Amendments would be, not that articles should be added, but that they should be removed—not that they should be exempted from tax, but that they should have the tax imposed on them.

I am much obliged, Sir Dennis. I should have said that they would have the tax imposed upon them. That, I take it, is the point to which you take exception. I take it that you would say that goods which have been exempted by the Act cannot subsequently be charged with duty. I submit that the exemption, if my Amendments were put into the Bill, would be a qualified exemption—that it would not be a complete and total exemption, but an exemption subject to the action of the Treasury on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. The exemption would be limited in duration until such time as the Order of the Treasury might take effect. I submit to you that the exemption given by the Act, if qualified in that way, should permit of the Amendments which I have put down.

Further on the point of Order. With great respect, it seems to me, Sir Dennis, that your Ruling is absolutely right, and that the Ways and Means Resolution makes it quite clear that the exemption is not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, some qualified exemption. It should have been put into the Ways and Means Resolution if it was intended to have some form of qualification of the exemption. The words of the Resolution are quite clear:

"which may he exempted by the Act aforesaid."

The course which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be pursuing by his Amendments would clearly be outside these words.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will realise that I have not given this Ruling without having given the most careful consideration to it, because I fully realise the importance of the Amendments concerned. It is quite clear to me that, if those Amendments were carried, the result would be that the Act would give power to the Treasury to make Orders imposing a tax, or rendering certain articles liable to tax. There is nothing in the Financial Resolution which gives to Parliament power to delegate the authority to impose this tax to any other body whatever. I am not quite sure—I think it may be the case, but it is not necessary to consider it here—that it might not be in order to exempt certain articles by the First Schedule for a limited period, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests; but to put a condition on to the exemption to the effect that it should only last until the Treasury decides to render the article liable to a tax, would require the specific authority of a Resolution enabling the House to put in such a power of authorising the Treasury to impose the tax. Therefore, in those circumstances, when one comes to think it out, it is clear that any kind of provision—exemption, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer called it—would be different from an exemption limited in point of time, and that no condition can be attached to an exemption in the Bill which would have the result of giving power to impose a fresh tax.

Would not exemption make an increase in the charge?

The hon. Member seems to have arrived at the effect of the Ruling I have just given.

Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order in moving his Amendment if it increases the charge?

I do not understand the hon. Member. I have ruled that the right hon. Gentleman could not move the Amendment because it is one which would be contrary to, and not authorised by, the terms of the financial Resolution.

While not wishing to controvert your Ruling, Sir, I should like to say that the disappointment which hon. Members feel that the Amendment has proved to be not in order has been very considerably mitigated by the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will deal with it in the Finance Bill.

The next Amendment I call is that in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to leave out lines 39 to 42.

There is an Amendment in my name and that of others of my hon. Friends—,in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert a new paragraph:

"(c) Goods imported into any area or areas to be defined by the Commissioners which are not taken therefrom into any other part of the United Kingdom."

You will realise, I know, that this is a very important Amendment which vitally affects the transit trade through this country. I should like your Ruling whether that is in order or not.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for enabling me to reply to his question as this Amendment is one which I realise is important. It is out of order for the following reasons. First of all, it is incomplete and indefinite as it stands. It would want to have a definition of free ports and it would require a new Clause. But there is a further objection. The Customs Duties proposed to be imposed under the Bill are not the only Customs Duties that will be in existence, and, if you made a free port, it would have to be a port, as I imagine, in which goods would be free of all Customs Duties and, therefore, in effect, any attempt to create a free port under the Bill would be interfering with other Customs Duties which cannot be interfered with in the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

We have not mentioned free ports. We have only mentioned goods imported into an area, and only such area as may be defined by the Commissioners, and then then the goods are those goods which are taken out of that area into any other part of the United Kingdom. May I also point this out? The first Sub-section authorises the imposition of a 10 per cent. ad valorem tax on all goods other than goods exempted as hereinafter provided. Then comes the proviso, and the proviso only refers, not to "goods which are taxed otherwise than under this Act," but only to "goods which may be taxed under this Act." It says that all goods referred to in the Bill will be taxed except goods already subject to a tax under another Bill, and goods in the Schedule which is known as the free list. We suggest that those goods which also come into such area as the Commissioners of Customs may afterwards provide, which shall be known as a free area, which will be a transit area, into which goods may come and then go out of this country to some other country, shall be free. I suggest that, if you reconsider this, you might allow this to be in order.

With regard to the first point, I am afraid I used rather loose language in referring to free ports, but I do not think my Ruling would be any different if in the words I first used I had substituted "area or areas to be defined by the Commissioners" for the words "free port." With regard to the second point, I do not see that the hon. and learned Gentleman has met the reasons that I gave in any degree. There are certain goods which are exempt from these duties because they are now subject to other Customs Duties. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were to endeavour to amend the Bill in such a way as to create an area into which goods could be imported and taken away free of duty, it would, I am afraid, be interfering with the other Customs Duties on other articles which are exempted from the Bill by reason of their being subject to other Customs Duties.

I am only suggesting that the goods that come into an area which would be defined by the Commissioners of Customs should be exempt from such duties as this Bill would impose, and nothing more.

Even if I agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in this view, I should still be unable to select the Amendment for the earlier reason that I gave, that it is incomplete and would have to be dealt with, if at all, by a new Clause. May I add for his benefit, in case he is considering the question of a new Clause, that I fear that, if he did so, any attempt to deal with the matter by a new Clause would probably be found to be impracticable, because, under the proposal that he suggests, he would find that there would be a difficulty in collecting the duty on, say, wine and tobacco and other goods.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 39 to 42.

I sympathise with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) in not being able to move his Amendment. In moving this Amendment I find myself in most distinguished company, and for the first time in my existence I have the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I have no doubt that the arguments which he will address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be far more forcible than anything I can possibly say. The object of the Amendment is to cure what we believe to be a defect in the machinery of Sub-section (3) of the Clause. It is a little difficult to know exactly at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now aiming, but it seems to be clear that he has had a second thought as regards the way in which this should operate. Perhaps it is due to the imperfections of the original inquiry into the methods and lines upon which the Bill should be drafted, or perhaps it is owing to the pressure of the Home Secretary in the internal affairs of the Cabinet that this alteration has been made, and we shall hope to see that that pressure will be exerted so as to modify other parts of the Bill as well.

The proviso which we are hoping to omit is one which stops the Committee from taking into consideration the question whether any recommendation ought to be made to add classes or descriptions of goods to the free list until the expiration of six months from the passing of the Act. The position as we see it is that the committee will have to make up their mind as to whether any particular class of goods are such as should have been originally exempted, and we can see no reason why, if the attention of the Advisory Committee is drawn to some such case where there is an obvious hardship or an obvious difficulty arising for the manufacturer, they should be precluded from putting right that difficulty in the first six months. The position is that they are free to examine anything they wish under the Bill. If any matter is brought before them upon a representation provided for in Clause 2, Subsection (3), or is brought before them, apparently, in any other way, they may enter upon examination of it. Suppose there is some omission of great importance to some trade in the Second Schedule, and the Commissioners almost immediately, upon the incidence of the new taxation, become aware of it, that trade, though it should be relieved of this taxation, on, say, some raw material, under this proviso is to be forced to suffer for six months at least.

The only excuse which the right hon. Gentleman gave in his speech on the Second Reading was that the Committee would be so busy putting on duties during the first six months that he did not wish them to be delayed at all in the operation of those powers by considering whether other substances should be put upon the exempted list or not. That may be a very worthy desire to people who wish rapidly to see high tariffs, but if the Com mittee is really to be an independent judicial body, and is really to consider the thing apart from any political bias, but merely from the consideration of what is wise and advisable for a particular trade, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there can be no reason for tying their hands in this particular matter for six months. They need not, if they do not want to do so, enter upon considerations at all as regards further exemptions, but if, on the other hand, there is some case, as well there may be—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will willingly admit that in a rapidly worked out tariff of this sort there may well be some cases of particular hardship on some particular industry—a six months' delay in righting such a hardship may be fatal to the particular industry. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it will not in any way spoil his scheme or affect the work of the commissioners. I beg of the right hon. Gentleman to give them the power in the first six months, if they wish to exercise it, to add to the list. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself would regret that some obvious cases of hardship could not be dealt with, though he might wish to deal with them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that this Amendment is in no way a wrecking Amendment designed to do any harm to the Bill, but one really designed to try to get over what may be a difficulty.

I very much regret that the form of the Resolution of the Committee may make it impossible to amend this Clause with the liberty and flexibility which my right hon. Relative desired to give it in the Amendments which he had placed upon the Paper. But that being impossible, I should like to see the Clause made as perfect as possible. Let me hasten to assure my right hon. Relative that I have entered into no conspiracy with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that I handed in my own Amendment, and that it is merely by reason of economy in printing that I appear as his supporter. It is quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said in his concluding remarks, that this is not a wrecking Amendment in any sense, and it will be supported by those who are, like myself, whole-heartedly in favour of the purpose of the Bill. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider cases where you may have omitted raw material which is of no value by reason of any revenue that might be derived in this country and yet which is vital for a manufacturer doing a trade, not merely with customers in this country but in competition with foreign countries. I am sure that in those cases the Committee, when it had to consider them, would place them upon the free list, but if you wait for six months you may have done an almost irreparable injury to the foreign business or to the overseas business of the trader concerned.

The only objection which I have heard raised was that put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said, with great truth, that the committee was a numerous one, and that he was unwilling, in their first and most strenuous months, to put any fresh burden upon them. But how are the committee going to deal with the problem presented to them by the Bill I Surely, in the first instance they must act upon some broad general principle and correct the different details afterwards. It is impossible for them to examine the details of every item in the course of the few weeks or the few months within which the Government hope that they will have done their work. If we do not give them the power to add articles to the Schedule we may make it impossible for them to apply their general principle when constructing their first tariff. There is no dictation to them and there is no obligation upon them to add anything if the words which we propose to leave out are deleted, but it gives them a liberty which will be very important to them and will be very useful for the perfection of the scheme for which my right hon. relative is responsible.

May I reinforce what has been said by my right hon. Friend by one simple instance? I will say no more, because the time is short. I refer to the question of the maize starch industry. There are other similar industries, like the feather industry. Maize starch is made in this country. It is also made in Canada from maize that goes into Canada without paying duty. The Canadian product comes into this country as a Dominion product, free of duty. Unless, therefore, the maize which is used for this manufacturing purpose in this country is allowed to come in free of duty the British manufacturer will be placed at a very serious disadvantage as compared with his Canadian competitors, because the cost of the maize represents a considerable proportion of the cost of the final product. Two or three of these Canadian competitors are, in fact, subsidiaries of American firms.

That is the problem that has to be faced. I would only add that these products are of such a kind that, if a man's trade is hurt, the disadvantage of being out of business for six months might take away practically the whole of the value of his goodwill. I know the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would not for a moment wish to make any serious inroad upon the revenue that he would get. I do not think that our suggestion would do that. These additions to the free list during the six months will have to be subject to the approval of the Treasury. I believe the cost would be light. On the other hand, if a British industry is badly hurt the indirect loss to the revenue might be just as serious as the cost of the exemption would otherwise have been.

I do not think it is necessary to add to the pleas that have been made to the right hon. Gentleman, knowing the relationship and the powerful personality of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and his long association with the policy behind this Bill. I realise that some time may be necessary, but six months is far too long. I have an alternative suggestion of one month. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept our Amendment, I would suggest that he might accept the alternative of one month. In six months a vast amount of damage may be done to a great number of industries if it was found that some important raw material had been subject to the duty. I do not want to add to the number of examples which have been given, but two very good ones have just come to my notice. The first relates to Sparta grass, a very important article of raw material that cannot be produced in this country or in the Empire and is essential to a very large section of the paper industry. The second instance is that of bristles, which are found mainly in China and in Russia. The fact that they are to be found in Russia does not alter the fact that bristles are an essential raw material of the brush industry. Already the brush industry is suffering disadvantage on account of the depreciated exchange, which is adding to the cost of bristles. If on the top of that disadvantage we put another 10 per cent., I am assured by the brush manufacturers that a considerable part of their export trade will suffer. I do not intend to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I intend only to support Amendments which deal with particular interests or protect special industries. I want the Bill to do as little harm as possible. Therefore in the limited time at our disposal I intend to support practical Amendments. This is a practical Amendment, therefore I support it.

The Amendment is one on which I was anxious to hear the discussion, because it is obviously one of considerable importance. Moreover, it is backed by a certain amount of support from various parts of the House.

National support.

It certainly has support which should carry weight. The matter is a difficult one. We are now entering upon a new system which is bound to create a considerable amount of change right through industry, and it is inevitable that where there is change there is objection to the change. A good many people, the moment they find that a change of system is coming which means some change in the methods by which they have carried on their business, are apt to assume at once that their business is going to be entirely ruined, whereas if they had waited a little bit longer they would have found perhaps that it would be very easy for them to avoid the difficulties which appeared insurmountable at first sight.

What is the purpose of the six months period? My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) quoted what I said about the matter the other night, namely, that I did not want the Committee, when first beginning their work, to be overwhelmed by questions arising from requests put to them for the inclusion of particular articles in the free list, when their main duty was to consider the additional duties which they were to recommend. Many hon. Members have stressed the urgency of the additional duties and that the duties ought not to be postponed for a long period. There was another reason which I also gave, to which I attach very great importance, and that is that I do not think one has the materials that are necessary for coming to a final judgment on many of these surprise articles, which have not been gone into, at this stage. That material will not be available until a certain time has elapsed and it is seen what the effect of the new duties is and what the effect may be upon the development of alternative sources of supply.

In spite of that, and while it appeals to me very strongly, I recognise the force of what the hon. and learned Member opposite has said, that there may be things that we have not thought of. They may be small things, yet they may may be of great importance to particular industries. We do not want to put ourselves in the position that if, for want of thorough knowledge, a hardship of that kind has been inflicted upon a particular trade, it is not possible to correct the mistake however much we might want to correct it, until so long a period as six months has elapsed. I am unwilling to give up the general protection to the Committee which is given to them by this proviso, but in order to meet the objections which have been put forward I should like to suggest as an Amendment in line 39, after the words "Provided that," the insertion of the words:

"except in such cases as seem to them of special urgency,"

That would give the Committee a certain amount of discretion. If that is agreeable to hon. Members, I shall be glad to move that Amendment.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 39, after the word "that," insert the words

"except in such cases as seem to them of special urgency."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 2, line 39, to leave out the words "take into consideration the question whether" and to insert instead thereof the word "make."—[ Mr. Albery.]

In view of the action taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I do not desire to move this Amendment.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 2, line 42, to leave out the words "six months" and to insert instead thereof the words "one month."—[ Sir P. Harris.]

Although I think six months is too long, I do not propose to press this Amendment. At the same time I want to get all the concessions that are possible, and perhaps the Chancellor will be prepared to grant more concessions as we proceed with the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:

"(4) The provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the recommendation and allowance of drawback in respect of duty imposed under this section."

This provides for a drawback in respect of the ad valorem duty. I am not clear why a drawback is not allowed; and may I point out that where there is an additional duty as well as a general ad valorem duty, a drawback can be obtained on the additional duty but not on the ad valorem duty. It seems that they are neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will either allow or refuse a drawback on both where there is an ad valorem duty and an additional duty. Perhaps he will consider this matter before the Report stage.

If an Amendment is put down which will have the effect of allowing a drawback, in a case where a drawback is given for the additional duty, to extend to the general ad valorem duty I shall be glad to consider it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 67.]	AYES	[9.0 p. m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Eastwood, John Francis	MCLean, Major Alan
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Magnay, Thomas
Albery, Irving James	Elmley, Viscount	Maitland, Adam
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Manningham-Buller, Lt. Col. Sir M.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginaid V. K.	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Apsley, Lord	Erskine-Boist, Capt. C.C. (Blackpool)	Martin, Thomas B.
Aske, Sir Robert William	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)	Everard, W. Lindsay	Meller, Richard James
Atholl, Duchess of	Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Ford, Sir Patrick J.	Millar, Sir James Duncan
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Fraser, Captain Ian	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Mitcheson, G. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Gibson, Charles Granville	Moreing, Adrian C.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. R. (Portsm'th, C.)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Morrison, William Shephard
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Moss, Captain H. J.
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Boulton, W. W.	Goff. Sir Park	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart	Gower, Sir Robert	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersl'ld)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Boyce, H. Leslie	Grimston, R. V.	O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Gritten, W. G. Howard	Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Broadbent, Colonel John	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Ormiston, Thomas
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hales, Harold K.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Palmer, Francis Noel
Browne, Captain A. C.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Peake, Captain Osbert
Burghley, Lord	Harbord, Arthur	Pearson, William G.
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Hartington, Marquess of	Penny, Sir George
Burnett, John George	Hartland, George A.	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Petherick, M.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Calne, G. R. Hall.	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)	Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Campbell. Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)	Hepworth, Joseph	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Hillman, Dr. George B.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western isles)
Carver, Major William H.	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Cassels, James Dale	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Ramsden, E.
Castle Stewart, Earl	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Ratcliffe, Arthur
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hore Belisha, Leslie	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Hornby, Frank	Reid, David D. (County Down)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.)	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Remer, John R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Chotzner, Alfred James	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Clarry, Reginald George	Hurd, Percy A.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Clayton Dr. George C.	Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Roberts. Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Iveagh, Countess of	Ross, Ronald D.
Colfox, Major William Philip	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Runge, Norah Cecil
Colville, Major David John	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Conant, R. J. E.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Cook, Thomas A.	Kimball, Lawrence	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Cooke, James D.	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.	Knight, Holford	Salmon, Major Isidore
Craven-Ellis, William	Knox, Sir Alfred	Salt, Edward W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Crooke, J. Smedley	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Law, Sir Alfred	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Cross, R. H.	Leckie, J. A.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Scone, Lord
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Levy, Thomas	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Lewis, Oswald	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Liddell, Walter S.	Smiles, Lieut. Col. Sir Walter D.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Liewellin, Major John J.	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Dickie, John P.	Lloyd, Geoffrey	smith-Carington, Neville W.
Donner, P. W.	Locker-Lampson, Com. o. (H'ndew'th)	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Dower, Captain A. V. G.	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Drewe, Cedric	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Soper, Richard
Duggan, Hubert John	Mebane, William	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Dungiass, Lord	MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)	Spears, Brigadler General Edward L.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 56.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Thorp, Linton Theodore	Weymouth, Viscount
Stanley, Hon. o. F. G. (Westmorland)	Titchfleid, Major the Marquess of	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Stones, James	Touche, Gordon Cosmo	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Stourton, Hon. John. J.	Train, John	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Strauss, Edward A.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.	Turton, Robert Hugh	Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colenel George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)	Wise, Alfred R.
Sutcliffe, Harold	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)	Withers, Sir John James
Tate, Mavis Constance	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	Womersley, Walter James
Templeton, William P.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Thompson, Luke	Watt, Captain George Steven H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles	Wedderburn, Henry James Serymgeour	Lord Erskine and Mr. Blindell.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grunoy, Thomas W.	Mailalleu, Edward Lancelot
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Batey, Joseph	Harris, Sir Percy	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Bernays, Robert	Hirst, George Henry	Maxton, James
Briant, Frank	Hoidsworth, Herbert	Nathan, Major H. L.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Janner, Barnett	Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George	Jenkins, Sir William	Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas	John, William	Rea, Walter Russell
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Cowan, D. M.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Kirkwood, David	Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Daggar, George	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Sinclair, M al. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnese)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lawson, John James	Thorne, William James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Logan, David Gilbert	Tinker, John Joseph
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Lunn, William	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	McEntee, Valentine L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlsbro', W.)	McKeag, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Duncan Graham.
Groves, Thomas E.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Clause 2—(Constitution Of Advisory Committee

I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out from the beginning to the word "there" in line 5.

The mere statement of the Amendment will not convey any information to hon. Members. I ask your guidance, Mr. Chairman. This Amendment and that which follows next—in page 3, line 7, to leave out the word "Advisory"—should be taken in conjunction with a third Amendment—in page 3, line 9, to leave out the words "the Treasury" and to insert instead thereof the words "Parliament on the recommendation of the Crown."

It is obvious that the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Member has moved is introductory to others which stand together as a whole. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member will be at liberty on this Amendment to discuss the Amendments which he is to propose later.

The object and the result of this and the subsequent Amendments, if approved by the Committee, will be to ensure that instead of the Advisory Committee being denominated in the Bill an Advisory Committee it will be known as the Import Duties Committee, and that instead of the Members being appointed by the Treasury they will be appointed by Parliament on the recommendation of the Crown. On more than one occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the view, in which every hon. Member will concur, that the importance of the functions of the Advisory Committee cannot be exaggerated. It will be charged with the conduct and decision of very grave affairs, on the correct determination of which will depend, perhaps for a generation, the welfare and the prosperity of the country. It is, therefore, of fundamental importance that the Advisory Committee should be the right kind of committee. When speaking on the Second Reading the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that this Advisory Committee would operate in some sort of judicial way. I hope that that is the intention of the Government, and that it will be made explicit in an Amendment which will be moved later.

Meanwhile, by the Amendment now moved it is desired to create a statutory committee which will not be limited in its action by its name and function to being merely "advisory," but will have so wide an authority that it will be exercising all the power of a statutory com- mittee not merely in an advisory but also in an investigatory capacity. A committee of that kind, charged with the survey of the industrial system of the country and with the making of proposals as to whether or not and in what degree the provisions of the Bill should be carried into operation with reference to any particular industry, is obviously a committee with very special responsibility.

I am not quite sure how many Amendments the hon. and gallant Member proposes to include in this discussion, but I do not think that there are more than three which can properly be discussed together at present. Those are the Amendments to the first Sub-section which would alter the title of the Advisory Committee and the method of its appointment. Therefore, I do not think that any question arises at present as to what would be the duties of the Advisory Committee. The Amendments to be discussed here are only those which would have the result of constituting that committee under a slightly different name and providing that it should be appointed by Parliament on the recommendation of the Crown.

I agree. What I was about to say was that a Committee such as this should be, as the Lord President of the Council said, quite outside politics and should have very much the same status as that of His Majesty's judges. His Majesty's judges are not appointed by the Treasury. An appointment by the Treasury would be apt to savour too much, or give the appearance of savouring too much of politics and party feeling and dependence upon the political party which happens for the time being to be in office. The object of the Amendment is to ensure, as far as possible, that there shall be no hole-and-corner appointments; that the appointments shall be made in the eyes of all men and that Parliament shall have the opportunity, should it think fit to do so, of pronouncing judgment upon the persons who are nominated by the Government of the day. The present Foreign Secretary presided over a committee charged with functions scarcely graver or more responsible than those which will rest on the Committee proposed by the Bill. That was a Statutory Committee, each member of which was appointed by name by Parliament. It is the desire of those who subscribe to these Amendments that, just as that Committee owed its appointment to Parliament, so this Committee which will be charged with recasting the industrial system of the country should equally derive its authority from no less a source than Parliament itself. There will be an opportunity later, on another Amendment, of discussing in greater detail the nature and quality of the functions to be discharged by this Committee. The simple object of this and the two following Amendments in my name is to ensure that the Committee shall be appointed in a manner suitable to the functions which it will have to perform.

I think there is a general feeling that the word "advisory" is very limiting in character. Whatever point of view we may take on the Bill itself, I think we all want a Committee which will have the general confidence of the country, of trade interests and of consumers. If the Committee to be set up under the Bill is merely to give advice, there will be a feeling that it is composed of benevolent old gentlemen who can express opinions but whose opinions are not going to have much weight in selecting the goods to be dealt with under this Measure, in deciding the rate of duty on articles specially selected for extra duty, or in deciding the articles which are to be added to the Schedule. This is a great experiment and we are all agreed on one thing. We all hope that it will be for the advantage of the country. I am one of the doubtful people. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman above the Gangway is one of the optimists and I hope that he will prove to be right.

There is something more than political theory or party ideals and principles such as Free Trade and Protection to be considered when we are going to embark on an experiment of this kind. I fear that it will be disastrous. While I have that fear, I wish to try to ensure that it will do as little injury as possible and if it should prove successful no one will be more pleased than I shall be. But we must get the right kind of Committee and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman cannot get the right kind of men to serve on the Committee, the kind of men whose views will carry weight, if the Committee is only to give advice. We want to have the feeling throughout the country that this Committee is judicial, that it is, as the Mover of the Amendment said, in much the same position as the Statutory Commission which inquired into conditions in India under the chairmanship of the present Foreign Secretary. That was a real Statutory Committee which carried great weight throughout the world. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was an Advisory Committee."] It was not only advisory; it was appointed to report on the whole problem, and, of course, I am not suggesting that the word of the Committee proposed in the Bill should be final. Far from it. The House of Commons is not going to relinquish its right to decide what taxes should be levied, but, in coming to its decision, it ought to be influenced more by the opinion of this Committee than by the opinion of the Treasury or of the Minister who happens to be guiding our finances at this time.

This may seem a small Amendment, but there is an important principle behind it and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted that principle. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has eloquently preached this doctrine and I hope we shall have his support, if not for the actual terms of the Amendment, which is only a drafting suggestion, at any rate for the spirit of the Amendment. If we are to have a Committee to decide what goods should be and should not be taxed, that Committee ought to have the authority of judicial status and its authority ought not to be qualified by the use of such a trumpery word as "advisory."

As the hon. Baronet has referred to me, may I answer him straight away. I do not think it is very important whether the Committee is called advisory or not, or indeed what it is called. Obviously, it is going to be called the Tariff Committee. Whatever name we put on it in the Bill, it will get some short nickname, and, to that extent, I do not agree with the hon. Baronet. What is more, I am surprised to hear anybody from the Liberal benches making such a song and dance about a name. Some of us wonder what the word "Liberal" means. I do not see what the objection can be to the use of the word "advisory" in this connection. Whether the Committee's functions are to be judicial or not is another matter; and, if the hon. Baronet asks my opinion, I think that as long as the first words in this Clause are "for the purpose of giving advice," it is fatuous to call the Committee anything but an Advisory Committee.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after the word "other," to insert the word "permanent."

I do not know, Sir Dennis, whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were taken in conjunction with other Amendments on the same point which follow on the Paper.

I think exactly the same remark applies in this case as in the case of the last Amendment. This Amendment is introductory to several Amendments which form one complete proposal and which, I think, we can discuss together.

May I ask for your advice on one further question? Will you allow me to discuss this Amendment together with other Amendments which stand in connection with Clause 2, or would you prefer me to discuss with it the series of Amendments to Clause 3 which I and my hon. Friends have put down, and which, to some extent, deal with the same subject? If I deal only with this in regard to Clause 2, would you be able to preserve our opportunities on Clause 3?

I think that the hon. Member must limit the discussion at present to those Amendments which are on Clause 2. It is possible that it may be necessary for him, in order to explain this, to make a short reference to the fact that he is proposing to bring forward certain other Amendments on Clause 3, but on this occasion he must not discuss any Amendment beyond those to Clause 2.

I am grateful for that guidance. The Committee realise that Clauses 2 and 3 are the vital Clauses of the Bill in respect of the composition of the committee, and a great number of Members, and the country as a whole, regard the question of how the committee will operate, whether on a satisfactory basis with sound terms of reference or not, as the culminating question which we have to face. Clause 3 relates to the terms of reference of the committee, and, in obedience to the Ruling of the Chair, I do not now make any reference to it, except to say that my hon. Friends and I have put down certain Amendments to Clause 3 relating to the functions of the committee which are in sense joined to this Amendment and the other Amendments to Clause 2 which I have the honour to move. The functions and composition of the committee represent, from a certain point of view, the central aspects of the proposals which the Government have put before the country. By passing Clause 1 and by the Second Reading of the Bill the House and the country are committed to the principle of Protection. In this Clause we have to formulate a scheme by which we can make that a success.

As regards Clause 3, I will only say that we are very anxious that the terms of reference of this committee should be as wide as possible. There are many questions which, we think, ought to be brought under their purview, and which we have ventured to indicate in the Amendments we have put down. We do not at all believe that the functions of the committee should he of a purely judicial character, that is to say, if "judicial" means giving a judgment upon the existing facts. We want it to have a character of a far wider scope, and be able to be of real assistance in the development of our industries upon a modern basis, and be able not merely to deal with the problems which are put before it in regard to the conditions now existing, but to consider what amount of assistance to industries can be given, which it is the object of the Act to secure. It will then be able to perform this wider function and to carry out its duties, and be really helpful in the development of industry, not merely by saying that the basic trades must prove that they are in a position to manufacture at prices and in quantities satisfactory to the consuming trade. If it is to be conciliatory rather than merely judicial, and is to carry out a creative function, and not merely a static and passive one, then, we think, the Amendments we have put down as to the character and composition of the committee must follow and commend themselves to the Government.

9.30 p.m.

The Committee is to consist of not less than two and not more than five persons, but in Sub-section (6) of Clause 2 there is a provision for the formation of subcommittees of the Committee. In the event of the Committee being restricted to two persons, it is rather difficult to see how the sub-committees can be formed, and therefore we have put down an Amendment that in addition to the permament members there should be temporary members, as may be necessary from time to time. Further, in our Amendment we suggest the delegation of any of the functions of the Committee to a, subcommittee, which might consist of members of the Committee and such officials or representatives of the industries concerned as the Committee might invite, or such other persons. The point in this Amendment is the very practical question of the Committee's functions. We are trying to consider how the Committee will operate in view of the experience of the Safeguarding Committee in past Years. In that case, two or three persons were elected to act as a committee to deal with each individual industry which came under Safeguarding. On investigation of the history of Safeguarding, I find there were 18 such committees appointed. Altogether, there were 40 or 50 persons who acted as members of the committees. These committees held 253 meetings and interviewed 500 witnesses, and the average time they took was between three and six months. Applications were made by witnesses, and by counsel on each side. That is a procedure which we hope will not be followed by the new Committee.

We need a rapid decision by the Committee upon the broad range of industry, but beyond that we do think it should be necessary for sub-committees to be formed as is envisaged by the Bill, by which particular questions of particular industries can be studied. Obviously, a great series of questions such as those involved in the iron and steel trade, would need a sub-committee, consisting perhaps of a member of the committee acting as chairman, together with such other persons as they may choose to call upon to act as assessors, and who would be able to study the position of that particular trade. The same applies to the textile and other great trades. We do hope by that means that the Advisory Committee will not merely be in a position to make a judicial decision as to whether an additional tariff should or should not be given, but that it should give a far wider consideration to all the problems concerned with particular trades, and be able to go much farther in assisting any trade towards a real reorganisation of its affairs. For that purpose it will need not only a technical adviser from the trade concerned, but probably also a financial adviser and a representative of such organisations as the Bankers' Industrial Trust and so on, so that these committees can become creative organisations in the reorganisation of our industrial system. If that can be done, the Advisory Committee will perform a function far greater than that performed by the Safeguarding committees.

I venture to suggest that the Government would be wise to take rather wider powers as to the composition of the committees and the developments which may follow from their policy. If they restrict their committee—and I am not arguing more than comes under Clause 2, for I hope we shall have an opportunity on Clause 3 to deal with the wider questions of the functions of the committee—to the very narrow personnel in Clause 2, I am afraid they may find themselves overwhelmed with work, and the number of applications will be so tremendous that they will not be able to deal with them. The only practical way in which they can work is by giving them subcommittees for studying specific problems and the right to appoint temporary members to act as chairmen of sub-committees; and simply in the spirit of trying to make suggestions which will be helpful to the Government in carrying out this great policy, I move this Amendment.

I do not think it needs any expression of opinion on my part to request the Government to reject this Amendment. There are some of us on this side who look to this advisory committee for very speedy action. We hope that at the beginning of their work they will lay down general lines on which they can immediately recommend additional duties, leaving the refining principles to come on later, and the scientific tariff to become the third stage in the proceedings. But what we hope for first is very quick action, and I think the Amendment would mean delay, although the hon. Member who moved it indicated that he was for speed. I fear that if the advisory committee once begins to go into the question of the efficiency or inefficiency of industries, the result will be that the decisions that we want will be very long delayed.

Talking about inefficiency in industry, we nearly always find that the biggest criticism comes from those who have very little knowledge of industry. Taking it on the whole, I think that, considering the handicap under which this country has worked for many years, our industries are extraordinarily efficient, and indeed a great deal more efficient than might have been expected. If they can only be given the safeguard that we are hoping to get under this Bill, and that we hope this advisory committee will give to those engaged in industry, it will be found that they will be able to work out their own schemes of efficiency far better than any committee set up by Governments or by anyone else can work them out for them. I therefore feel that this Amendment should be resisted. It is not in the interests of the industries of this country, but rather is it in the interests of delay. I should like to welcome the resurrection of the Y.M.C.A.

May I say a few words in support of the Amendment, which is in no sense designed for delay? Speaking as a member of the Bar, I hope this committee will function without what, in other circumstances, is no doubt very properly called the assistance of counsel. I hope it will be expeditious, but I think we shall all agree that the duties which are to fall on this advisory committee are onerous and manifold, and we are not able really to foresee the extent of the complexity of the problems which will confront them. If I may be allowed to show partiality among my children, treating in that aspect the Amendments to which I have put my name, I should like to express my preference for that which stands on the top of page 79 of the Order Paper, which is an Amendment to Subsection (6) entitling the committee, when it forms a sub-committee, to incorporate in that sub-committee

"persons representing the industries concerned and such other persons as the Committee may invite to assist them."

It will be noted that that is purely an enabling provision and if this committee find that they can function better and more expeditiously merely by taking advantage of Sub-section (7), which entitles them to call witnesses, they need not, and no doubt will not, resort to the enabling power which this Amendment proposes to give them. But there are in inquiries certain advantages in having persons experienced in the industry or in accountancy on the same side of the table as the permanent member of the committee who would be chairman of the sub-committee. There are certain advantages in his having on his side of the table persons who have been co-opted there rather than having them on the opposite side of the table as witnesses, and it is merely in order to confer on the committee the power, if they choose—they need not exercise it if they do not choose —to co-opt persons representing the industry or such other persons as they think can assist them to serve with them as members of the sub-committee, that, this Amendment is moved.

We certainly support this Amendment, and I should like to say to the hon. Baronet the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts) that we would rather see a resurrection of the Y.M.C.A. than the affairs of this country handed over to the Grannies' Group, who apparently rely upon what is known by the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as the fusty, musty principles of the 19th century. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to the procedure under the Safeguarding Act, and to the long delays that took place owing to that procedure. I had the privilege, or otherwise, of appearing in some of those proceedings, and it is perfectly true that the length of time that was occupied by them was inordinate. The expense of them was, I am sure, un-remunerative to everybody, and I do not suppose that they came to very satisfactory decisions in the long run.

It seems to us that a judicial body is not the right sort of body to get on with any real business in this matter. It is not a question, as we see it, of sitting down to come to some semi-legal decision as to whether some industry or other can prove a case according to the laws of evidence, and as to whether all the facts have to be inquired into. It is more a matter of inquiring, if you are going to have this tariff system, into how it can best be applied to the country as a whole and to the various groups of industries in the country; and as I understand the purpose of this Amendment, it is at least the first awakening to the idea that some form of national planning is necessary. We have, inside this House and outside, constantly laid emphasis upon the necessity of adopting some form of social control and planning, and we believe that if a really strong committee was set up, which was given power, not only to inquire into, but to order, the reorganisation of industry, where it found it was necessary, as a condition of giving any tariff Protection, a beginning at least might be made in the setting up of a body which, when we required to use it for social control and planning, would be found useful for our purpose. Therefore, we certainly welcome this beginning as a step in the right direction.

Any contribution made by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) is worthy of serious consideration, for everybody knows that he has taken a deep interest in this matter both in speech and in writing. I venture to suggest to him, however, that he is transforming out of all knowledge the original intentions of the Government by this series of Amendments. In dealing with them, I may perhaps be permitted to refer to the able speeches to which we listened on two previous Amendments, to which no reply was given. This Advisory Committee is to be a small body consisting of a chairman and not less than two or more than five members. It is intended that it shall have every facility for doing its work expeditiously, and it is entrusted with very wide powers of acquiring information. A great deal of that information is confidential. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees proposes that the committee shall be enlarged in several particulars. He says that instead of the committee being constituted as is proposed in this Sub-section, it should have a chairman, not less than two permanent members and a number of temporary members as occasion may require. He does not even stop there. Having poured ridicule on the fact that this small Advisory Committee may appoint sub-committees, he himself suggests that it may appoint a sub-committee of one. It is his own suggestion, for it is to be found in one of his Amendments. It is not only to do that, but it is also to co-opt on to its committees persons representing the industries which are the subject of the inquiry, and invite any body of representative persons to serve.

It will be obvious that this transforms the whole character of our proposal, and it takes us a long way from a judicial committee. Any industry that is to be inquired into is to be entitled to representation if the Committee so desire. Take my hon. Friend's own illustration of the steel industry. If, when inquiring into the steel industry, they co-opt members from the industry, it will set up a precedent which every industry that is subsequently inquired into is entitled to have followed. Therefore, instead of the country having the advantage of a small committee working rapidly, they will be encumbered with a whole series of precedents, and discontent and many anomalies will be created. If we were starting from the void, as it were, much might be said for my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it would be unsatisfactory to graft on to these proposals a series of ideas which are foreign to the whole of our intentions.

Therefore, while I respect, and while everybody must respect, what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I hope that he will not press his Amendments. The proper place for the representative bodies with which he is concerned is the witness box, not the judicial tribunal. The Advisory Committee Will be empowered to hear evidence, and if it is to co-opt on to the bench the very persons who are to be on trial, as it were, it will not work rapidly, and it will certainly not work judicially. Therefore, while we have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend said, we have even more sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) and those who support him, in requiring that this Committee should be judicial. Unfortunately, their ideals are too exalted for this world, and we have not been able to make the Committee as judicial as they would desire. I hope, however, that they will agree that it is more judicial than it would be if the Government accepted these Amendments.

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that this Committee has to act with speed, and that the Amendment imports a new principle into it. Though it may not be possible for the Government to accept the Amendment, I want to impress upon them certain points about this change in our fiscal system which seemed to be of prime importance. It will be admitted by the Government that efficiency must go hand in hand with Protection. I agree that you cannot get reorganisation and rationalisation until you have a certain Protection; and until that is given, no business that wants to reorganise itself can find the capital. Here I disagree rather deeply with the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts). Business men are not so confident about the organisation of their businesses as he is. In the wool and textile trades I am told that a large amount of capital could usefully be spent, and that the business will not be efficient until the expenditure is made, but the capital cannot be found until they have the security of Protection. I cannot think, therefore, that the hon. Member is expressing the real opinion of the business community when he says that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

This Amendment and those that go with it bring into that reorganisation of business, business men themselves. I agree that you cannot enforce reorganisation from outside; you always fail if you do. Each industry has to regenerate itself. Here we have this valuable suggestion of sub-committees to consider the state of each industry, and to comprise, in addition to the permanent members of the Advisory Committee, persons representing the interest concerned and such other persons as the Committee may invite. I should have thought that that was a very valuable suggestion, and I hope that some time it will be carried out. Whether it can be carried out in this Bill or at this time, is a question for the Government. I am convinced that the success or failure of this great Bill depends largely on whether or not it is used to regenerate British industry. I am certain of that. If it is used to regenerate British industry, the future is very bright; we shall go right ahead, and no country will start with half such an advantage as we shall possess. I am sure that the Government have that point in mind, and I hope that it will not be overlooked, and that we shall find some means through the protection afforded by this Bill, of bringing about the increased efficiency and reorganisation of our industries.

I really cannot let the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) go without some reply. Are we in a Socialist Parliament or are we not? He says he hopes that at some time this great regeneration of industry will be carried out, and that this Bill is going to do it.

No.

This Bill is not intended to do anything of the sort. If he will read the Preamble he will see that it is meant to do certain definite things—to restrict in the national interest the importation of certain goods in order to save sterling, to provide a remedy in the case of foreign countries discriminating against us, and to make an addition to the public revenue. If the House wanted to set about reorganising British industry it would adopt a very different system. I leave it at that. Technically, this Amendment seeks only to add some temporary members to the committee over and above the permanent ones. Of course, the hon. Gentleman who moved it, like myself, some 15 years ago thought that temporary people were much better than regulars, and so does the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. But when the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was speaking about creative organs of industry and a far wider development of the modern State, I was wondering how long it would be before the Labour party tumbled to what he was talking about. The keen and acute mind of the ex-Solicitor-General saw it at once, and got up to welcome the assistance he was getting from the benches opposite.

The Parliamentary Secretary has made it perfectly clear that the function of this committee is to be a judicial one. I admit that I have not yet heard how the Government think it is going to be judicial, but perhaps in the course of the proceedings on the Bill they may indicate a little more clearly their intention on that point. But we come back once again to fundamentals—whether the committee are to take evidence and act in a judicial capacity, or whether they are to be a semi-Socialist organisation for the direction of the whole of the trade and industry of the country. The Leader of the Opposition would like it to be such a committee—of course he would; and he is getting some support from this side.

I want the committee to call into consultation persons representing industry, and, if that is Socialism, I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend is a Socialist too.

Oh, no. It is quite true that some people have talked prose all their life without knowing it, and the Conservative party may find that it was Socialist all the time. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that he did it in the hope that this Measure would bring about a far wider development of the modern State on well-planned lines.

Hear, hear!

I am afraid I cannot pursue that point, because it will be ruled out of order. What is the object of the Bill? I submit that from the Preamble the Bill does not set out to do—

rose—

I thought so.

The hon. and gallant Member caught my eye some time ago, when he was speaking about the Preamble; he realised that he was out of order then. Perhaps he may do so now.

So long as I have demolished the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon, I am quite satisfied.

10.0 p.m.

I do not wish to intervene in the contest going on opposite, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Potter) was a little unkind to my hon. Friend sitting in front of me. There is nothing of the bright young man about my hon. Friend. There is nothing of the Y.M.C.A. about him. He is really a sort of super-Gretton, if I may put it like that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member would have us believe that there is no one in this country who is capable of managing his own business and his own affairs, and therefore we are to have a Committee not only for the purposes mentioned in the Bill but to be a creative organ. I have never quite understood what is meant by that phrase "creative organ." The words sound very nice, but they remind me of the sort of thing we used to hear in 1920 in the wonderful speeches of the then Prime Minister. The Committee will have enough to do to discharge the actual duties placed upon them by the Bill. They will have to deal with the imports of a vast variety of trades, and we do not want to place on them the obligation of interfering with the conduct of businesses in the country.

Division No. 68.]	AYES	[10.5 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	McEntee, Valentine L.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Batey, Joseph	Groves, Thomas E.	Maxton, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Grundy, Thomas W	Parkinson, John Allen
Buchanan, George	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Price, Gabriel
Cape, Thomas	Hirst, George Henry	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jenkins, Sir William	Tinker, John Joseph
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, J. J. (west Ham, Silvertown)	Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Daggar, George	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lawson, John James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert	Mr. John and Mr. Gordon Macdonald
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lunn, William

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Blaker, Sir Reginald	Castle Stewart, Earl
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Boulton, W. W.	Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Ainsworth, Lieut. Colonel Charles	Bower. Capt. Sir George	Cayzer, Mal. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Albery, Irving James	Boyce, H. Leslie	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Bracken, Brendan	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Briant, Frank	Chotzner, Alfred James
Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Clayton, Dr. George C.
Apsley, Lord	Broadbent, Colonel John	Colfox, Major William Philip
Aske, Sir Robert William	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Colman, N. C. D.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Browne, Captain A. C.	Colville, Major David John
Atholl, Duchess of	Buchan, John	Conant, R. J. E.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Cook, Thomas A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Burghley, Lord	Cooke, James D.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Burnett, John George	Craven-Ellis, William
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Caine, G. R. Hall-	Crooke, J. Smedley
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C)	Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Carver, Major William H.	Cross, R. H.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Cassels, James Dale	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Castlereagh, Viscount	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

I do not for one moment wish to go behind any of my hon. Friends in front of me. [ Interruption.] What I wish to say is that although we realise the necessity for the reorganisation of trade such a thing is not more important in this country than in others. We are just as far ahead as other countries. In setting up this Committee we ought to have clearly in out minds what the duties will be. It is set up for the purpose of placing taxes on foreign goods coming into the country, and it ought not to get mixed up with the question of the reorganisation of industry. If Parliament wishes to reorganise industry, let it do it at the proper time and in the proper way—as it did in the case of the Coal Mines Act, which has been such a failure. I hope that my hon. Friends, having put their point of view, will have the good sense to withdraw the Amendment, because it goes far beyond what most of us regard as the purpose of the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'permanent' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 282

Dawson, Sir Philip	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Romer, John R.
Dixey, Arthur C. N.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Donner, P. W.	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Dower, Captain A. V. G.	Law, Sir Alfred	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Drewe, Cedric	Leckie, J. A.	Robinson, John Roland
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Duggan, Hubert John	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Ross, Ronald D.
Dunclass, Lord	Levy, Thomas	Runge, Norah Cecil
Eastwood, John Francis	Lewis, Oswald	Russell, Alexander West (T nemouth)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Liddall, Walter S.	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Llewellin, Major John J.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Elmley, Viscount	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Salmon, Major Isldore
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Salt, Edward W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Mebane, William	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)	MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	McCorquodale, M. S.	Scone, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay	McLean, Major Alan	Selley, Harry R.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Maitland, Adam	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.	Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Fraser, Captain Ian	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ganzonl, Sir John	Marjoribanks, Edward	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Martin, Thomas B.	Smith-Carinnton, Neville W.
Gibson, Charles Granville	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.)	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Soper, Richard
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Meller, Richard James	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	Miller, sir James Duncan	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Gower, Sir Robert	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Moore. Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)	Stones, James
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Strauss, Edward A.
Grimston, R. V.	Morelng, Adrian C.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Gritten, W. G. Howard	Morris-Jones. Or. J. H. (Denbigh)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Morrison, William Shepherd	Sutcliffe, Harold
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Moss, Captain H. J.	Tate, Mavis Constance
Hales, Harold K.	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Templeton, William P.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Nall-Gain, Arthur Ronald N.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Hammersley, Samuel S.	Nathan, Major H. L.	Thompson, Luke
Harbord, Arthur	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Harris, Sir Percy	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Hartington, Marquess of	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Hartland, George A.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Harvey Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Ormlston, Thomas	Train, John
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)	Palmer, Francis Noel	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Patrick, Colin M.	Wallace. John (Dunfermline)
Hepworth, Joseph	Peake, Captain Osbert	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Hillman, Dr. George B.	Pearson, William G.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Holdsworth, Herbert	Peat, Charles U.	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Penny, Sir George	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Hore Belisha, Leslie	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Weymouth, Viscount
Hornby, Frank	Petherick, M.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Powell, Lieut.-Col, Evelyn G. H.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Pybus, Percy John	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Wise, Alfred R.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Iveagh, Countess of	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Womersley, Walter James
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Ramsden, E.	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Ker, J. Campbell	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Reid, David D. (County Down)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Kimball, Lawrence	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Minden.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:

"after consultation with such representatives or bodies representative of the following interests as the Treasury thinks fit, that is to say:—

The National Confederation of Employers Organisations;

The General Council of the Trades Union Congress;

The Association of the British Chambers of Commerce;

The Co-operative Union."

We are anxious that there shall be a feeling of confidence in the public mind that, when this committee is appointed,

these representatives will be consulted, so that it may be felt that the matter is not left altogether to the Treasury. To our mind, the Treasury represents the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know his views on tariff questions, and I think it would be to his own interest to indicate to the public that the country is not being governed altogether by one man. I think we might expect some help in this matter from the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) and from the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills), both of whom have asked for a wider circle of representation on this body. The last Amendment was riot carried, and we have here a chance to give that feeling of confidence which hon. Members desire should be given to the public.

I rise to support the Amendment. It is very important that we should get a clear idea of what this Advisory Committee is to be like. I am afraid that, if the matter is left solely to the Treasury, they will regard it purely from the revenue point of view. It is most important that the committee should be composed of people who have a wide outlook and will consider the general needs and interests of the country and the industrial life of the country as a whole. It is very important that they should not look at things either from a narrow Treasury point of view, or even from a narrow judicial point of view, though I do not understand how it is possible to be judicial in a matter where there is, so to speak, no code at all to apply. We do not want this committee to be composed of people who will yield to requests made by particular interests; we want them to be selected as being conversant with the whole range of the economic life of this country, and understanding the point of view of those actually engaged in industry. We do not want them to be merely financiers, but people who understand the point of view of the workers of this country. We are now, to some extent at all events, changing the direction of our economic life, and the direction of our economic life is particularly important from the point of view of employment, the location of new industries, and so forth. We want the committee to include, also, people who will consider the consumers, and that is the reason for suggesting consultation with the co-operative union. This Amend- ment is a fair one, and is not put forward from a narrow point of view. It proposes that there shall be consultation with the workers, the employers, the producers, and the consumers, on the question of the people who are to be appointed to this very important body.

I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not listen to this proposal, which is on very unsound lines. The last thing we want to have is a committee representing the interests. After all, the Federation of Employers Organisations will represent many people who will want to ask for privileges and favours from the committee. We want it to be as judicial in character as possible and to be drawn from the very people to whom the last speaker objected, people like chartered accountants, judges, men who are accustomed to hear and to sift evidence and to be as impartial as possible.

This is the first time during this Debate that I have found myself in agreement with the hon. Baronet. As far as I can see, the Amendment cannot have been very carefully thought out by its promoters, because, if you bring it to its logical conclusion, its effect will be that one of these bodies will suggest one commissioner and another, and there will be a series of entirely conflicting interests. They would cancel each other out, and the committee would not be able to get along with its business at all. It may be that that is what is at the back of the minds of those who put the Amendment down, and that they do not want the committee to get along with its business. They say they want a committee of wide outlook. I cannot imagine that any representatives of these bodies would take an outlook very much wider than the interests of their own particular body. It is somewhat amusing to reflect on the wide outlook of the Co-operative Union, and, with regard to the Trade Union Congress, their outlook may be wide, but, as far as I can remember, it has never been wise. There is no need to request the Government to reject the Amendment. I am certain that they will do it.

The hon. Baronet is entirely incorrect about the position of our party in the matter. The point is this. We do not want a committee com- posed of economists, to whom the President of the Board of Trade so strongly objects. We want a more businesslike committee. Here is a committee which will represent all the interests concerned—the producers, the employers, the consumers, the workers and commerce. We do not want all these political economists, who always disagree with each other and come to different decisions. I ask the Chancellor to consider the matter carefully, and I hope he will not take any notice of the revolt of the rabbits.

This Amendment seems entirely characteristic of the Socialist party. They always want a committee to appoint a committee to appoint a committee to consider what should be done. During that period when they were responsible for the bad government of the country, they appointed more committees than anyone else and never took any notice of their recommendations. A well-known bishop said that if Noah had had a committee he would never have built the ark. If the Amendment should by any chance be accepted, I should like to ask the Mover if he would be willing to accept a manuscript Amendment, which I will hand in, to add to the four organisations the Free Trade Union and the Empire Industries Association.

I do not think that the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) will be able very much longer to use the phrase about the number of committees appointed by the late Government. I believe that before many months are over the number will have been surpassed by the present Government. But I join with him and those on this side who deplore the very foolish Amendment which has been brought forward by the Labour party. If you had to go to all these different bodies, you would get different opinions about every proposal. If, on the other hand, you had not these special bodies but a national industrial council such as has been suggested representing all the elements in industry, employers and employed, there would be a case for making some alteration. In resisting this Amendment, we shall be doing something to help hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because when they come into power again it may be that they may have to make the appointments of this body, and they may be placed in a position of very great embarrassment if they have to go to the Trades Union Congress for their nominees. Hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament will remember the sort of persons they used to choose as chairman of these bodies. They will remember the difficulty they had in getting their nominee Lord Hunsdon appointed. If they desired to appoint Lord Hunsdon to one of these bodies, I venture to say that they would have great difficulty in getting the proposal through Congress. For this and other reasons, I oppose the Amendment.

I only wish to ask a question. According to the President of the Board of Trade, we are not to have any of these musty, fusty political economists, and we are not to have the judiciary. Will somebody tell me who we are to have? [HON. MEMBERS: "You!"] God forbid. I also want to know the difference between such a national organisation of employers and employed which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) suggests and the bodies we suggest. I hope before we go any further that somebody will tell us the sort of person of which this great body is to consist. You have ruled out everybody except me.

10.30 p.m.

It would be discourteous if I were not to answer the right hon. Gentleman. I will tell him with the use of one adjective what sort of body we are to have. It is to be an impartial body, and, of course, as my right hon. Friend would be the first to admit, it could not be an impartial body if we accepted this Amendment. Obviously, the list is not exhaustive, and my hon. Friends opposite have given a strange discretionary power to the Government. The representatives of various trades unions and employers organisations are not apparently to be selected by the bodies themselves but by the Government. Of course, that would put the various competitors even within this body in the most invidious position and impose upon the Government a most distasteful duty. For those reasons, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)—in page 3, line 10, to leave out from the word "office," to the end of the subsection, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"during good behaviour subject to power of removal by His Majesty on an Address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament "—

is out of order.

Will you explain why it is out of order, seeing that the Chairman of Ways and Means told me that he intended to call it?

I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that in his Amendment the persons appointed would hold their office,

"during good behaviour subject to power of removal by His Majesty on an Address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament."

The Financial Resolution lays it down that they shall receive such payment as Parliament may determine. In other words, they will come on the Estimates and it will be open to the House, in Committee of Supply, to refuse them their salaries at any moment.

But they may be so public spirited as to want to go on doing their work, without payment.

That is a remote possibility, but I think it is too remote to be a possibility.

May I remind you, Sir, that possibilities are not points of Order. May I move the Amendment, whether that is a possibility or not?

No. I must hold to my decision, in view of the fact that the salaries of these Gentlemen may be terminated by the Committee of Supply at any moment. Therefore, it is impossible to put in the Statute that they shall hold office during good behaviour.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out the words "from time to time" and to insert instead thereof the words "for further periods of three years, or annually."

The Bill as drawn is so indefinite as regards the appointment of these very important members of the committee, that I desire to insert definite periods. From time to time, re-appointments can be made. They could, presumably, be appointments for 10 years. There are those on this side of the House who desire to make the appointments of a very definite and permanent character. I take the view that the appointments must during the first period be regarded as something in the nature of an experiment. Therefore, I think they might be appointed for three years, but there should be the greatest possible latitude afterwards in making the re-appointments. By inserting in the Clause the provision that the appointment should be "for further periods of three years, or annually," I have sought to provide, first, that if the initial appointments are successful, they can be continued for another period of three years, but if, for some reason, a first appointment was desired to be continued for a lesser period than three years, it could be continued annually. It might be possible that one person whom it was desirable to retain might not be able to continue for three years but might be able to continue for one year.

There must inevitably be from time to time some changes in the personnel of the committee, and it is desirable that these changes should be gradual in their nature and that there should be some continuity of personnel. By inserting the word "annual," I provide for that. It makes it possible to continue some members of the committee for three years and some for only one year. Possibly, after that, they could continue for another year. Therefore, changes could gradually take place when the necessity arose. It may be that the Minister will see some objection to my suggestion. In that case we may hear what his intentions are, and perhaps he will offer some Amendment of the Clause which will make the re-appointment of a more definite nature than it appears to be in the present wording of the Bill.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the effect of the provision. He fears that they may be re-appointed for a longer period than three years, he mentioned 10 years, but re-appointment is covered by the first part of the Subsection. They are to hold office for a period of three years and, therefore, on re-appointment they would be re-appointed for three years. It would, of course, be possible to appoint them for a shorter time, but we must remember that we want to give this body a certain amount of independence, and to appoint them for a shorter period than three years would be prejudicial to their status. In addition, it might be somewhat difficult to find people who would be willing to take office for a year at a time. With regard to his second point, that it is not desirable that members of this committee should come out together and be reappointed together, that does not necessarily follow. It is not necessary to reappoint the whole of the committee at the same time, some members may be re-appointed and others may not; and there is no obligation to appoint the whole number of five members as well as the chairman at the same time. In fact, I anticipate that we shall begin by appointing three members to the committee and add to it other members as it is found desirable to increase the personnel in order to deal with these questions.

I am glad to hear that it is proposed to appoint the committee for three years. The Bill, ostensibly, is to deal with an emergency, the adverse balance of payments, and we hope that in three years time the President of the Board of Trade will be satisfied that the emergency has passed. Otherwise the Bill will have to be considered a failure. Three years, I think, is ample time and I hope that we shall be able to dispense with the Bill and that the Committee will not be wanted before the expiration of that period.

If it is unnecessary to provide that the salaries of the members of this committee should depend upon good behaviour and that they should be subject to removal by an Address to His Majesty, because it is within the power of the House of Commons to withdraw their salaries at any time, what is the good of appointing them for three years?

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:

"If a Member becomes in the opinion of the Treasury unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties under this Act the Treasury shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall notify the fact in such manner as they think fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant."

This is a provision which has probably been omitted by an oversight. It is a usual Clause in Bills of this character, to cover the possibility of anything happening to a member of a committee during the first years of his period of office. If, unfortunately, a person suffered a mental illness there is no provision in the Bill to free him from his office, and unless there is some such provision as this—it is found in other Acts of Parliament—it will be impossible in any case short of death for the member to be removed.

I shall be glad to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:

"(3) The chairman of the Committee and any member of the Committee shall, within one month after his appointment, sell any securities which he may hold in his own name or in the name of a nominee for his own benefit in any undertaking engaged directly or indirectly in the production or sale of any goods which if imported would be chargeable with the general ad valorem duty, and it shall not be lawful for the chairman or any such member of the Committee whilst he holds office to purchase for his own benefit any securities in any such undertaking, and if the chairman or any such member of the Committee under any will or succession becomes entitled for his own benefit to any securities in any such undertaking he shall sell them within one month after he has so become entitled thereto."

Everyone realises that the functions of this advisory committee will be very delicate and important, and that they should be free not only from any self-interest in exercising those functions but from any suspicion of self-interest. The words of the Amendment are adapted from those which were inserted in the Electricity Supply Act of 1926, setting up the Central Electricity Board. In that case over a comparatively limited industrial field very big powers were entrusted to certain gentlemen, and the Parliament of that time, overwhelmingly Conservative, thought fit to insert the words that are contained in the Amendment. If it is right that members of the Central Electricity Board should be free from any interest in any electricity undertaking, it is quite clear that the members of this advisory committee should be free from any suspicion that any matter on which they have to give a decision may affect their own personal interest. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the Amendment.

I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment, because I think that there is no parallel case to be drawn with the Central Electricity Board. In that case the members of the Board were dealing with a very narrow or comparatively narrow field, while in this case they are dealing with a field the limits of which it would be hard to define. I object to the Amendment on two grounds. First, it assumes a form of potential dishonesty on the part of the Advisory Committee; and, secondly, I think it is impracticable in its application. It might be possible that the members should declare their interest, but to force them to sell any securities which they may hold in any undertaking engaged directly or indirectly in the production or sale of any goods that might be chargeable with the duty, is another matter. The strength even of gilt-edged stocks depends on the ability of this country to produce and sell goods, and the members of this committee would thus not be able to purchase or hold either industrial stocks, or even gilt-edged stocks. By passing this Amendment we would force them to sell, possibly in a depressed market, and under conditions which would be unfair to them, stocks which would come within the terms of the Amendment but which would, in practice, have no bearing on the matter at all.

I do not think that it would be possible for us to accept this Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment will, I am sure, see that it would mean that those about to act on the committee would not merely have to get rid of any securities which they might hold but would have to get out of any undertaking which was engaged directly or indirectly in the production or sale of any goods liable to the general ad valorem duty. It would be obviously unjust that they should not be able to hold securities if they could themselves engage in the undertaking. I cannot imagine what they could not be required to sell under the terms of the Amendment. A man who owned a cow, for instance, would be interested in the production of goods which would be liable to an ad valorem duty such as milk and cheese. I am not quite sure whether a bull would come within the terms of the Amendment, but it might be said that calves were subject to this provision. I think we should be led very far afield if we adopted the Amendment. There must be a certain sense of propriety in these matters, and I would remind hon. Members opposite that even judges are not prohibited from holding investments and from hearing cases affecting undertakings in which they may chance to have holdings. In this case we are dealing with duties which may affect a wide range of undertakings and articles and it would be unreasonable to expect the members of the Advisory Committee to realise everything which they possess.

This is a very serious matter. [Laughter.] Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not regard it as serious, not whether or not the advisory committee is corrupt but whether or not people should be able to make the suggestion that it is corrupt. Of course, nobody here is suggesting that the committee would be corrupt, hut it has often been said, and was said only recently by the Lord Chief Justice, that it is sometimes more important that justice should appear to be done than that justice should be done. Nothing could he more unfortunate than that it should be ascertained that a member of this committee held securities in a firm which benefited by an additional duty. No one would suggest that it had influenced his judgment except someone who was concerned to make trouble. Surely it is worth while, however, considering the protection of the committee against people who might make such suggestions and might thereby lead to a great deal of discontent with the committee's work. If the Government in 1926 thought it necessary, when dealing with a limited field—which makes it all the more surprising perhaps—that this protection should be inserted for such a committee in order that they might not be laid open to some charge which would not be true, it is even more necessary here.

This advisory committee is apparently to be set up as a, small judicial body with complete powers of recommendation, and nothing could be more unfortunate or more likely to injure the good repute of the committee and the whole proceedings under this Measure than that is should be discovered, at some time, that members of it held securities in a firm which had benefited by some act of the committee. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman jestingly pointed out that a cow might be included in the terms of the Amendment, but I do not think any judge has ever held that a cow is a security, and it certainly is not a security in an undertaking. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not think that that sort of point meets what is a serious question, which hitherto has been treated seriously in matters of this kind. We very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least consider whether some form of protection should be inserted.

The speech to which we have just listened fills me with amazement. There would only be one class in the country who would not be included in the category, and that is gentlemen of the legal profession. The hon. and learned Gentleman would seem by this special advocacy to be asking for the sole appointment of those who are connected with this profession, because, obviously, he has eliminated everybody in the other categories. If you look all round and take this Bill, there can be no man who is not directly or indirectly affected—

I am sure that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks the 135 members of the legal profession in his own party in this House, he will find that a good many of them have securities in undertakings.

The hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands me. I can conceive that it is almost impossible for anyone to have any independent income except gentlemen of a profession such as that followed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It probably has not occurred to him that it is only a professional man of such a description who could come into the category to which he seeks to limit the appointment. You would have to draw this much wider, for there would not be a man in the trade union move- ment who would not come under the Bill. In the course of years their whole livelihood will be affected, and then there are the co-operative societies who will gain enormously from all development in the country. You will have eliminated all of them. Supposing there is any hon. Gentlemen sitting below me interested in merchandise in foreign countries, you will have eliminated all of them. I do not say that in any offensive way. The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that, probably, with the exception of his profession, there are very few people in the country who will be eligible for the committee.

With regard to cows, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that they would not count, but surely he is going to eliminate all the dairy farmers from the possibility of being appointed? When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks about bulls, I can only say that if we have our way bulls will be included. The Amendment is obviously a farce, and I hope that the Government will resist it, because if it were carried you would exclude anyone from the purview of this Clause who has any direct stake in the fortunes of the country.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken very eloquently, but he has not read the Amendment. I will read it for him. It says:

"The chairman of the Committee and any member of the Committee shall, within one month after his appointment, sell any securities which he may hold in his own name or in the name of a nominee for his own benefit in any undertaking engaged directly or indirectly in the production or sale of any goods which if imported would be chargeable with the general ad valorem duty, and it shall not be lawful for the chairman or any such member of the Committee whilst he holds office to purchase for his own benefit any securities in any such undertaking,"

Is that unreasonable? We may not be living in an ideal world, but with a precedent like that of the Electricity Commissioners, it is possible to get first-class men who had the confidence of all industries. Surely this great Government can discover some men of character and property who are not engaged in business, and who are thoroughly disinterested? I think that it is a most reasonable Amendment.

It appears to me that, although the Amendment might not be acceptable as it stands, possibly some variations with a view to not allowing such members who happened to be on the Committee to vote on or decide any issue in respect of which they held securities, might be acceptable to the Government. I ask that this might be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and possibly he might be prepared to accept an Amendment on these lines.

I remember that in the last Parliament the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) called attention to the fact that one of the Whips of the late Labour Government occupied a position as director in a co-operative society, and he had to resign his office as Whip. That hon. Member was a long way from being in a position to initiate legislation or anything of the kind, but in order to maintain the rule that Members of the Government should not be interested in business, our friend had to go out. I cannot help thinking that you might happen to choose, say, a man like the late Lord Melchett, who, if he were living, would be the kind of man to be chosen, or Sir Josiah Stamp, or some other person connected with one or other of the great monopolies concerned, for one of these positions. Are we to be told that they are to be appointed and to help adjudicate on something which may be of very great importance to the business with which they are associated?

I think the Committee has treated the matter altogether too lightly. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will consider this question between now and Report, we shall be glad, and if he does not meet us then, we can take a vote on that occasion, but in any case will he consider it? I beg the Committee to remember that when these decisions are made there will be a lot of discussion by the opponents of certain firms that will perhaps be considered to be getting an advantage, and the one thing to kill all thought or talk of suspicion would be to take some steps along the lines suggested in the Amendment. If our proposal is not the right one to meet the point, all that I ask is that the right hon. Gentleman should undertake to consider it between now and the Report stage.

I have no doubt that the Government would make it clear to those who were going to be members of this Advisory Committee that they could not hold directorships in industries that might be affected by their decisions, as is the case with Ministers, but no Government has ever attempted, nor has Parliament, to limit the ordinary disposition of a Minister's property.

Up to the present no Minister has had the sort of power that these gentlemen will have in determining business.

11.0 p.m.

From the Chancellor of the Exchequer downwards Ministers almost every day have opportunities where, if they wished to make investments guided by their inside knowledge, they could do things which we should all deplore, but we know that they do not do them. We can trust members of the Advisory Committee not to go speculating in the shares of undertakings that may be influenced by their decisions. Anything like a, broad rule of this kind is frankly impossible, because not only would any holdings which they may have be impossible to limit, but if they did sell, there would be nothing in which they could re-invest their money that would not be excluded under this Amendment, whether shares in an undertaking, land or any form of property. There is no form of investment that is not affected by the general tariff scheme. It must be left to the discretion of the Government to see that members of the committee do not hold directing or governing positions in any financial undertaking that may be affected, so that the same rule that applies to Ministers will equally apply to them.

There is more in this Amendment than hon. Members try to admit. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) seems to think that no one will be picked if this Amendment is carried. There are many people without investments. Would not the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) be a fit representative? Would not I, also? I suppose, however, that we are outside the category of likely members of this committee. If the members are allowed to have interests, they cannot be impartial. If the Amendment be ac- cepted, the point would be made clear that anyone on the committee should have no financial interests at all. In the interests of the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might examine this more closely and see if anything can be done to meet our point of view. So far, we have had no indication that this will be an impartial body and that is why the Amendment is being moved.

I have always understood that members of this committee were to perform a whole-time job, and I hope that there is no question of these gentlemen holding directorships while they are on the committee.

I hope that the Government will resist this ridiculous Amendment. The whole collective wisdom of the Government will be devoted to selecting men who are entirely above suspicion, and if this Amendment were accepted, these unfortunate men would be stripped of all their possessions. They would have no place where they could invest any money that they might have or that they are paid for holding their positions. Should any flagrant case occur the Government will have a remedy because they have accepted an Amendment under which any member of the committee can be given three months' notice.

No!

In supporting the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) respecting directorships, I would note that one interesting point emerges from this discussion. All those supporting the Amendment, who ordinarily are strong opponents of the Bill, and predict that it will cause general ruin among the population, seem to be agreed now that business undertakings will very much improve in value. I am glad that point has been brought out.

I would like to support the Amendment, and would point out, in reply to certain criticisms, that all that it says is:

"The chairman of the Committee and any member of the Committee shall, within one month after his appointment, sell any securities which he may hold in his own name or in the name of a nominee for his own benefit in any undertaking engaged directly or indirectly in the production or sale of any goods which if imported would be chargeable with the general ad valorem duty,"

What has that to do with the possession of land or houses? The Leader of the Opposition is quite right, and we ought to treat this point seriously. A man who is appointed a member of the Advisory Committee will be a responsible person, well paid, and is quite capable of buying Government stock or other stock. The case would be different if he were a director, say, of Lister's, or some other firm in the woollen industry, and a high duty was to be proposed for that industry. All the Amendment proposes to do is to deal with a case of that character, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the point between now and the Report stage. Perhaps it might be advisable to cut out the word "indirectly," because that makes the Amendment rather wide.

As to the observation of the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam), that we have been saying that it is impossible for industry to benefit under the Bill, I would point out that we Free Traders have never denied that certain industries may benefit, but what we have tried to show hon. Members is that it will be bad for the trade of the country in the aggregate. We have never denied that if a particular industry is bolstered up by high tariffs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] That is quite in order, and I am sure that Captain Bourne will agree with me. To put a high duty on the products of a particular industry will obviously give a great advantage to that industry. I hope that between now and Report stage the Chancellor will be able to devise some form of Amendment which will prohibit anyone who is on the Advisory Committee being directly interested as a stockholder in a particular industry which may have a high duty.

This question appears to me to be of far greater importance than some hon. Members think it is. I hold the view, old fashioned if you like, that anybody holding a full-time position in which he is adequately paid ought not to have the opportunity to use that position for his own personal benefit; and there cannot be any doubt that if the Bill goes through in its present form the opportunity will be there for anybody who is evil minded enough to desire to take advantage of it. An hon. Member reminds me that only men of responsible character will be selected. In return, let me remind him that we have had in many of our highly paid posts men of the highest possible character—until they were found out. It has not been unknown even that people holding the highest position in this House have found themselves in a position where they could use their inside knowledge to their own advantage. Everybody in the Committee knows that in recent years matters have come up for consideration in this House. If hon. Members who are so concerned about the well-being of the people of the country and about the honest working of this

Division No. 69.]	AYES	[11.12 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Mailalleu, Edward Lancelot
Bernays, Robert	Groves, Thomas E.	Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Briant, Frank	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Nathan, Major H. L.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Harris, Sir Percy	Parkinson, John Allen
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Hirst, George Henry	Price, Gabriel
Daggar, George	Jenkins, Sir William	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, J. J. (Went Ham, Silvertown)	Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianeily)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kirkwood, David	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Edwards, Charles	Lansbury, RI. Hon. George
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Lunn, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Mr. John and Mr. Tinker.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McEntee, Valentine L.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Castle Stewart, Earl	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Fraser, Captain Ian
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Albery, Irving James	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Ganzoni, Sir John
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Gibson, Charles Granville
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Clayton, Dr. George C.	Gillett. Sir George Masterman
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Colfox, Major William Philip	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Apsley, Lord	Colman, N. C. D.	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Aske, Sir Robert William	Colville, Major David John	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Conant, R. J. E.	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Atholl, Duchess of	Cook, Thomas A.	Gower, Sir Robert
Balfour, Capt. Harold (1. of Thanet)	Cooke, James D.	Graves, Marjorie
Baintel, Lord	Craven-Ellis, William	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Crooke, J. Smedley	Grimston, R. V.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Gritten, W. G. Howard
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Cross, R. H.	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Hales, Harold K.
Blindell, James	Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Boulton, W. W.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Denville, Alfred	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Dixey, Arthur C. N.	Harbord, Arthur
Bracken, Brendan	Donner, P. W.	Hartington, Marquess of
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Dower, Captain A. V. G.	Hartland, George A.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Drewe, Cedric	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Broadbent, Colonel John	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Duggan, Hubert John	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Browne, Captain A. C.	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Buchan, John	Eastwood, John Francis	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Burghley, Lord	Ednam, Viscount	Hepworth. Joseph
Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Hillman, Dr. George B.
Burnett, John George	Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Holdsworth, Herbert
Caine, G. R. Hail-	Elmley, Viscount	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Emrys Evans, P. V.	Hornby, Frank
Carver, Major William H.	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Howard, Tom Forrest
Castlereagh, Viscount	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Tariff Bill, were sincere, they would at least make some reasonable concession to the Amendment that is now before us. The Minister who is going to reply ought to be prepared to make the concession that is asked for, namely, to give consideration to the matter between now and the Report stage. If that concession is not made, people outside will be filled with suspicion that will be harmful to the people holding the high offices that we are now setting up.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 273.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Morrison, William Sheppard	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Moss, Captain H J.	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Mulrhead, Major A. J.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Nail, Sir Joseph	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.	Smith Carington, Neville W.
Ker, J. Campbell	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Kerr, Hamilton W.	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Kimball, Lawrence	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Soper, Richard
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Knebworth, Viscount	Ormiston, Thomas	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Law, Sir Alfred	Palmer, Francis Noel	Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Leckie, J. A.	Patrick, Colin M.	Stones, James
Leech, Dr. J. W.	Pearson, William G.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Peat, Charles U.	Strauss, Edward A.
Levy, Thomas	Penny, Sir George	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Lewis, Oswald	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Llddail, Walter S.	Petherick, M.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Lindsay, Noel Ker	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Tate, Mavis Constance
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Lieweilln, Major John J.	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Templeton, William P.
Lloyd, Geoffrey	Pybus, Percy John	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)	Paikes, Henry V. A. M.	Thompson, Luke
Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)	Ramsay, T. B W. (Western Isles)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Ratcliffe, Arthur	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Mabane, William	Reid, David D. (County Down)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Train, John
McCorquodale, M. S.	Remer, John R.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
McEwen, J. H. F.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
McKeag, William	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
McLean, Major Alan	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)	Ward, Lt Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Robinson, John Roland	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Magnay, Thomas	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Maitland, Adam	Ropner, Colonel L.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Ross, Ronald D.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col, Sir M.	Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Weymouth, Viscount
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Runge, Norah Cecil	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Martin, Thomas B.	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Meller, Richard James	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Salmon, Major Isldore	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Millar, Sir James Duncan	Salt, Edward W.	Wise, Alfred R.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Womersley, Walter James
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres	Scone, Lord
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Selley, Harry R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Moreing, Adrian C.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Major George Davies and Lord Erskine.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [ Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjurn."—[ Captain Margeson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

Volume 261: debated on Thursday 18 February 1932

House Of Commons

Private Business

High Court Of Justice (King's Bench Division)

War Debts

Oral Answers To Questions

Unemployment

Insurance Fund

Benefit Disallowed

Transitional Payments

Statistics (Wigan)

Royal Commission (Report)

Grants Committee

Salmon Fishermen, Scotland

Building

Training Centres, Scotland

Cotton Industry (Dispute)

Joint Industrial Councils

Cost-Of-Living Index

Workmen's Compensation

Murder, Notting Hill

Grand Juries

Publication (Sentence Of Iniprisonment)

Police Investigations

Larceny

Dartmoor Prison

Public Health

Milk

Refuse Disposal

Mental Deficiency

Tuberculosis (Spahlinger Treatment)

Education

Royal Commission On Licensing (Recommendations)

League Of Nations

Housing

Slum Clearance

Subsidised Houses (Building Conditions)

Scotland

Statistics

Census Reports

Local Government Officers (Superannuation)

Contributory Pensions Act

Inter-Allied Debts

National Finance

Bank Of England (Issue Department)

Beer Duty

Entertainments Duty

Stamp Duties

North Wales Power Company (Guarantee)

Income Tax

American States (British Investors)

Trade And Commerce

Import Duties Bill (Transferred Machinery)

Safeguarding Duties (Ignition Cables)

Imports

British Museum (Elgin Marbles)

Trustee Securities (New South Wales Loans)

Tithe Rentcharge

Agriculture (Reorganisation Commissions)

Cilgwyn And Moeltryfan Quarries

Cunard Steamship Company

Kenya (Goldfields)

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

Electricity Supply Schemes

India (Kashmir)

League Of Nations

Poland (Ukrainian Minority)

Shanghai (Commission's Report)

Japan (Loans)

Royal Navy

Canteen Funds

Loss Of Submarine M 2 (Pensions)

China And Japan

Business Of The House

Questions To Ministers

Bills Presented

Rating And Valuation Bill

Juries (Exemption Of Firemen) Bill

Message From The Lords