Commons Chamber

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

House Of Commons

Monday, 22nd February, 1932.

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

British Museum

I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with the Prayer:

"Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Referred to the Committee of Supply.

Oral Answers To Questions

India

Situation

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the House the latest information he has as to the political situation in India?

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give information concerning the present political situation in India?

I am circulating a statement covering the events of the last week.

Following is the statement:

This week's reports on the whole confirm last week's appreciation, and are particularly satisfactory as regards the North-West Frontier Province, the United Provinces, the Punjab and Madras.

The danger of sporadic cases of violence as a result of Congress demonstrations is illustrated by an incident in the Monghyr District of Bihar and Orissa, where a very determined attack, made on the police station, was beaten back with difficulty after resort to firing. Instances of this kind are, however, of casual occurrence.

The situation in Kashmir and Jammu Continues to improve, but accounts of recent events have intensified communal feeling outside particularly in the Punjab.

Imperial Economic Conference

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he proposes to raise at the Imperial Conference at Ottawa the general question of the attitude of the Government of India to an Imperial fiscal system?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the constitutional changes that are taking place in India, he will give an assurance that no commitment will be entered into by the present Government of India at the Ottawa Conference concerning the fiscal relations between India and this country which would in any way hamper the discretion of those who may be responsible for India's commercial and fiscal policy under the proposed new constitution?

The position of India in regard to questions that will arise at the Ottawa Conference is under consideration between the Government of India and myself and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Exports of Raw Jute to the United Kingdom.
Year.			Rs. Lakhs.	Tons.	Year.			Rs. Lakhs.	Tons.
1916–17	…	…	821	260,227	1924–25	…	…	723	172,760
1917–18	…	…	164	67,768	1925–26	…	…	1,057	174,404
1918–19	…	…	671	224,121	1926–27	…	…	614	172,889
1919–20	…	…	1,324	310,670	1927–28	…	…	768	222,072
1920–21	…	…	525	136,023	1928–29	…	…	757	201,833
1921–22	…	…	287	90,835	1929–30	…	…	556	164,751
1922–23	…	…	592	156,178	1930–31	…	…	223	107,909
1923–24	…	…	462	156,635

Exports of Raw Hides and Skins to the United Kingdom (excluding cuttings).
Year.			Rs. Lakhs.	Tons.	Year.			Rs. Lakhs.	Tons.
1919–20	…	…	323	18,763	1925–26	…	…	47	3,897
1920–21	…	…	104	5,816	1926–27	…	…	38	2,498
1921–22	…	…	39	4,043	1927–28	…	…	67	4,768
1922–23	…	…	46	3,672	1928–29	…	…	39	2,408
1923–24	…	…	40	2,515	1929–30	…	…	36	1,516
1924–25	…	…	42	2,345	1930–31	…	…	37	2,622

Following is the Schedule:

Will the Indian Empire be represented at this Conference?

Yes, Sir. Certainly.

Export Duties

asked the Secretary of State for India what export duties are in force in India; and whether, since their imposition, the export of raw materials to Great Britain has increased or decreased?

The only export duties at present in operation in India are on raw and manufactured jute, raw hides and skins, and rice. I am circulating a copy of Schedule III of the Indian Tariff Act, 1894 (as in operation at present), giving the rates of duty, together with a statement giving figures of the exports of raw jute and raw hides and skins since the imposition of the export duties on those items.

Is it the intention of His Majesty's Government that these duties should be removed sometime in the future in the interests of Empire economic unity?

That question does not arise out of the earlier question.

Following is the statement:

SCHEDULE III.—EXPORT TARIFF.
No. in the Statutory Schedule.	Names of Articles.	Per	Tariff values.		Duty.
	JUTE, OTHER THAN BIMLIPATAM JUTE.		Rs.	A.	p.	Rs.	A.
1	Raw Jute—
	(1) Cuttings	Bale of 400 lbs.	—			1	4
	(2) All other descriptions	Bale of 400 lbs.	—			4	8
2	Jute manufactures, when not in actual use as coverings, receptacles or bindings, for other goods—
	(1) Sacking (cloth, bags, twist, yarn, rope and twine).^*	Ton of 2,240 lbs.	—			20	0
	(2) Hessians and all other descriptions of jute manufactures not otherwise specified.	Ton of 2,240 lbs.	—			32	0
	HIDKS AND SKINS.
3	Raw Hides and Skins‡	—	Ad valorem			5 per cent
	Tariff values.
	If exported from Burma—
	(1) Arsenicated and air-dried hides—
	(a) Cows (including calf skins)	lb.	0	3	3	5 per cent.
	(b) Buffaloes (including calf skins)	lb.	0	3	3	5 per cent.
	(2) Dry salted hides—
	(a) Cows (including calf skins)	lb.	0	2	9	5 per cent.
	(b) Buffaloes (including calf skins)	lb.	0	2	3	5 per cent.
	(3) Wet salted hides—
	(a) Cows (including calf skins)	lb.	0	1	9	5 per cent.
	(b) Buffaloes (including calf skins)	lb.	0	1	6	5 per cent.
	(4) Goat and kid skins	Piece	0	10	0	5 per cent.
	(5) Sheep skins	Piece	0	6	0	5 per cent.
	If exported from any place in British India other than Burma—
	(1) Arsenicated and air-dried hides—
	(a) Cows (including calf skins)—
	Framed	lb.	0	6	0	5 per cent.
	Unframed	lb.	0	3	3	5 per cent.
	(b) Buffaloes (including calf skins)—
	Framed	lb.	0	4	0	5 per cent.
	Unframed	lb.	0	2	3	5 per cent.
	(2) Dry salted bides—
	(a) Cows (including calf skins)	lb.	0	4	0	5 per cent.
	(b) Buffaloes (including calf skins)	lb.	0	2	6	5 per cent.
	(3) Wet salted hides—
	(a) Cows (including calf skins)	lb.	0	2	6	5 per cent.
	(b) Buffaloes (including calf skins)	lb.	0	2	0	5 per cent.
	(4) Goat and kid skins	Piece	1	0	0	5 per cent.
	(5) Sheep skins	Piece	0	8	0	5 per cent.
4	Rice, husked or unhusked, including rice flour, but excluding rice bran and rice dust, whicb are free.	Indian maund of 82 2/7 lbs. avoirdupois weight.	—			Two annas and three pies.
^* Under Government of India, Finance Department (Central Revenues) Notification No. 19 dated the 17th May, 1930, bagging for raw cotton made from jute rove, weighing not less than 1½ lbs. per square yard and having a total of not more than 250 warp and weft threads per square yard, is liable to duty at Rs. 5–8–0 per ton.
† Under Government of India, Finance Department Notification No. 1428, dated the 17th November, 1923 jute rags such as are used for paper making, are exempt from payment of export duty provided that the Customs Collector is satisfied that they are useless for any purpose to which cloth or rope is ordinarily put.
‡ Under Government of India, Finance Department (Central Revenues) Notification No. 35, dated the 25th September, 1926, hide and skin cuttings and fleshings such as are used for glue-making, are exempt from payment of export duty.

Tea Industry, Assam

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet considered the appeal of the Government of Assam with regard to the position of the tea industry in that province; and what action he proposes to take in this matter?

13.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he can make a statement as to the effect upon the financial position of the province of Assam of the removal of the Tea Duties in 1928; and whether he proposes to take any action with a view to improving it?

I have considered the views of the Government of Assam. The fall in tea prices is, of course, only one instance of the general decline in the prices of staple commodities and in the circumstances it is impossible to estimate separately the effect of the removal of the tea duties in 1929. As regards the second part of both questions, I would refer my hon. Friends to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 4th February.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so as to help the tea industry, as many of these firms are going bankrupt?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, I know, in full possession of the relevant facts.

Attack On Armouries, Chittagong

10.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state the number of villages where punitive taxes have been imposed under the special ordinances which were promulgated last year to facilitate the work of the Government in tracing the absconders connected with the raid made on the armouries at Chittagong in April, 1930?

No case has been reported to me of the imposition of a collective fine under Section 14 of the Bengal Emergency Powers Ordinance.

18.

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of troops and armed police at present employed in the Chittagong district in rounding up the absconders connected with the attack on the armouries at Chittagong in April, 1930?

There are altogether about two battalions of troops in the Chittagong district at the present time. I have no figures of the number of police employed.

Does the right hon. Gentleman imply by the first part of his reply to Questions 16 and 19 that the absconders referred to in this question have never had any connection at all with the Civil Disobedience movement?

I cannot answer that question without notice.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman speaks of them as though, in point of fact, they are part and parcel of the movement?

No, Sir. I do not think that my answer necessarily implied that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these troops are exclusively there to deal with absconders and miscreants, or whether they are there to deal with the ordinary civil population?

They are there for both purposes. They are there for the purpose of seeing that the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Ordinances are carried out.

Congress Flag

14.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the public exhibition in India of the red, green, and orange tri-colour, regarded by many Indians as a national emblem, is at present treated as an illegal act?

If the Congress flag is flown contrary to an Order issued by a competent authority prohibiting its exhibition, the flying of it is naturally treated as an illegal act.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in all districts notice is given that such flags should not be flown?

I do not know about that. The position is quite clear, and it is as stated in the answer which I have just given.

23.

(for Mr. DAGGAR) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the elected presidents of certain local government bodies have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment because the Congress flag was hoisted on Government premises; and whether, seeing that the officers concerned were carrying out the decisions of the local bodies of which they were elected the heads, he will represent the desirability of their early release?

I have no information, but the authorities would clearly be justi-

No. of Ordinance.		Title.	Date of promulgation.
VIII	1931	Criminal Procedure (Delhi Amendment) Ordinance	16th October, 1931.
IX	1931	Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance	29th October, 1931.
X	1931	Kashmir State (Protection against Disorders) Ordinance	4th November, 1931.
XI	1931	Bengal Emergency Powers Ordinance (as amended by Ordinance I of 1932).	30th November, 1931.
XII	1931	United Provinces Emergency Powers Ordinance	14th December, 1931.
XIII	1931	North West Frontier Province Emergency Powers Ordinance.	24th December, 1931.
XIV	1931	Unlawful Instigation (North-West Frontier Province) Ordinance.	24th December, 1931.
XV	1931	Unlawful Association (North West Frontier Province) Ordinance.	24th December, 1931.
II	1932	Emergency Powers Ordinance (as amended by Ordinance VII of 1932).	4th January, 1932.
III	1932	Unlawful Instigation Ordinance	4th January, 1932.
IV	1932	Unlawful Association Ordinance	4th January, 1932.
V	1932	Prevention of Molestation and Boycotting Ordinance (as amended by Ordinance VII of 1932).	4th January, 1932.

Kashmir

15.

asked the Secretary of State for India the present position in respect of the disturbed conditions in Kashmir?

My latest information indicates that the improvement in the situation continues and that order is gradually being restored in the outlying districts of the area affected. Kashmir Province itself is reported quiet.

25.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the probable date of the presentation of the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the grievances of Moslems in the Kashmir State?

I understand that it is hoped that the Commission will be able to submit its report to His Highness the Maharaja early next month.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the relations

fied in passing orders to forbid the hoisting of the Congress flag on Government premises, and anyone disobeying those orders would be guilty of an offence.

Ordinances

11.

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of Ordinances now in operation in India, and the dates on which these Ordinances were promulgated?

I am circulating a statement.

Following is the statement:

between Hindus and Moslems are getting better and better every day?

Yea, Sir. I have already said, in answer to an earlier question, that the situation is improving.

26.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the report of Mr. Leonard Middleton, who was appointed by the Maharajah of Kashmir to investigate the facts connected with the disturbances in Kashmir State last September, will be made available for Members of this House; and when he will be able to make a statement on the substance of the report?

Mr. Middleton's report will be submitted to His Highness the Maharaja. I am not yet aware whether His Highness will make the report public.

Will the report be available to this House?

I think that I can certainly give that undertaking, if it is decided to make the report public.

12.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the evidence that the existing discontent in Kashmir is being exploited by Bolshevist agents, the Government of India is prepared to take over the administration of this State?

I have received no evidence of the kind to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Prisoners

19.

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of men and women undergoing detention or imprisonment in India on 1st February, and the accommodation available in the prisons; and what arrangements are made for those prisoners for whom there is no room in the prisons?

16.

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of women who have been sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour in each province?

The Government of India estimate that the number of persons now in gaol for offences connected with the Civil Disobedience Movement is about 15,000. I have not yet received more detailed statistics, but hope to be able to supply them next week. As regards the second part of Question No. 19, the reports received by me do not indicate that any local Government is experiencing difficulty in finding suitable accommodation for its prisoners either in the prisons or in detention camps.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea as to what is the actual prison accommodation?

No, Sir. I obviously could not do that, but my information goes to show that there is ample accommodation for the purpose.

Discharged Officers (Compensation)

20.

asked the Secretary of State for India on what scale compensation will be paid to officers of the Indian Public Works Department who are to be discharged from service in the near future?

Subject to certain restrictions and conditions the compensa- tion payable to civil officers appointed by the Secretary of State whose posts are abolished as the result of the present financial emergency will be comprised in the following main terms:

(1) The grant of all leave due, but not extending beyond the age of superannuation, the whole of it to count as qualifying service for pension.

(2) The pension or gratuity earned at invalid rates, but calculated on qualifying service as above.

(3) A gratuity of a half month's pay for each year up to 15 years' service, the amount being thereafter reduced by a half month's pay for each year of service up to 30.

Franchise Committee

21.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any recent reports concerning a bomb attempt on the train by which the Indian Franchise Committee was travelling from Delhi to Agra?

No, Sir. My information on this matter is confined to the reports which have appeared in the Press.

Disturbances, Beranpore

22.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the disturbances at Beranpore when pickets were dispersed by lathi charges which led to a gathering of a crowd on whom the police opened fire; and how many casualties, fatal or otherwise, were caused?

I presume the hon. Member refers to the disturbance at Berhampore in the Ganjam District of Madras on the 15th January. A mob gathered to demonstrate their sympathy with two arrested picketers and threw stones at. the police who were compelled to fire, killing one and wounding two.

Burma

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give particulars showing how many Indian soldiers are being employed by the Government in Burma in the suppression of the disturbances; and whether, in view of the protests in Burma against the use of Indian troops against the Burmans, and the undesirability of increasing the existing anti-Indian feeling in Burma, he will consider the possibility of withdrawing Indian troops from the disturbed areas?

In the normal garrison of Burma there are 1,926 Indian other ranks. The additional battalions sent from Indian last year to assist in the suppression of the rebellion contained 3,640 Indian other ranks. I am unable to state how many of these are at present engaged in operations against the gangs of rebels and dacoits still at large, but I understand that a programme for the withdrawal of the additional troops has been drawn up. I am not aware that responsible opinion has taken exception to their use in the suppression of a rebellion which has caused not only great material damage to Burma but also considerable loss of life among law-abiding citizens.

May we conclude that the position has improved under the regime of the right hon. Gentleman?

I would rather let facts speak for themselves. I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for India as to the present situation in regard to the disturbances in Burma?

I am circulating a statement for the week ending the 20th February.

Following is the statement:

The situation is generally satisfactory. Shan Byu, the main organiser of the recent attempted rising in the Zigon subdivision, has been captured, and one of his principal supporters has surrendered. No casualties among Government forces have been reported. Seventeen under trial prisoners were released during the week and 383 are reported as still in custody, but some returns have not yet been received. The price of paddy continues to rise and is now about 100. Satisfactory progress continues to be made in the collection of taxes.

Chamber Of Princes

asked the Secretary of State for India which Indian States are not represented, either directly or indirectly, in the Indian Chamber of Princes?

One hundred and nine Indian Rulers are members of the Chamber of Princes in their own right. One hundred and twenty-six States are represented in the Chamber by representative Members elected by themselves. There are also 327 small estates and jagirs which are not represented.

Congress Workers (Refreshments)

24.

(for Mr. DAGGAR) asked the Secretary of State for India under what law or ordinance keepers of hotels and restaurants are being prevented from supplying food and drink to Congress workers?

if the hon. Member will supply me with details of any particular case, I will look into the question.

Russia

Lena Goldfields (Arbitration Award)

27.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information as to the action taken or proposed to be taken in regard to the non-payment by the Soviet Government in connection with the award in the Lena Goldfields arbitration?

Negotiations with a view to a settlement of the company's claim are proceeding between His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow and the Soviet authorities.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these proceedings have been continuing?

What I was referring to in the answer I have just given were the negotiations which were started recently on the instructions of the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the last negotiations took place, at the suggestion of the late Foreign Secretary, at Berlin, going on for many weeks, they resulted in an offer of £200,000 in respect of an arbitration award of £13,000,000?

Has there been any advance in the negotiations since six months ago?

Yes, in this sense, that instructions were sent to His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, in the light of the mattter just referred to, to discuss the matters with the Soviet authorities on certain lines indicated.

Debts, Claims And Counter-Claims

45.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a committee of Members of the House of Commons to meet Soviet representatives and settle outstanding private debts of British citizens?

In view of the position disclosed in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 2nd February, I do not think that the constitution of a new committee would serve any useful purpose at present.

What good has the late committee done?

I am afraid about as much good as the new one would.

May we have a new committee and try?

If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the answer given by the Foreign Secretary, when he was asked what was the alternative policy, he will see that he said the whole matter was under active consideration. I assume that it occupies the same place now.

There has never been a committee of this House to meet the Soviet representatives.

I am afraid that this is hardly the time to argue the effectiveness of that proposition.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the new social entente between the National Government and the Soviet Embassy might help a little in this matter?

Reparations And War Debts

30.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has entered into, or is in course of negotiating with any foreign Government, any agreement or understanding, explicit or implied, which might in any way qualify His Majesty's Government's complete liberty of action in endeavouring to secure acceptance at the projected Lausanne Conference of its declared policy that a comprehensive and permanent settlement of the reparations question must be reached as soon as possible by means of a general cancellation of reparations and War debts; and whether it is His Majesty's Government's intention to press at the Lausanne Conference for a decision and immediate action in that sense?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on the 2nd February last.

Manchuria

31.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the proclamation of an independent state of Manchuria under Japanese auspices; and whether seeing that the formation of such a state is an infringement of the Nine-Power Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations, he is taking any steps in the matter?

The latest information that I have received from His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo is that he has been officially informed that if, as is probably true, an independent State of Manchuria has been proclaimed by the Chinese in Mukden, the Japanese Government was no more likely to recognise it than any other Government. The second part of the question is based on an assumption which my information does not enable me to confirm.

Seeing that the Government were warned for months about this being likely to happen—the proposition as to an independent State—has the right hon. Gentleman taken no steps to protest against its happening?

China And Japan

32.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will take steps to approach the United States of America, and the Powers members of the League of Nations with a view to exerting diplomatic and economic pressure upon the Japanese Government in order to secure respect for the sanctity of international obligations?

The hon. Member put this question to me, in substance, on Wednesday last, and I have nothing to add to the answer he then received.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the situation in Shanghai, and if he can now state whether the Consuls' report can be published?

I deeply regret that, as reported in the Press, serious fighting has broken out between the Chinese and Japanese forces, despite all the efforts that have been made to prevent hostilities. The negotiations between the Chinese and Japanese military authorities at Shanghai, of which I informed the House on the 18th of February, failed to secure any agreement. The Japanese General thereupon delivered an ultimatum to the commander of the Chinese troops at Shanghai on the 19th February, demanding, amongst other conditions, that these troops should begin to evacuate their positions in the vicinity of Shanghai before 7 a.m. on the 20th February, Shanghai time. This ultimatum was not accepted by the Chinese General, and an offensive was launched by the Japanese early on the 20th of February. As has been reported in the Press, the Japanese troops have somewhat advanced their line in the neighbourhood of Kiangwan, between Chapei and Woosung, and fighting still continues. Up to the present, there has been little fighting at Chapei or elsewhere in the immediate neighbourhood of the International Settlement.

It is not anticipated that the evacuation of British women and children from Shanghai will become necessary; detailed arrangements have, however, been made against this eventuality. The only danger to the International Settlement at present is from stray shell-fire. Sir Miles Lampson, in concert with his United States, French and Italian col- leagues, has made representations to the Japanese and Chinese authorities protesting against action which might lead to damage being inflicted on foreign life or property, and making every reservation in the matter. As regards the second part of the question, the two reports of the Committee of Consuls at Shanghai are being laid as a Parliamentary Paper, and I hope that this will be in the hands of Members on Thursday next.

On that reply may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether it would be possible for him, in reply to some questions which I would like to put to him at a more convenient time than now, to make a more detailed statement than is possible in the circumstances of Question hour? If there is time tonight, I would like to put those questions then; if not to-night I would like to put them to-morrow on the Motion for the Adjournment.

I am disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the method of imparting information by question and answer is not adequate for a situation of this gravity. I would be glad, on behalf of the Government, to make a rather fuller statement, say on the Adjournment to-day or to-morrow, if this can be arranged through the usual channels, and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion.

Would the Foreign Secretary say whether the General in command of the Chinese Forces in action at Shanghai recognises the authority of any Chinese Government, and, if so, what Government?

Perhaps my right hon. Friend would allow me to dwell upon that question, which is an important one, and I will endeavour to answer it in the course of any statement that I make later in the day.

Floods, China (Relief)

33.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what response has been made by other Governments to the appeal by the Assembly and Council of the League of Nations for material and financial assistance in the flooded areas of China; what response has been made by His Majesty's Government; and, if no response has been made, what is their intention in the matter?

As I promised the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) in reply to his supplementary question on the 17th of February, I am making inquiries regarding the response to the League of Nations appeal. As regards the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the same day to another question by the hon. Member for Westhoughton.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper showing the extent to which it has been possible to help the sufferers from this terrible calamity, by the joint efforts of the Powers?

I will consider the suggestion of the Noble Lord, with pleasure, but I do not think that I can give an undertaking.

Can the Leader of the House say when the House will have a better opportunity of discussing the whole matter than by question and answer across the Floor of the House?

Trade And Commerce

Export Credits (Russia)

34.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any export credits were granted in connection with the exportation of 40 tanks and 26 light armoured vehicles to Russia for which licences were granted in 1030 and renewed in 1931?

No guarantees have been given under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme in respect of any munitions of war, which are excluded by Statute from the scope of the scheme.

Is it a fact that the Russians had to pay cash for these tanks, but they have to have credit for these commercial operations?

It is a fact, I believe, that they had to pay cash.

37.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the shortage of wheat and flour in Soviet Ukraine; and whether he will consider varying the instructions given to the Export Credits Guarantee Committee to enable them to take this fact into consideration when granting credits for the import of Ukrainian wheat and flour?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, my hon. Friend seems to be under a misapprehension as to the functions of the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme, which is concerned only with the export of United Kingdom goods. The Department has no power to give guarantees for the importation of foreign goods into this country.

South America (Press Service)

35.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the importance of an effective Press agency in the interests of British trade in South America, be contemplates any measures of improvement in the Press service between this country and Brazil?

I agree with the hon. Member that an improvement in the Press service between this country and Brazil is much to be desired. Owing to the competition with which they are faced British news organisations have hitherto been unable to establish themselves in Brazil, but the British Official Wireless is always available to the Brazilian Press should they care to make use of it.

Is the hon. and gallant Member going to leave the matter there I Cannot he take some steps in co-operation with the Chambers of Commerce at Rio and elsewhere to develop the Press service between this country and Brazil?

The matter will be watched, but it must be remembered that this is primarily a matter for private enterprise.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in South America our trade is suffering all the time because of the want of more intelligence?

Is not the hon. and gallant Member somewhat embarrassed by the Socialistic questions addressed to him from that quarter?

On a point of Order, may I explain that I am not responsible for the question appearing on the Order Paper to-day. I put it down for the Board of Trade on Tuesday. Therefore, I am not responsible for having four questions down on one day.

Safeguarding Duties (Translucent Wares)

52.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Safeguarding Duty on translucent ware expires on 19th April next; and whether he will take steps to have the duty continued?

The answer to the first part of

The following Table shows, for the undermentioned periods, the total declared value of the domestic exports of cotton yarns and cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom consigned to British India and Australia, and in respect of British India the proportion of the total imports of these goods which was consigned from the United Kingdom.
Period.			Domestic Exports from the United Kingdom consigned to				Proportion of Imports into British India from the United Kingdom to total Imports.
			British India.		Australia.
			Cotton yarns.	Cotton piece goods.	Cotton yarns.	Cotton piece goods.	Cotton twist and yarn.	Cotton piece goods.
1930—			£'000.	£'000.	£'000.	£'000.	Per cent.	Per cent.
1st Quarter	…	…	422	7,005	113	1,553	48	68
2nd Quarter	…	…	301	3,597	97	1,140	46	68
3rd Quarter	…	…	176	2,244	93	1,186	40	71
4th Quarter	…	…	177	894	69	743	32	47
1931—
1st Quarter	…	…	205	1,467	63	730	42	51
2nd Quarter	…	…	216	1,470	66	657	45	57
3rd Quarter	…	…	160	1,505	75	1,096	37	58
4th Quarter	…	…	205	1,016	67	767	33	44
1932—
January	…	…	103	524	29	269	Not available.
As regards Australia particulars of the imports of cotton yarns and piece goods into that country from the United Kingdom are published only in respect of years ended the 30th June, and the latest available information relates to the year ended the 30th June, 1930. In that year the proportion of the total imports ff cotton yarns and cotton piece goods which was of United Kingdom origin was 61 per cent, and 91 per cent., respectively.

the question is in the affirmative; 8.6 regards the second part I would refer my hon. Friend to Clause 3 (5) of the Import Duties Bill.

Cotton Exports (Indian And Australia)

54.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give quarterly figures showing the value of exports of British cotton yarn and piece goods to India and Australia in 1930 and 1931, and the latest figures available for the present year; and if he will state what proportion these exports bore to the total imports of cotton yarn and piece goods into India and Australia during the same periods?

As the answer includes a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

United States Liquor Laws (British Whisky)

53.

(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has any information showing the amount and value of the whisky shipped from Great Britain to America during the year 1931 and since prohibition was introduced in America?

I am unable to state the amount of whisky, as such, exported from this country as particulars of these exports are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom; but the total quantity and declared value of home-made spirits exported from the United Kingdom and registered as consigned to the United States during the years 1920 to 1931 amounted to 344,151 proof gallons, valued at 581,676, of which 5,547 proof gallons valued at £8,366 were exported in 1931. Any exports from ports in Southern Ireland during the period prior to the 1st April, 1923, are included in the figures for the period 1920 to 1931.

Does the Board of Trade take any steps to encourage this lucrative branch of our commerce?

Agriculture

Sugar-Beet

38.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the price paid to farmers for sugar-beet roots by the factories at Cantley and Ely for the season 1931–32 just ending; and whether these two factories availed themselves of any additional Government assistance under the British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Regulations, 1931?

I understand that for the 1931–32 season the Cantley and Ely factories have paid on account sums amounting to 40s. per ton of beet of 151 per cent. sugar content, and that further payments, if any, will be made as soon as the net proceeds of the season's working have been certified by the factories' auditors. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Spraying Materials

40.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take upon the representations he has received from local authorities as to the desirability, in the case of materials used for the spraying of potatoes and other crops, of the application of regulations similar to those in force for fertilisers and feeding stuffs?

My Department has been for some time past and still is in communication with representatives of the fruit growers and of the insecticides and fungicides manufacturers. I hope that these negotiations will lead to a measure of agreement as to the declaration of the minimum percentages of certain active constituents of the principal standard preparations.

Canadian Tomatoes And Foreign Tomato Pulp (Imports)

42.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that large quantities of foreign tomato pulp were imported into this country during 1931 to be made into tinned and bottled commodities which are sold as British products; and whether, in the interests of British tomato growers and manufacturers who use home and Empire products, he will include tomato pulp within the scope of the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act?

I am aware that tomato pulp is imported into this country and that a proportion is used in the manufacture of edible commodities, some of which may be sold as British. As regards the second part of the question, since tomato pulp does not fall within the scope of the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, I am unable to make an Order imposing a duty on this commodity. My hon. and gallant Friend will, however, be aware that it will be covered by the provisions of the Import Duties Bill now before the House.

Is the hon. Member aware that Canadian and English tomatoes are vastly more wholesome than foreign tomatoes?

61.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what extent our imports of tomato products from Canada have increased during the last five years; and whether, in view of the growing public demand for bottled and canned tomato products, he will bring to the notice of the Empire Marketing Board the desirability of encouraging the purchase by the public of manufactures of home and Empire origin?

Imports into the United Kingdom of tomatoes preserved by canning or bottling, consigned from Canada, have increased from 722 cwts. in 1927 to 5,966 cwts. in 1931. No other tomato products are separately distinguished in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, but according to the figures of Canadian exports published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the value of exports of sauces, pickles and ketchups to the United Kingdom increased from 549,117 dollars in the year ended 31st March, 1927, to 1,346,262 dollars in the year ended 31st March, 1931. I am informed that the item sauces, pickles and ketchups consists almost entirely of tomato ketchup.

I can assure the hon, and gallant Member that the Empire Marketing Board will continue to do everything within its power to encourage the sale of these and similar products of home and Empire origin. The Board has in the past paid special attention to the marketing of canned goods and is now engaged in a detailed study of the retail demand for canned vegetables, including canned and bottled tomatoes, the results of which will be published in due course.

Meat And Meat Products

43.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will initiate consultations with the importers of foreign meat with a view to ascertaining the conditions under which it would be possible for them to establish in this country slaughter-houses and factories for the production of meat and meat products derived from the slaughter of home-produced or home-killed animals?

Development in this country in connection with slaughterhouses for the production of meat and meat products is a matter which is under consideration. Perhaps my Noble Friend will be good enough to confer with me on his suggestion.

Post Office

Press Telegrams (Charges)

47.

asked the Postmaster-General whether an increase of 50 per cent, in the charges for Press telegrams would cover the present telegraph deficit in the Post Office accounts?

No, Sir.

Committee Of Inquiry

49.

asked the Postmaster-General the terms of reference and the personnel of the committee which it has been decided to set up to inquire into the constitution and organisation of the Post Office?

As I informed my hon., Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) recently, this matter is under consideration. An announcement will be made in due course.

I take it, therefore, that the announcement in the "Times" is premature?

My hon. Friend knows my multifarious responsibilities, and I am sure that he would not desire to add to them by asking me to correct statements in the sensational Press.

Petrol Supplies

50.

asked the Postmaster-General what would be the annual saving if his Department made use of No. 3 petrol instead of No. 1 petrol in all engineering districts?

There would he no saving as all engineering districts now use No. 3 petrol.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this change took place?

As the hon. Member would anticipate, quite recently.

Grand Opera (Government Grant)

48.

asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the grand opera syndicate do not intend to give performances of grand opera at Covent Garden this summer; and what consequent reduction he proposes to make in the subsidy payable to the syndicate for the current year?

My attention has been called to this matter. Under the terms of the agreement between the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Corporation of the 11th June, 1931, no provision is made for a reduction in the amount of the opera subsidy in such circumstances. I am in communication with the British Broadcasting Corporation on the matter.

May I ask whether it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to continue the payment of this subsidy in full seeing that this syndicate do not propose to carry out one of the principal objects for which the subsidy was originally granted?

I have already informed my hon. Friend that there is no provision in the agreement dealing with the said circumstances, and that I am communicating with the British Broadcasting Corporation in the matter.

Transport

Waterloo Bridge

67.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the estimate of £1,295,000 given by the improvements committee of the London County Council as the cost of replacing Waterloo Bridge by a new bridge, to take six lines of traffic, includes the cost of demolishing the present bridge and of removing and re-erecting the existing temporary bridge; and whether Parliament will be given any opportunity of discussing the matter?

I understand that the estimate includes the demolition of the present bridge and the removal of the existing temporary bridge. I do not know of any proposal for the re-erection of the temporary structure. The London County Council have informed me that they do not require any additional Parliamentary powers in the matter.

Does the Minister appreciate the fact that the temporary bridge appears on the line of the present bridge and would not be in alignment with the piers of the new five-arch bridge? Will it not be necessary to remove the temporary bridge and re-erect it?

If my hon. Friend has any technical information which he thinks is not in the possession of the London County Council or their technical ad- visers and will let me have it, I will gladly forward it to the London County Council.

Are we to understand that the present bridge is to be removed and that no new temporary bridge will be erected? Further, are we to understand that the House of Commons is to have no opportunity of discussing the matter?

The question as to the disposal of the time of the House is not one which I can decide, but I suggest that it would be difficult properly to discuss this complicated technical question on the Floor of the House.

Why?

In consideration of the subsidy granted by the Government, is any stipulation being made that only British materials shall be used in the construction?

The hon. and gallant Member may be reasonably sure that no foreign material will be used.

Cannot we be certain? Is there no stipulation in the agreement?

Surely "sure" means certain.

Are we to understand that the 60 per cent. grant will only apply to the figure in the question, and that it will not be 60 per cent. of any increased figure?

I must have notice of that question.

Road Services Liofwces

68.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the reasons for the decisions of the traffic commissioners in refusing licences are always issued for publication and general information; and, if not, whether he will arrange for this course to be followed?

In cases where the decision is announced at a public sitting many of the traffic commissioners state their reasons for arriving at that decision, but no arrangements have been made requiring the publication of reasons in every case. Wherever an appeal is lodged a statement of the grounds of their decision is obtained from the com- missioners and is communicated to the parties concerned before the inquiry into the appeal is held.

69 and 70.

asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will state in how many cases fares of existing motor-coach services have been increased by order of the different traffic commissioners;

(2) if he will state the names of all hitherto existing motor-coach services which have now been refused a licence by the various traffic commissioners, giving in each case the reason for this decision?

The information asked for is not in my possession. The preparation of such special statements would involve considerable labour on the part of the traffic commissioners and would seriously impede them in carrying out their duties. If, however, my hon. Friend desires information as to the facts in any particular service, I will do what I can to supply it.

League Of Nations (Building Contracts)

29.

(for Captain PETER MACDONALD) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what are the names and countries of origin of the members of the committee which has examined the tenders and awarded the contracts for the new Palace of Nations at Geneva; and if he will provide a list showing to whom the principal contracts for this building have already been allocated?

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

Following is the answer:

The names and countries of origin of the members of the Building Committee of the League of Nations are as follow: Sir Eric Drummond, Secretary-General (British); Marquis Paulucci di Calboli Barone, Under-Secretary-General of the League (Italian); M. A. Dufour-Feronce, Under-Secretary-General of the League (German); Mr. Jacklin, Head of Finance Section of the League (South Africa); Mr. H. Butler, Deputy-Director of International Labour Office (British); M. di Fausto (Italian); M. Broesse van Groenon (Dutch); Dr. Kreis (German); M. Peycelon (French); M. Streit-Baron (Swiss); Mr. John H. Markham (British), and the following substitute members: M. Arturo Bianchi (Italian); M. Louis Bouet (Swiss); Mr. F. W. L. Cloux (British); M. Jacquot (Paris) (French).

Three contracts have been allotted up to date, of which only the third is of importance. This contract, which is for the main constructional work, including foundations, concrete masonry and stonework, was let to an association of the following five firms: Chini, Milan; Guénod, Geneva; Hatt-Haller, Zurich; Société d'Entreprise de travaux publics et industriels, Paris; Spinédi, Geneva.

Coal Industry

Export Trade (France)

56.

(for Mr. THORNE) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the date the French Government decided to operate the quota of British coal imported into France; whether any alteration of the quota system has been made recently; if so, can he state the details; and whether any recent negotiations have taken place between the two Governments on the subject of reducing the quota of coal exported to France?

France introduced the system of quota for imports of coal, coke and briquettes on the 1st August, 1931. The quota for August was fixed at 100 per cent. of the average imports for the three years 1928, 1929 and 1930. It was reduced to 80 per cent. from 1st September and to 72 per cent. from 1st December. From the 1st February, 1932, it has been 64 per cent., with an additional 6 per cent. if there is a demand for the coal. On Thursday last the French method of calculating the quota was under discussion with representatives of the British coalowners, and the possibilities of making representations to the French Government are now under consideration.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House whether now in point of fact the Surtax upon our coal has ceased to operate?

That is another question.

Bandon Hold Colliery (Accident)

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the House any information about the accident at Handon Hold Colliery, West Pelton, on Friday night last, whereby three men were entombed by a fall of stone?

My hon. Friend has received a preliminary report from the Divisional Inspector of Mines, but it adds very little to the information already published by the Press. Three men were trapped about eight o'clock on Friday night by a sudden and heavy fall of roof over a large area in the Shield Row seam; the bodies of two of them have been recovered, And I am afraid there is little hope that the third man will be found alive. Rescue operations have been carried on continuously with the greatest determination and bravery, and are still going on. I speak, I am sure, for the whole House in expressing our deep sympathy with the families and friends of the three men; they have had to endure a terrible ordeal of suspense and sorrow.

Government Departments (Conscientious Objectors)

64.

(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will raise the ban on the re-employment in Government Departments of conscientious objectors to military service in the late War?

Under the general decision of 1920, civil servants who were conscientious objectors were made eligible for re-employment provided that they had conformed to the provisions of the law and carried out satisfactorily work of national importance where so directed. The hon. Member presumably refers to certain conscientious objectors who did not satisfy this proviso and were definitely dismissed. The position of these men has been re-examined by successive Governments, and the decision not to offer re-employment has on each occasion been reaffirmed. I see no grounds for reopening the question.

Has the matter been reconsidered by the present Government?

It has been considered by each successive Government. It has been reconsidered by this Government also.

Business Of The House

I wish to ask the Leader of the House when he proposes to take the Hire Purchase (Scotland) Bill, Second Reading?

I have had no notice of the question, and I could not say when that Bill will be taken. I may be in a position to say in a few days, but I cannot say so now.

I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not giving him notice, but I had no notice myself until I came into the House and found that it was down on the Order Paper.

I will let the House know as soon as I am in a position to say when it will be taken.

British Museum

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps also your assistance in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has presented the usual petition on behalf of the British Museum as has been done year after year. In that connection I wish to point out that great difficulty has been found in putting questions here on matters relating to the Museum or in finding anyone to answer such questions on behalf of the Museum. I am interested in museum matters but I have found that I was not in order in putting questions concerning the British Museum to any Department of the Government. Within the last two or three years the Public Accounts Committee have had before them the curator of the British Museum, as money for the Museum has been voted by this House and the curator has had to attend and to give explanations about that money. In recent weeks hon. Members have endeavoured to get questions about the British Museum answered and they have had to take the roundabout way of addressing them to the First Commissioner of Works or the Financial Secretary. The Prime Minister as First Lord of the Treasury is a Trustee of the British Museum and I wish to know if it would be possible to get a Ruling that questions which do not touch the detailed internal administration of the Museum might be addressed to the Prime Minister and might then be taken over by the Treasury and dealt with by their representatives here. I refer of course only to questions on matters connected with general policy of the Museum.

The hon. Gentleman asks me whether questions can be addressed to some Minister who can answer for the British Museum. It is rather a difficult matter because the duties connected with the British Museum are vested in trustees and it would be inconvenient as well as unusual for questions to be put in this House to a Minister who had no responsibility for the Museum. The real responsibility rests with the trustees of the Museum. There are, however, certain questions in which undoubtedly Parliament has a direct interest and a certain responsibility. Therefore I think that as regards questions on this point each must be judged and treated on its own merits as it arises. There cannot be a general ruling that questions of all kinds on this subject are to be accepted at the Table.

I do not know, sir, whether you are aware that the money which is voted by the House for the British Museum has to be answered for by the curator of the Museum before the Public Accounts Committee? I submit on that ground that we would be within our rights in putting down all questions concerning the general administration and policy of the British Museum for answer by some representative of the Treasury, and in view also of the fact that public money is involved.

That is what I had in mind when I said that some questions might be suitably addressed to some Minister in this House but others might not be suitable as they might interfere with the duties of the trustees to whom powers have been delegated. Each question would have to be treated on its merits.

Orders Of The Day

Import Duties Bill

Considered in Committee. [ Progress 19th February.]

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Clair.]

Before we proceed with the business it may be helpful to the Committee if I make a suggestion in regard to the Amendments to the First Schedule to the Bill. A large number of Amendments appear on the Order Paper, some of which appear to be put down in the wrong places. I propose to have these Amendments re-arranged and to adopt the following course in doing so. I propose that we should first take as they come, going down the items in the Schedule as it stands, all Amendments to the items which appear in the Schedule. That, of course, would include all Amendments to omit anything which is in the Schedule at present. After that, I propose we should take, as at the end of the Schedule, all proposals to insert other items in or add other articles to the Schedule. But if that course is adopted, it will appear to some Members of the Committee to be possible, by discussing at considerable length alterations to items now in the Schedule, to shut out proposals to add further items to the Schedule. In order to avoid that possibility, the Deputy-Chairman and I propose that, after a reasonable time has been spent in discussing alterations to the Schedule as it stands, including proposals to omit things from the Schedule, we should then exercise our right of selection of Amendments by not selecting any more of those Amendments but should proceed to select Amendments proposing additions to the Schedule. I hope that that proposal will commend itself to the Committee. I think that, by that means, we should get the important matters discussed as far as is possible in the time available.

Is not the omission of any item from the Schedule tantamount to an increase in the charge on the taxpayer?

That point has already been dealt with in a considered Ruling which I gave on. Thursday last.

Clause 4—(Preference For Dominions, India And Southern Rhodesia)

The following Amendment stood upon the Paper:

In page 5, line 40, after the word "Rhodesia," to insert the words "the Sudan."[Mr. Albery.]

I shall not take up the time of the Committee with this Amendment if I can be assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the point is adequately covered in the Bill as it stands.

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to point out how it is covered in the Bill?

The position of this territory is a little different from that of other territories and it would certainly not come in under this Clause, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the assurance that it has always been treated as he intends and that it will so continue to be treated under the Bill.

It ought to be made clear under what particular form this territory comes within these provisions. Obviously, the Sudan is not a Mandated Territory, and it is not part of the British Empire. It will, if anything, come in as a Protectorate, but that ought to be made clear. Egypt would not come into the preferences, and it might be for the general convenience if we knew under what particular definition the Sudan will be entitled to inclusion.

In view of the explanation which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I understand that the hon. Member has not yet moved it. Does he desire to move it?

No.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, after the word "by," to insert the words:

"or which are administered under the authority of."

This Amendment is to deal with a few small territories which are under the authority of Dominions but which are not administered by the Dominions in virtue of a mandate.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, after the word, "from," to insert the words "any part of the British Empire."

This is the first of a series of Amendments having to do with the case of goods which are produced in one part of the Empire and consigned from another. I think the simplest way of explaining the effect of the Amendments is to say that as long as the produce of the Dominions comes in free, that is, until the 15th November, all goods which have been produced in a Colony will come in free even if they be consigned from a Dominion. Similarly, if it should happen to be the other way round, all goods produced in a Dominion which are consigned from a Colony would come in free. But a somewhat different series of circumstances will arise if and when, after the Ottawa Conference, some duties are applicable to some goods coming from a Dominion. We have then to contemplate that there may be goods coming from a Dominion some of which may be free, some of which may be subject to a reduced duty, and some of which may be subject to the full 10 per cent., and what we have to provide is that if goods produced in a Colony which, if consigned from a Colony, would come in here free, are in fact consigned from a Dominion, they shall not follow the Dominion practice as to whether they come in free or get the preference. The preference in that case would be the preference of the Dominion and not the Colony, and they would only come in free if the goods from the Dominion came in free themselves. This is a little complicated, but I hope I have succeeded in making it clear.

I am only asking for information, but I do not quite understand the working of this Clause. I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Sub-section at the bottom of page 149 of the Order Paper goes with this Amendment.

Yes.

I do not quite understand that that Sub-section operates in the way stated by the right hon. Gentleman, but it may be that I have misread it. The Sub-section reads:

"(4) Where by virtue of Sub-section (2) of this Section any duty under this Part of this Act becomes chargeable on goods grown, produced, or manufactured in any country to which this Section applies"—

that is, a Dominion, and it goes on—

"goods consigned from that country shall, unless they are goods of a class or description specified in an order made with respect to that country under the last foregoing Sub-section, be treated for the purposes of this Section and of any order made thereunder with respect to any other country and for the purposes of the next following Section of this Act as not having been consigned from a part of the British Empire."

I will take the case of goods from a Colony which, are consigned through a Dominion and as regards that Dominion there is an Order made. As I read it, if those Colonial goods are consigned through a Dominion port, they will be deemed not to have been consigned from a part of the British Empire at all; that is to say, they will be completely excluded either from Colonial or from Dominion preference. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman desires to do what he stated, but. I suggest that these words do not accomplish that, and that the net result of this would be that Colonial goods would be deemed not to be Empire goods at all if they came through the port of a Dominion as regards which an Order had been made under the Section; and I suggest that it is most undesirable that Colonial goods should be charged with the tax on goods from a Dominion merely because they are shipped through a Dominion port. If they are genuine, bona fide Colonial goods, they should come in free. Secondly, they should not be excluded, as I suggest that they are excluded, by the operation of this Subsection.

May I give a very practical example? The Dominion of New Zealand is very intimately connected with Samoa, which is a territory mandated to the Dominion of New Zealand, and New Zealand is also intimately connected with Fiji, which is, I think, more or less a Crown Colony. A great deal of the trade of both those islands passes through Auckland, which is the trading port of that part of the world. A great part of the sugar trade goes through Auckland. I hope it will not happen, but suppose that, as the result of the Ottawa Conference, it is necessary to impose a duty of 10 per cent. on part of the produce that comes from New Zealand, it would be a hardship on the port of Auckland and also an injury to the islands of Samoa and Fiji if their products, because they passed through Auckland or were handled there, should be subject to the duty of 10 per cent. I know that that would not be the purpose of the Government, but I think, in order to meet a rather difficult situation, such a provision should not be made. Either the port of the country of origin or the port of the colony of origin should be the definition that would entitle that part of the British Empire which produced the goods to get the full advantage of any preference given. I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not listening. I saw that he had somebody else's ear.

I think I can explain the point. All through consignments will take their preference or non-preference from the country of origin. Therefore, if, for instance, an article is produced in Northern Rhodesia and is consigned through to this country, it does not matter through what port it goes, it will come in free to this country because it comes from Northern Rhodesia. But let us suppose that it goes to the Union of South Africa and is there used in some manufacture, and then consigned from a South African port to this country. In that case it, would take the preference which is given to that particular kind of article in respect of Dominion produce, the Dominion of South Africa produce. It may be in a particular case that it comes in free still, or it may be that it comes in under a preferential rate, or it may be that by mutual arrangement it comes in without any preference at the same rate as from a foreign country. That is what is explained in the Amendment to which the hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention. Is that clear?

I do not think that that is what the Sub-section says, but I appreciate that it is what the right hon. Gentleman desires.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that the Government of the country from which the goods have been consigned shall not later than the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, have enacted that, as from a date not later than the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, goods consigned to that country from the United Kingdom, and grown, produced, or manufactured therein, shall be admitted to that country free of duty, or shall have given His Majesty's Government satisfactory assurances that such legislation will be immediately effected."

The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the ad valorem duty and the additional duties imposed in this Bill, from which, by the operation of the Clause as drawn, the Dominions are exonerated, shall apply unless, at the same time as the remission applies to the Dominions, they extend reciprocal benefits to this country. What is the reason given by the Government on so many occasions for introducing this Bill, for pressing it through the House at such speed, and for limiting our time for discussing our fiscal relations with the Dominions—an important matter—to something under four hours? It is that the import of goods into this country will have a damaging effect upon our balance of trade and will imperil the position of sterling; and that revenue is required to relieve the British taxpayer. If imports to this country will have the effect which the Government ascribe to them—and we on these benches do not subscribe to that view—imports from any country will have that effect, irrespective of whether they come from foreign countries or from the Dominions.

Those of us whose names are attached to this Amendment feel that the Dominions should be put in this matter on precisely the same footing as any other country. We cannot expose ourselves to the dangers which have been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, either at the hands of foreign countries or at the hands of the Dominions. If there be damage, it will be equally great whether it comes from the Dominions or from anywhere else. But if we are to be asked to make to the Dominions this substantial concession to what the Government have described as our vital interests, Jet us at least have a quid pro quo. Let us at least ensure that for a concession which we are asked to extend to the Dominions we shall receive a like concession from them. That is the object of this Amendment. Arrangements for mutual trading must be reciprocal, and the Amendment might almost be regarded as a first step in the direction of Free Trade in the Empire, and in the formation of a Free Trade union of the Empire to which every other country should be entitled to enter upon like terms.

It will afford to the Empire a nucleus round which every country with which we trade can gather for the purposes of creating what at this time we require almost more than anything else—an enlargement of the area of Free Trade. In that connection, I welcome the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Birmingham on 12th February, in which he indicated that he proposed to take part in initiating negotiations for the creation of a Free Trade or low-tariff area. The proposal in this Amendment is the first step in that direction. It is an invitation to the Dominions to join with us in creating a Free Trade area. Those hon. Members who proclaim themselves adherents of Empire Free Trade will, of course, vote for the Amendment. They cannot do otherwise, for if they did they would be confessing to the Committee, the country and the Dominions that their boasted policy of Empire Free Trade is just a matter of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Whatever doubt may have been in the minds of hon. Members as to the real object of this Amendment, it was dispelled by the brutally frank way in which it was commended to the Committee. When I first saw the Amendment on the Order Paper and looked at the names, I assumed that there were some new Empire Crusaders here. I assumed that the hon. and gallant Member and his friends were getting somewhat jealous of the success of Lord Beaverbrook and wanted to give some evidence of competition in that particular direction. Clearly the speech we have heard to all intents and purposes says to the British Parliament that we ought to tell the British Commonwealth of Nations, "You not only must be treated as foreigners, but you are foreigners." That is an insult. Whatever views you may hold, whatever political faith you may embrace, when you remember the position that the Dominions without pressure took in our hour of trial—[interruption.] Therefore, there can be no doubt whatever—and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends will not join issue with me when I say this—that the Amendment is not intended seriously. They know perfectly well that it is impracticable, and that the date which they suggest, even if they mean it, is an impossible date.

May I ask why it should be impossible for a Dominion Parliament to pass legislation by 31st March which this Parliament has been called upon to pass in a few days?

4.0 p.m.

The answer is very obvious. The hon. and gallant Member himself says that what he wants is a quid pro quo. Does he assume for one moment that between now and 31st March a scheme can be worked out? I am talking from the Dominions point of view, because what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says is this. So far as any preference to the Dominions is concerned, we say to them here and now, "Disregard any matter of your local circumstances and maybe any of your secondary industries." That is what the hon. Member means. That is exactly what he says, and he knows perfectly well that, from a practical point of view, it cannot be done. Therefore, in saying that, I am justified in treating it as a wrecking Amendment. It is not only not necessary for me to say that the Government will not accept it, but we sincerely hope, especially after the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that if taken to a Division it will not receive support. What is the justification for saying that, as far as the Dominions are concerned, to all intents and purposes they should be treated as foreigners? Is that the answer to the nearly 200,000 people who, prior to last year, left these shores every year, and constitute the backbone of our Dominions Is that the answer to those, numbering perhaps 100,000 at this moment, who are registered and waiting a chance even to-day to go to the Dominions? The figures of our unem- ployed show to what a tremendous extent they are supplemented by the unfortunate slump in our Dominions. Therefore from any help, any encouragement, anything that will tend to restore their prosperity, it must be admitted that we shall be the first to benefit. The hon. and gallant Member himself admits that. If that be so, why proceed to insult them? Why proceed straight away to say to the Dominions in substance, "So far as you are concerned, you are to be treated as foreigners?"

I cannot allow to go upon record the statement of the Secretary of State for the Dominions that I have insulted the Dominions. I am putting Britain first, and what I have said, and what I repeat is, that if it be antagonistic and injurious to the interests of this country that goods should be imported into this country from one country, it is equally injurious that they should be imported from another country, whether a Dominion or not.

I think that not even that explanation will enable the hon. and gallant Member to get away from the first speech he made. I do not think that my interpretation of his speech put it too high, but I want to follow it up by pointing this out. It is known that there is to be a conference in Ottawa. Outside of those associated with this Amendment, not only everyone in this House on both sides, but everyone in the country looks forward, in my judgment, to that conference in the hope that it may be a turning point in our Imperial policy. No one will disguise or minimise the difficulties, but if the conference is to succeed, surely we are entitled to say, let us do all we can to create a good atmosphere. Will the hon. Gentleman or anyone else in this House deny that the Government by their sacrifices have made their contribution In spite of that, I will admit that some of our Dominions have not done all they might; but that is no reason why when we set an example it should be crabbed by Amendments of this kind or speeches such as the one we have heard.

The Dominions have made their view perfectly clear, but do not let us go in a haggling, whining spirit. Let us go and see what we can throw into the common pool for the benefit of all. We have already shown our hands. I do not want to disguise from the House what is clearly my view, that I expect and believe the Dominions will respond. We put all the cards on the table. No Dominion can complain in any degree whatever that on the first import duties and at every stage in connection with this matter the Government have taken the view that we will do all we can to encourage, help and foster an Imperial spirit, and I say that it is now up to the Dominions themselves to respond. I am not unmindful of the interests of our own trade and commerce. It will be our duty to point that out. It will be our duty to go and present the full case. I do ask the House not to prejudice the situation, not to make the conference au absurdity from the start by accepting the Amendment now proposed, and I ask the House to reject it.

As far as I am concerned, I do not want to say anything to the Committee to make the very difficult task of the right hon. Gentleman more difficult, or which could be interpreted by any parts of the British Empire as unfriendly to the great Commonwealth of Nations. I know that what is said in Debate here is telegraphed to Australia, New Zealand and Canada, is magnified and something read into it quite different from what is the case. I happen to have lived for a number of years in the Dominion of New Zealand. I have great associations with it. In fact, I owe everything to it. My grandfather, as long ago as 1838, was in New Zealand. My mother was born there. I have a son there at the present time. My father went out in the early 'fifties. Therefore, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman absolutely when he says "With unemployment not only in this country but very serious in the Dominions, do not let us say anything that will be interpreted as an unfriendly gesture to any of the component parts of the British Commonwealth of nations."

They have at the present time a task even more complicated and more difficult than our own. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they look to us with hope to extend to them a friendly hand, and we do not want anything to be said to give the impression either in Australia, New Zealand or Canada that we are not sympathetic to their economic problems, and my hon. and gallant Friend never said anything of the kind. He never mentioned the words "foreign country." It is not suggested that this Preference should apply to a foreign country. He pointed out—and rightly pointed out—what an extremely difficult thing it is to implement an economic bargain of this kind. I often feel in my heart of hearts that it is a tragedy that, perhaps, 40 or 50 years ago, a different turning was not taken in the various parts of the Dominions, and if the building-up of an independent industrial life had never been attempted. If these great new countries, who, after all, owe everything to this great country, to pioneers like Captain Cook and Tasman, who opened up civilisation in those territories, had realised that their business, their duty, was to develop their agricultural industry, their raw materials, and assist the old country to build up its industrial organisation, then some of the ideals, which I consider to be fine ideals, might have been possible. But, probably alarmed by what had happened in the United States of America, we decided to give them free economic independence to work out their own salvation in their own way. The result is that they have built up an independent economic industrial life to which, as the years go on, they attach more and more importance. Their slogan has been "Australia first, and Australia first every time." I came across this cutting from the "Australian Manufacturer "—I agree a prejudiced organ:

"It should be remembered that the Preference we give to Great Britain is largely nominal. We first put on a duty high enough to protect local industry from British competition or from any other competition. We then make that duty a percentage higher for foreign countries. We therefore do not give Great Britain a real Preference. The real Preference is given to our own manufacturers. And as soon as it is found that a certain duty on British goods is not high enough to protect Australian manufacturers, that duty is sure to be raised."

My hon. and gallant Friend wants to make clear in his Amendment that we should face realities, that we should face facts as they are, and that when my right hon. Friend goes to Ottawa, he will not go blindfolded, he will not go into a land of make-believe, but go there knowing that he is dealing with independent States committed to a policy of Protec- tion, determined to keep their tariffs effective, to keep their own industries and not prepared to enter, as we should like, into a general system of Free Trade in a self-contained Empire. That is what we want to realise. My fear is that in building an economic world on the foundations of 10 per cent., far from strengthening the bonds, we may weaken them. That is the whole case against these proposals. I am disappointed, frankly, that in having decided to make this gesture to the Dominions we limited it to the 15th November. I think, on the whole, it would have been far better if this 10 per cent. had been made unconditional, rather than it should have been made a basis for bargaining.

Why is the hon. Gentleman's name down to this Amendment? I was dealing with the Mover of the Amendment and his speech, and the hon. Member has now thrown it over. Why not go one step further, and say that he is not supporting the Amendment on the Paper?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been following the Debates of last week. If he had, he would know that I am against the principle of a 10 per cent. tax as being unsound from any point of view, whether it is to protect our own industries, or whether it is to cement the Empire. If we are to give this 10 per cent. preference, let us give it unqualified.

Your Amendment qualifies it.

We do not have the help of skilled Parliamentary draftsmen such as are available to a Member of the Government. The right hon. Member has been long enough in Opposition to know that we have to draft Amendments according to the rules of procedure and to the best of our ability, and I am not responsible for the wording of this particular Amendment. What will be the position of the right hon. Gentleman when lie is at Ottawa next summer? All eyes will be turned on him. It will be an epoch-making conference. The Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia and India—no, the representatives of India—and the Prime Minister of New Zealand will be sitting round a table to cement the Empire. The first thing the right hon. Gentleman will say will be:

"We have put a 10 per cent. tax on our foodstuffs, our raw materials and on manufactured goods. We have let your produce in free, but that was a gesture, and now I want a quid pro quo." Is he going to say to Australia, "Wipe off your tariff on English manufactured goods, do away with your tariff on Bradford woollens, on Leicestershire hosiery and on iron and steel goods"? If he is only going to say, "Give us a preference," the answer is obvious. It will be, "You have a preference already." And if they answer, as I am afraid they will, "We are for Australia first; we are going to maintain a wall high enough to protect our own industries," then what we have to offer is not of any material use.

If, as the result of the discussions with Australia, the right hon. Gentleman says, "I am not satisfied, and I am going back to the House of Commons to ask the Government to impose the 10 per cent. on all your imports which are now exempt," we can understand the anger and indignation there will be in Australia. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman may make a bargain with New Zealand and fail to make a bargain with Australia, and there will, in consequence, be an unhealthy differentiation which will weaken the common bonds of tradition and of history. [Interruption.] Yes, tend to weaken them rather than to strengthen them. What will happen as regards South Africa? The products of South Africa are entirely different from those of Australia. South Africa produces a large range of commodities, many of which are essential to our industries and to the food of our people. Now they come in free. The South Africans take a very narrow view of their economic future. They value even more than Australia their economic independence. If, as the result of the discussions at Ottawa, the 10 per cent. concession is maintained for Australia and withdrawn from South Africa the stimulus to South African nationalism will be great. There, again, I see a difficulty.

What my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment aims at, whatever it may say, is to show that the only practical way of bringing about Empire Free Trade is to have Free Trade inside the Empire. That is a thing we can understand. Lord Beaverbrook is perfectly right. The idea that we can build an Empire on the haggling of the market place, on bargaining and counter-bargaining, on granting concessions to Australia and withdrawing them from South Africa, on a tax on New Zealand butter and a high duty on products of South Africa is wrong; that is the high road to destruction. All the carefully built-up edifice of good will, of a common language, of a common brotherhood which so long has made the Empire one at heart and one in spirit will not be equal to that strain. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the Dominions gave freely of their best life and limb in our hour of trouble. There was no question then of bargaining. What we Free Traders, who have been opposed for a generation to this artificial cement of Imperial Preference, say, is that it is much better to keep the Empire together by the bonds of kinship, the kinship of a common Empire, the traditions of common history, the love of a common language and a belief in the principle of liberty and of a Parliamentary system common to all, rather than try this dangerous experiment of haggling about 10 per cent.

I have listened with great care to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and his elaborate attempt to throw over his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), which did not succeed. At the same time, I do not think his speech had anything to do with the Amendment. He gave us an account of the personal connection of his family with New Zealand. No doubt that is important, but much less important than the subject of this Amendment, which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions has pointed out, is very important indeed. It deals with a subject on which there is, very properly, a good deal of sensitiveness in the Dominions. My right hon. Friend dealt so effectively with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment that I do not propose to say much about the Amendment itself—I rose only for one purpose, to correct a misstatement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman—but I would like, with all respect, to say how very much I agree with what was said by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, and so, I think, did the majority of Members in the Committee.

Let me say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is all very well for the purposes of what is, I think I may say without offence, a Parliamentary "rag" to bring forward Amendments of this character, but he ought to have some sense of responsibility, and to realise what the effect of his statements and his Amendment may be in the Dominions. We all know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and those supporting him, incited and encouraged by some Members of His Majesty's Government, are doing all they can to destroy this Bill. That is obvious, and they are entitled to do so, but they are not entitled to make the kind of speeches they made this afternoon regarding the Dominions, nor are they entitled to make statements such as one which the hon. and gallant Member made which is literally not accurate, which is the reverse of the truth. He said all those here who are in favour of Lord Beaver-brook's policy must necessarily vote for the Amendment. On the contrary, Lord Beaverbrook made it clear, in the enunciation of his policy, that he did not ask for any bargains. He made it perfectly clear that he did not wish us to impose any conditions, but to allow the goods of the Dominions and the Colonies into this country absolutely free. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member has attributed to Lord Beaverbrook the exact opposite of what he said.

Does the Noble Lord suggest that Lord Beaverbrook's policy is directed towards establishing one-way traffic only in Empire Free Trade?

Not all all. What Lord Beaverbrook said in the course of his enunciation of the policy—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Which one?"] If the hon. Member is not familiar with it, I am not prepared to make him familiar with it. Lord Beaverbrook said he did not wish to see any bargaining on the part of this country with the Colonies and the Dominions in this matter. He said we should offer them certain advantages, and he believed that we should get certain advantages in return, but he specifically objected to anything in the nature of bargaining. Personally, I am in favour of the Government policy, which seems to me to be a very reasonable one, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to attribute to Lord Beaverbrook views which he did not express, or to say that we shall be inconsistent if we support the Government. Also I wish to say, and I am sure I am speaking for many of my hon. Friends—not only for Members of the Conservative party, but other Members supporting the National Government—that we had believed that people returned to support that Government were going to show a reasonable support of the Dominions and the Colonies, and that has not been shown by the hon. and gallant Member and his friends.

I must interrupt the Noble Lord, because otherwise his statement might be open to misinterpretation. I did not stand as a supporter of the National Government at the General Election. I stood as a Liberal and as a Free Trader, without ambiguity.

I apologise if I wrongly attributed to the hon. and gallant Member support of the National Government at the last election, but I think that if some of his hon. Friends who are supporting this Amendment had announced at the time that they intended to take up the attitude which they have now adopted they would not have got into this House. In conclusion, I wish to say only that the hon. and gallant Member and those associated with him are politically speaking atavistic; they are throwbacks to the time when the Liberal party was bitterly hostile to the existence of the Empire and sneered and jeered at it on every occasion.

4.30 p.m.

We have been witnessing a very interesting dog-fight. Some hon. Members are now beginning to repudiate the auspices under which they entered this House. After all, I am one of those who came into this House without the blessing of the doctor—I had no mandate, except the old one, the mandate of the class to which I belong. In this particular case we have an Amendment moved by a major dealing with the Empire and the Dominions beyond the seas. I suppose that in that Amendment he includes India. India must have consideration in this matter of Preference. Does he believe that factories in the East End of London ought to be closed on account of Indian competition? I live in a constituency, and represent it, where the introduction of coir matting is putting workers out of employment. Two factories have been closed already as a consequence of the competition. Does the hon. Member agree that those things should be allowed to come in free because they come from countries which happen to be members of the Empire—with a big accent on the H? I cannot pronounce it as well as the Dominions Secretary—[Interruption.] What I want to point out is that we are international Free Traders, under conditions; the conditions are that we shall have some right to say in what circumstances the goods are produced in the countries from which we get them. That has been our policy all the way through. We do not object to meeting other people on fair terms. We do not abject if the hours of labour and the conditions of employment are as good as we think they should be, but that is going a long way in the direction of trying to solve a problem which is at present insoluble.

The hon. Baronet the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who talked about his parents in New Zealand, knows as well as I do that it is impossible for us to meet their competition inside their own market. Everyone knows that only certain goods can go into the Australian market under fair conditions. I cannot argue whether it is right or wrong. I am not blaming the Australians or the New Zealanders, but I say that we have no right to hold the baby for other people, if the conditions of labour in their countries are not more or less equal to our own. I am not an Imperialist in the sense that some of my hon. Friends are; I am only one of those common or garden people who believe that we have to realise the fact that we have failed. Your fiscal systems, Free Trade and Protection, are absolutely barren of passibility of solving the problem with which we are faced. It is impossible in existing circumstances to solve this problem by any gerrymandering with tariffs.

In every country you have the same position, unemployment growing in relation to population, consumption not keeping pace with production, production outrunning consumption in every case. How in the name of Heaven, by this playing about either with Free Trade or Tariff Reform, are you to solve the problem of unemployment? You cannot. Every day that goes over our heads sees us in the same position. Therefore, I suggest that this Amendment, although it has been moved religiously, as an article of faith, by the 12 apostles who are still left, and by one of the descendants of the original apostles—[Interruption.] I was only wanting to say, so far as we are concerned, that we have no time for it. It takes us nowhere. It does not solve any of our problems; it leaves us just where we were before this Bill was introduced. I hope that the Labour party are not going into the Lobby to support an Amendment of this character, even if the hon. and gallant Member who moved it should have the courage to carry it to a Division.

I want to offer a few observations, and especially to call the attention of the House to what I think is deserving of the most severe censure, the language of the speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Dominion Affairs. He must know that what he says is liable to be telegraphed abroad, and for him to make a statement that the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) was an insult to the Dominions, deserves, I think, the most severe censure. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to Ottawa to do? To negotiate? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that when the Dominions do not allow our goods to go in free to their country, that is an insult to the old country? The thing is ridiculous. It was childish to get up in a patronising manner and suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that Ids speech was an insult to the Dominions. Nothing, I am sure, was further from his thoughts. He may err—we all may err; even the right hon. Gentleman may err but for him to suggest that that speech was an insult is something that deserves, and I hope will receive, the most severe censure.

As the right hon. Gentleman is going out to Ottawa to negotiate, and as that was the object of my hon. and gallant Friend in moving this Amendment, I fail to see that any criticism by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), was necessary, and his personal references to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), seemed to me to be very undesirous and in very bad taste. If my hon. Friend, as I imagine, is justly proud—

May I suggest, as the hon. Member has referred to me, that he should put down a Vote of Censure on the Dominions Secretary and myself, for our execrable taste in referring to a member of the Liberal party?

I will consider that suggestion. I was saying that my hon. Friend may be justly proud of his family connections with the Dominions, and he is entitled to refer to those connections in showing what are the relations of his family with the Empire. This Amendment strikes me as carrying out the principle which the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is going out to Ottawa to practise, namely, to negotiate, and as such, it seems to be quite in order.

I strongly object to the wording of this Amendment. Undoubtedly, it is a great slap in the face for the Dominions. If it were carried, there would be no Ottawa Conference. The conditions which this Amendment would impose upon the Dominions would be impossible for them to accept. It is well known that the proposals put forward by the Mover of this Amendment are impracticable and impossible. Nobody has ever suggested, however ardent an Empire Free Trader he may have been —and the Mover of the Amendment referred on several occasions to Empire Free Trade—that all manufactured articles from this country should go into the Dominions absolutely free. The ideal towards which we are working is to bring about Free Trade within the Empire. This is the first step, and is the first opportunity that this country has had, thanks to the change in her fiscal policy, to show to the Empire that we intend to do for them what they have been doing for us for the last 30 years.

The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green has suggested to the Committee that the preferences given in Australia were of no use. I think that was a very mean proposal to make, because I believe that it costs Australia about£7,000,000 a year, whereas she might save money by buying foreign goods at a cheaper rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has inserted in his Bill that food and raw materials from the Empire shall come in here free, and his action has had a great psychological effect throughout the Empire. It will create an atmosphere at Ottawa which otherwise would not be there. I hope all the delegates from the Dominions will persist with that spirit of giving towards this great policy of Empire as much as they possibly can, and in which I also hope that bargaining will be left out, as far as it is possible to leave out bargaining. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing mentioned Lord Beaverbrook, and said that there should be no bargaining. There must obviously be some bargaining in the end, but bargaining should be the last resort. Giving towards the common pool of an Empire policy should be the first aim of those who take part in the Ottawa Conference.

If we restrict goods from foreign countries, then there is room for the home production of food, and for the food and raw materials which we receive from the Empire. The whole object of this policy is to increase the selling power of the Empire by giving her greater markets here. By increasing her selling power, she will increase her purchasing power for our manufacturing industries, because it is the great Dominions who buy manufactured articles from this country. They will thereby assist to create employment in this country. The further policy, the development of those Dominions, is one which will absorb a greater population and by absorbing some of the population of this country, will help emigration, the necessity for which is a very serious problem facing us to-day. If we do not give our Dominions an increased market in this country for their products, there is no Empire policy at all. We have to face the fact that an Empire policy depends entirely upon our taxation of foreign food and foreign raw materials, and that if we are not prepared to accept that principle and put it into practice to the fullest possible extent, there will be no great inter-Imperial policy at all.

The Dominions are, as is well-known, far and away our best customers. They are most anxious to increase their trade with us, but unfortunately we have been losing our proportion of trade with them. America has been taking our place to a certain extent. At the Ottawa Conference there is not the slightest doubt that we shall be able to make arrangements whereby this country will be able to obtain a greater proportion of the trade, and take from the foreigner the trade that he is doing with the Empire at the present time. That can only be done if we are prepared to give a market in this country for Dominion products of food and raw materials.

I want to make an appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this Amendment now. We have already spent a very long time upon it, there are many other matters of great importance to be discussed, and I cannot think that the convenience of the Committee will be disturbed if we now come to a decision.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 18, after the word "from," to insert the words "any part of the British Empire."

There is one small point in connection with this Amendment which I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make clear. The Amendment really raises the same point that we decided a few moments ago on another Amendment of his. The matter is one which affects considerably my own constituency, and the part of the country in Northern Ireland which I represent. I take it that the effect of the insertion of the words "any part of the British Empire" would be that goods or raw materials coming from the British Empire, although they are subsequently altered by some kind of manufacturing process, will not be subject to the 10 per cent. duty. Let me take the case of maize as a specific example. Maize at present is to be subject to the 10 per cent. duty, but, if maize comes, for example, into the Irish Free State, it will not be subject to a 10 per cent. duty. I believe that in that Dominion there are many mills where maize is converted into meal, and I should like to ask whether, after this Amendment, any maize corning into the Irish Free State and being manufactured into meal, would or would not then, as a manufactured article coming from a Dominion, be subject to a 10 per cent. duty on entry into the United Kingdom?

There is a point which struck me in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's previous Amendment, and which applies equally to this Amendment. I cannot understand what is going to happen if the legal interpretation of the words "consigned from' is going to be questioned in a court. It appears to me that, if this provision applies to goods consigned from any part of the British Empire a position such as the following might arise. Goods from, say, Cyprus might be consigned to Port Said—an independent port—warehoused there, and subsequently consigned from there to this country. If it be a fact—I am merely giving it as an illustration—that Port Said does not come within the definition "British Empire," a peculiar anomaly would arise. Shippers who would not accept a bill of lading direct from Cyprus would require an entirely fresh consignment from the other port, and, if the word "consigned" is going to be held to mean that goods consigned from a fresh port are goods consigned within the meaning of this Subsection, there will he difficulties, and the whole intention of the Sub-section might easily be defeated. You might have goods sent direct from Cyprus by a Greek steamer to this country, but, on the other hand, you might have goods sent from Cyprus to Port Said by a Greek steamer, a P. and O. liner might take up the goods at Port Said, and it might very easily be said then that the goods, being consigned from. Port Said, were not entitled to the preference that is intended. I do not desire to make any comment in regard to the advisability or inadvisability of the preference, but I should like to ask whether the wording could not be amended so as to make the meaning of the word "consigned" more clear. It may be that the place which I have taken as an example, namely, Port Said, is not one which does not come within the term "British Empire," but certainly cases could and would arise where there would be transhipment from a port which does not come within the British Empire.

I do not think that the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) really arises out of this Amendment of mine. The Amendment is designed to deal with the case of goods produced in one part of the Empire and consigned from another part of the Empire. The case to which my right hon. Friend has referred, namely, that of maize from a foreign country coming into Northern Ireland and being there manufactured, and coming to this country from there, comes under the Bill as it stands, but does not come under my Amendment. Of course, it is perfectly clear that the maize of which my right hon. Friend speaks will have been manufactured in Northern Ireland, and will have been consigned—

I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon; I was speaking about the Irish Free State.

I am sorry; I am afraid I did not understand.

I was asking what would be the position when foreign maize came into the Irish Free State, where, I believe, it would not be subject to any 10 per cent. duty, and was then turned into a manufactured article, namely, meal, and, as meal, consigned to the United Kingdom. Would that meal, coming from a Dominion but made out of a foreign product, be subject to the 10 per cent. duty on entering the United Kingdom, or would it not?

That would depend upon whether a preference was given to the Irish Free State or not on goods coming from the Free State. The point raised by the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Janner) is, I think, only the same point on which I gave an answer earlier. If goods produced in any part of the British Empire are consigned through from the British Empire to this country, then they will take the preference which applies to the country of origin; but, if the voyage is broken on the way, and there is a new consignment from a foreign port, such as Port Said, in that ease, of course, the preference is lost.

Is it not a very material issue that, in the case of certain parts of the British Empire, direct through consignments may be almost impossible, owing to the way in which the shipping lines run? In the case of Cyprus, which has been mentioned, there is very little direct shipping, consignments from Cyprus going very largely to Alexandria and Port Said to await re-consignment. Ts it not desirable, for the purposes of this Measure, that the use of the word "consigned" should be avoided, and some such phrase as "country of origin" be substituted? After all, a mere technical breach of continuity is no reason for denying preference to the products of a Dominion or Colony provided that we can be sure of their origin.

Is not my right hon. Friend confusing transhipment with re-consignment? You can have transhipment without a fresh consignment.

That may depend on circumstances. In some cases an article is just consigned to an agent in a place like Port Said, without any absolute certainty as to how much of the total quantity sent there is eventually consigned to the United Kingdom, and, surely, it would not be desirable that goods which were sent to an entrepot port like Port Said should be denied the advantage of the preference due to their origin. All that I would ask is that the wording of the Bill should be carefully considered, so that the origin of the goods rather than a technical difference between transhipment and re-consignment should stand as a bar to preference.

This question of goods being consigned from a certain port arises with regard to the shipping companies which undertake to carry those goods, and the term "consignment," as my learned Friends in the House know, has been discussed at length in the courts. P. and O. liners, for example, will not accept a consignment direct from Cyprus, but would ask to have a distinct bill of lading of their own from Port Said to this country. My object in raising the matter was merely to assist, if I could, in getting the Sub-section refrained to some extent, in order that it may include all commodities which it is not intended to exclude. Clearly it is not intended to exclude such commodities as I have referred to, but I believe that the ultimate result of this Amendment is likely to be considerable trouble in carrying into effect that which is desired.

Does not the term "consignment" imply a commercial trans- action? That is so in connection with the international Customs, where the last place of consignment means the last place where a commercial transaction took place. I should imagine that that would be the use of the word in this Bill, and certainly it is the official practice in connection with the Customs Department.

If Canadian wheat goes to be milled in bond in the United States, and is then sent over here, would it be subject to duty or not?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to put an unnecessary tax on Colonial goods. As I understand it, the whole basis of this proposal is that goods bona fide produced in a Colony shall come into this country free of tax, and I am sure that we all agree with that. I am also certain, however, that many kinds of goods produced in our Colonies, especially in some of the smaller ones, will, as a result of this Bill as it now stands, have to suffer a tax. Mention has been made of Fiji, where all the production is collected by New Zealand merchants. It is not consigned direct from Fiji to this country, but the consignments are made up and the sales take place in New Zealand. When such goods—copra, for example—are consigned from New Zealand to this country, unless there has been an arrangement between New Zealand and this country as regards copra not paying any tax under this Section, those goods coming from a Colony will be taxed. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to bring about that result, and I am sure that, if he would be good enough to reconsider this question before Report, words could easily be devised which would enable the commissioners, on being satisfied, not as to the consignment but as to the genuine origin of the goods being correct, to allow them to come in free of duty.

5.0 p.m.

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the illustration that he gives. It seems to me that, if a Colony sells to a Dominion, it cannot expect to get something more than the Dominion would get itself. It is very likely, in the particular case which he mentions, that an arrangement would be made with the Dominions that a particular article should come in free. I think the general principle which we have laid down is sound. Where it is a through consignment to someone in this country, the article takes the preference that applies to the country of origin. If a Colony sends goods to some foreign port, let us say, and waits to see what the best market is, the British or some other, I do not think that they are entitled to claim the same advantages which they would have if they had consigned direct. It is rather a technical matter I admit, and I should be very ready to look into it again and see if anything further is required, but up to the present it seems to me that we are on the right lines and, of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that we have to be rather careful that this preference is not taken advantage of by countries which pretend that they are their own goods when they really are not.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, in view of the preference that is to he given to the Colonies, that all goods consigned to Great Britain shall be carried on British ships?

That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 28, at the end, add the words:

"(4) Where by virtue of Sub-section (2) of this section any duty under this Part of this Act becomes chargeable on goods grown, produced, or manufactured in any country to which this section applies, goods consigned from that country shall, unless they are goods of a class or description specified in an order made with respect to that country under the last foregoing Subsection, be treated for the purposes of this section and of any order made thereunder with respect to any other country and for the purposes of the next following section of this Act as not having been consigned from a part of the British Empire."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

May I ask if my Amendment, to omit the Clause, cannot be moved?

That is not an Amendment in Committee. I have put the Question, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." If the hon. Member wishes to discuss or oppose this Question, he can do so.

Before we accept the Clause, I think we should have a further statement with regard to the attitude of the Government. I should like to know, in particular, what steps they propose to take between now and the Ottawa Conference in order to ensure the success of that conference. It appears to me that it is not going to be successful because speeches are made which are full of enthusiasm, such as those which I am sure will be made by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, but because the work has been thoroughly prepared beforehand. I should certainly like to have a statement from him as to what is being done.

I do not think I could allow the right hon. Gentleman to do that, and therefore I do not think I can let the hon. Member proceed.

Small as we may be, I suggest that we have a right to put our position perfectly clearly. The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs told my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) that in his Amendment he was treating our Dominions as foreigners. I do not agree with him. My opinion, at any rate, with regard to preferences is that, while I always have been against them and against tariffs, now that we have to have them, let us do as little as we can to injure British trade, because it is from a lack of that we are suffering at the moment. If I may put it the other way, do not let us treat the Dominions as foreigners, but let us, where we can, treat foreigners, as far as trade is concerned, in the same way as we treat the Dominions. Anxious as I am, and as anyone else in the House is, to see a consolidation of the British Commonwealth of Nations, I do not see why we should be asked to do things which are going to hit us, being already pretty hard hit, and, while I have no intention of scoffing at sentiment, we ought to remember that we want more than sentiment in order to get employment for British people.

One would think, judging from what one hears when Dominion preference is being discussed, that this country does nothing for the Dominions at all. We ought to face facts. I have looked through certain percentages of trade between the Dominions and ourselves, because we are always being told that we ought to do more for the Dominions. I find that the percentage of the British export trade consigned to the Dominions is as follows. The figures are for 1929. They are probably a little different now, but in the main they will be the same. To Canada we consign 5 per cent. of our export trade, to Australia about 7 per cent., to New Zealand about 3 per cent., and to South Africa just over 4 per cent. The percentage of the imports from the Dominions consigned to the United Kingdom is 25 per cent. from Canada, 38 per cent. from Australia, 75 per cent. from New Zealand and 49 per cent. from South Africa. Those figures do not go to show that the Dominions are doing badly as far as trade with Britain is concerned. They show that, with regard to two of them, practically most of their trade is done with us, and yet the percentage of our trade done with them is, compared with our total trade, very small.

Whether we like it or not, we cannot help being in the position that we are geographically. It is out of our control. Whether we like it or not, we are very close to Europe, and it is no wonder that a very large proportion of our trade is done with Europe, and I should say the largest proportion of our shipping certainly is concerned in shipping goods to and from European countries. In the same way Canada, whether she likes it or not, is closely approximate to the United States and, quite naturally, has to do most of her trade with America. The Dominions tell us—we have had ample proof in statements made in the last few weeks—that they must come first. I am not complaining in the least that they do. They say Canada must come first, Australia must come first, and South Africa must be considered first, and after that we will see that Britain gets the best preference. I do not know whether I shall be saying something very terrible, but is it an awful thing for us to suggest that Britain may come first, too? I have a vivid recollection of a speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in this House about two years ago. He said:

"Just as the first duty of Ministers in the Dominions must be to look after their democracy, so the first duty of our Ministers here must be to look after the interests of our democracy, It is of no use to say to those who are seeking employment, and are finding it extremely difficult to get work, that, in the interests of the Empire, they must make sacrifices. The fact is that we cannot afford to surrender any of our foreign trade. That is the truth of the matter."—[OFFICIA L REPORT, 9th July, 1929; col. 782, Vol. 229.]

That speech was made when unemployment was somewhere in the neighbourhood of a million. We know what our position is to-day. I should have thought those remarks would carry very much greater weight to-day than they did two years ago. I do not think this country can afford to make any sacrifices at the expense of its own people. Ever since the War we have been going through very trying periods, and we have never participated in any of the booms that have occurred in other countries. I think we ought to put the interests of our country first. We do a large proportion of our trade with Europe. We take a very large proportion of Dominion exports, and they, in comparison with the rest of our world trade, take a very small proportion of ours and, with regard to the treatment meted out to us by the Dominions, I think a good deal of harm is done at our Dominion Conferences by not having a plain talk. Sentiment is important, but you must come down to facts. Where we get better treatment from foreign countries I do not see why we should not gay so.

I do not want to treat the Dominions as foreigners, but I should like to see those who treat us favourably given just as good treatment as the Dominions, because they are giving employment to our own people. May I give certain comparisons with regard to the treatment that we get from foreign countries and from certain Dominion Governments. There are many examples, but I will give only a few. Steel rails are let into the Argentine free. There are certain corrections to these figures that I am going to give, but, I understand, not to a large extent. They are for 1930, and they are the latest that I could get hold of. In Australia British rails are charged 50s. a ton duty.

How much are foreign rails charged?

I am not concerned at the moment with that. I am concerned with the treatment that British goods get from our Dominions, and whether the foreigner is treated worse makes very little difference if the door is shut in your face. It does not matter whether you are 100 yards or 2 inches outside the door as long as you are outside. That is one of the objections that I have to the bargain that is offered by us to the Dominions when they put a prohibitive tariff on British goods and then say, "We will raise the tariff on the foreigner if you give us Preference." If we are prohibited, it is very little advantage if the foreigner is prohibited, too. Oil engines are let free into the Argentine. There is a 55 per cent. duty in Australia and 15 per cent. in Canada. On heavy engines the Argentine charges 5 per cent. and Australia 40 per cent. With regard to boots and shoes, a trade which is not in a very flourishing condition at the moment, the Netherlands allow them in at 8 per cent. duty; France 12 or 15 per cent.; and the United States 20 per cent. South Africa puts on a ditty of 30 per cent., New Zealand 30 per cent., and Australia 67½ per cent. This is against British manufactured goods. I could go on with a number of other articles. The point I want to make is that, where foreign countries treat us better than the Dominions, as they do in certain articles, we ought to allow them to come in on the same terms as the Dominions, because we simply cannot afford to lose any trade at present anywhere. What we are suffering from mostly is loss of export trade. Our drop in shipping returns is contributing very largely to our adverse balance of trade, and I do not think we ought to throw away any trade we can possibly get, wherever it may come from, which is going to give employment to our people.

May I say one word about the Argentine? They are very good friends of ours commercially. They take a large export trade from us, and we take a large trade from them. But an enormous part of the development of the Argentine has been carried out by British capital, and a very large proportion of our invisible exports comes in interest from the Argentine. Take the case of South Wales and other coal exporting districts. One of the most important factors in the successful com- petition of British with foreign coal in the Argentine is that our ships bring goods back, thereby reducing the freight that we have to charge on coal going out. If we are not going to treat countries that take coal from us, like the Argentine, on a decent basis, they cannot take our coal. They will go elsewhere. The ships which take the coal bring back wheat and other things, and everything which we stop from that country will hit our trade at home. For what purpose do we develop a country? It is developed in order to bring produce here.

An enormous part of the capital raised for developing countries like the Argentine is spent in this country upon rails, locomotives, carriages and so forth. They treat us very well. What are we doing in return I We send trade commissions out there to encourage Anglo-Argentine relations. We held a great exhibition there last year, broadcast all over the world, to encourage Anglo-Argentine relations. Yet we are going to say to them, "We know that you treat us well. We know that you treat us better in some things than even our own Dominions, and yet you will not be treated in the same way as our own Dominions are being treated." My object in rising is to appeal to the Government, that when they are negotiating, not only with the Dominions but with any country, they will bear in mind those countries which are treating us at the present moment in a very favourable manner.

Australia is buying from this country twice as much as the Argentine, and she has a population 3,500,000 less than the Argentine. The Argentine has a trade balance in her favour of £43,000,000 a year, and is not such a good customer as Australia.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking about a visible balance, which is a very different thing, as we have heard during the last few days, from an invisible balance. I suggest that the amount of capital invested by British shareholders in the Argentine brings in a better trade balance.

That invisible balance will be brought in whether goods are shipped from Argentina, or from any other country.

I am all in favour of that, but I am simply trying to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that Australia has higher duties on certain commodities than the Argentine.

But they buy twice as much.

I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I would ever agree, but I would point out that he is probably talking about trade per head of the population.

Not as regards Australia actually.

Actually, if you like. If it is a question of taking trade per head of the population, I would point out that the Scilly Isles probably take more British goods per head than any country in the world. What we have to consider is aggregate trade, and we canot afford to lose any trade in any part of the world, as we are in such a serious position ourselves. I ask the Government when they begin their negotiations favourably to consider those countries who treat us well at the moment.

It was only in his last sentence that I appreciated what the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) was after. He rather rebuked me for my treatment of the Mover of the Amendment but I observe that he kept very quiet when the speech which he rebuked me for dealing with was being delivered. It at least enabled me to come to the conclusion that he was not associating himself with that Amendment.

I objected only to the remark the right hon. Gentleman made about my hon. and gallant Friend wanting to treat the Dominions as foreigners.

My hon. and gallant Friend evidently did not hear all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. If he did I am sure that he would agree that I dealt with it in the right way. At all events, I hasten to give him the assurance for which he asks. I will sum it up in this way: He says, "As far as we on this side are concerned, whatever our fiscal views may be, we want the Government to lose no chance of doing business whether with the Dominions or with foreign countries." I hasten to assure him that that will be our policy, but in granting the Preferences under review at the moment, we believe that that is the first and necessary step to be accomplished. We believe that it will be accepted by the Dominions as a clear and definite intimation on our part that we want to do business with them. We are clear and definite about this, and we shall say so.

My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension if he assumes that there is not plain speaking at these conferences. The Dominions make their policy perfectly clear, and we cannot complain, but we are entitled to say to them, and shall say to them, "It is no good talking about a Preference if the fence is so high that no one can climb over it." I ask him to remember that in making it perfectly clear, as we do now, that these preferences are given with the deliberate intention of creating an atmosphere necessary for the success which we hope to achieve at Ottawa, we shall not be unmindful of the obligations of our own country, neither shall we forget our duty with regard to world trade even after that. That is the spirit in which the Government will approach the Conference, and it is the spirit which, I believe, will tend in the end to succeed.

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

Clause 5—(Colonial Preference)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, after the word "from," to insert the words, "any part of the British Empire."

This is a consequential Amendment. Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I notice that in regard to Clause 6 there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of th Chancellor of the Exchequer—in page 7, line 14, to leave out the word "and," and to insert instead thereof the word "or."

If the Amendment be carried, the Clause will read:

"goods consigned from or grown, produced or manufactured."

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have different words in Clause 6 from those in Clause 5, or is it merely an oversight in regard to Clause 5, as no Amendment is put down to change the word "and" to the word "or" in that Clause?

The words are correct as they stand in Clause 5, but in Clause 6 we are dealing with certain individual duties which may apply to classes of goods consigned from one country but grown or produced in another country in the Empire.

Surely it will apply whether they are consigned or grown? They need not be consigned. They need only be grown, under the words as they stand in Clause 6, if they are either consigned, or grown, or produced or manufactured, but under Clause 5 they have to be consigned and grown.

Clause 5, as amended, will read:

"have been consigned from any part of the British Empire end".

The duty to which Clause 6 refers is in respect of goods consigned from any part of the British Empire, but grown, produced or manufactured in a particular country specified in the Order.

In Subsection (2) of Clause 5 there is a provision declaring that by Order in Council the Clause may apply to any mandated territory, and I wish to know whether any decision has been come to as to whether, when the Bill becomes law, it will apply in respect of Palestine?

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

Clause 6—(Application Of S 8 Of 9 And 10 Geo 5 C 32 For Purpose Of Imperial Preference Under Part 1)

I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 13 to 19.

The provision here is that the Board of Trade may make regulations as regards Dominion imports as to the amount by which work has had to be done upon those imports in order that they may qualify to receive the Dominion or Colonial preference. Under Clause 4, the proper authority to deal with the question of Colonial preference is the Treasury upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State, presumably the Secretary of State for the Dominions. In our view, it is not advisable that the Board of Trade should be able to alter the whole effect of any Preference which may be given or intended to be given under Clause 4 by making some regulation under Clause 6, without consulting the Treasury or the Secretary of State for the Dominions, by saying, for instance, that only 25 per cent. or only 50 per cent. of the work and labour expended in manufacture need take place in the Dominions, or vice versa. If it had been the understanding that they were not manufactured goods as to which there was 50 per cent. of work and labour in the Dominions put into them—if it had been understood that they should come in as Dominion goods, the Board of Trade should not be allowed by some regulation to alter the whole incidence of this Preference.

It seems to be extremely desirable that the matter should be left entirely in the hands of the Treasury and the Secretary of State for the Dominions. It will merely lead to trouble and complexity constantly to introduce a new power, and will make the matter far more difficult from the point of view both of negotiation and regulation afterwards. Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think that it is more satisfactory to leave the whole matter as regards Dominion Preference under a single control than to leave the main matter under the control of the Treasury and the Secretary of State for the Dominions, and then to give this separate power quite independently to spoil the whole thing by the Board of Trade stepping in and making some regulation which may upset the agreed arrangement?

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I assumed when I read the Amendment that it had been put down in order that the interests of industry in this country should be safeguarded. There is a danger, in the desire to give Preference to the Empire, that some very vital industry might be interfered with apropos of their raw material. I assume that this is put in in order to safeguard the manufacturers in this country who freely import raw material from all parts of the world.

5.30 p.m.

The hon. paid learned Gentleman is always so clear in his mind about the points he raises, that I am a little surprised at his raising the paint upon the proviso to Clause 6. The point he is raising is whether the President of the Board of Trade is the proper person to make regulations as to the amount of labour which was to be expended in the country of origin in order that the goods might claim the Preference. That matter is dealt with in the Third Schedule. If the hon. and learned Member will turn to the Schedule he will see, if he wishes to raise that point, that that is the place at which to raise it. The present proviso is merely to say that the Board of Trade may by regulation modify the provisions of the said Schedule as far as they deem it to he necessary to meet the circumstances of the case. The circumstances of the case are these. The Schedule is so drafted as to deal solely with the case of goods coming into this country free of duty from any part of the Empire. If, however, as a result of the Conference at Ottawa there is any change in regard to certain goods coming from the Dominions, under which they would have the benefit of the preferential duty instead of coming in free, it is obvious that this paragraph in the Schedule must be modified to suit those circumstances. What the proviso does is to give the President of the Board of Trade power, by regulation, to make the alterations, but only in so far as they are necessary to meet the circumstances of the ease.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but surely the proviso empowers such an alteration in the Schedule that the President of the Board of Trade could alter the conditions, as regards the goods which come in under the conditions laid down in the proviso, compared with the conditions which would apply in the Third Schedule as unaltered. As I read it, the President of the Board of Trade could, for instance, alter Sub-section (2) as regards the pro, portion of the value as is prescribed by regulation, and he could say that there need be no proportion of the value. That would be a material alteration of Subsection (2).

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not see that he could do that under paragraph 2 of the Schedule? Under that Schedule, the President of the Board of Trade can make regulations which shall lay down the proportion of labour which must have been expended upon an article before it comes in free of duty. We want to modify that, so that the proportion laid down may apply not only to goods coming in free but to goods coming in under the preferential duty.

I was trying to point out that he might make a different proportion for the two, and I am anxious that he should not. I am anxious that he should not have the special power to alter the proportion in respect of the goods which do not come in free of duty. As at present 'arranged he can make one proportion for the goods that come in free and another proportion for the goods which come in under the Order. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that the President of the Board of Trade has not the power to do that. That ought not to be done, because it might interfere with the arrangements made by the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in regard to the preference.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 14, leave out the word "and," and insert instead thereof the word "or."—[ Mr. Chamberlain.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 7—(Preference In Case Of Certain Foreign Goods)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 32, at the end, to insert the words:

"Provided that—
(a) no such order shall be made before the fifteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, or such later date as may he fixed under the provisions of Sib-section (2) of Section four of this Act;
(b) in the event of any order being made under Sub-section (3) of Section four of this Act no order Shall be made under this section as regards the general ad valorem duty."

Assurances have been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Dominions Secretary that it is the intention of the Government to safeguard arrangements made with the Dominions. They have given an assurance that nothing prejudicial in respect of the Dominions shall be done by way of arrangement with any foreign countries. To make clear that position, which has only been covered by way of declaration—we see no reference to it in the Bill—we suggest our proposed new paragraph (a). We think that the new paragraph will give formal and literal effect to the declaration that has been made. With regard to the second part of the Amendment, we suggest that if an agreement is reached with the Dominions whereby their goods shall be exempt, or, if they are not exempt, shall have a lesser duty placed upon them, then any preferential treatment which may be given to a foreign country shall not affect the general ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. but only the additional duty.

The first of the provisos in the Amendment seems to be quite unnecessary, because we have already stated in unmistakable terms, more than once, that we do not intend to conclude any negotiations with any foreign country before the date of the Ottawa Conference. That has been accepted 'as final by the Dominions and by foreign countries. To lay down a particular date might give rise to some awkward questions later on. For instance, the suggested first proviso mentions the 15th November, 1932:

"or such later date Os may lie fixed under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section four of this Act."

It is possible that a different date might be fixed by that Order in respect of different Dominions, and that might give rise to doubt as to whether one date or the other was intended. The hon. Member may rest assured that effect will be given to the declaration that has been made. In regard to the second proviso, I am afraid that that would do much to hamper our freedom of negotiation. It says, in effect, that if any preference is given on one single article coming from the Dominions, we are not to be allowed to give any concession to any foreign country below 10 per cent. That is going very far. It might be that in the interests of this country we might desire to give a concession below the 10 per cent. to some particular country, in return for substantial advantage. I could name one or two articles, and hon. Members opposite could also name articles, in which it might be desirable to do that. To deprive ourselves of that power the moment we have given a single preference on any single article from any one of our Dominions, would be going much too far.

The Amendment is a very striking one from the point of view that, for the first time, we have had it officially put forward from the Labour benches that they are accepting this Bill as it stands, and that they intend to use it whenever they get the chance. I welcome the Amendment from that point of view, in that they mean to make this policy permanent.

I, too, am surprised at this Amendment coming from the benches opposite. It is surprising that it should be suggested that, assuming we give a 10 per cent. preference on a particular article to the Dominions, say, on butter from Australia or New Zealand, under no circumstances shall we give a five per cent. preference to Denmark on Danish butter, in return for a big trade concession from that country. It is a most reactionary proposal from the benches opposite and is going far beyond the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. Am I to understand that if at any future time the party opposite are in office, they are going to say, 20, 30 or 40 years hence, that we are going to be tied to a 10 per cent. preference to the Dominions and that on no acount are we to give any reduced duty to foreign countries that are going to treat our goods favourably? If that is the new international, I am surprised.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 34, after the word "prescribing," insert the words:

"either generally or in relation to goods of any particular class or description."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 8—(Charge Of Duty In Case Of Composite Goods)

I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:

"or in the case where an excise duty is imposed up to the amount by which it exceeds the difference between the customs and excise duty."

As I understand it, the object of the Clause, is to prevent the duplication of duty, to prevent an article which is already enjoying protection under an existing duty from getting the additional 10 per cent. in those cases where the, article is of a composite character. We can all think of instances, such as articles in which there is some silk content or in which there is a sugar content. Where the dutiable element in composite articles is subject not only to Customs Duty but to Excise Duty, under the Clause as it is worded at present you make the 10 per cent. or the subsequent duty non-protective or less protective than the 10 per cent. normally should be. Let me take the case of condensed, sweetened milk. That has a duty in respect of the sugar content. I believe the duty is equal to 10 per cent, of the value of the article, and it also pays an Excise Duty on the sugar content, even if the sugar is domestic or Empire sugar. Consequently, if this Clause takes effect as at present worded there would be neither 10 per cent. nor any protection afforded to the industry of condensed milk in this country.

The same would apply in the case of articles which contain some silk, so long as the silk Excise Duty remains. The object of the Amendment is to eliminate excise in so far as it is reckoned against the 10 per cent. duty, and to make the total duty 10 per cent., reckoning in it only the Customs Duty in so far as there is no excise, or in so far as the Customs Duty exceeds the Excise Duty. I believe that would have the effect of carrying out what I believe to be the intention of the Clause. It may be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would prefer to deal with it in a different form of wording. I attach no special importance to the wording of the Amendment. My object is to draw attention to those cases where in regard to composite articles there is an Excise Duty as well as a Customs Duty.

The Committee will observe that this Clause deals only with composite goods, and that if the Amendment were accepted it would still leave out of account those goods which were not of a composite character on which there was a countervailing Excise Duty. This seems to be rather a one-side way of dealing with the point; assuming that it requires to be deal with. The purpose of the Clause is to provide that in the case of composite goods the duty charged shall be either 10 per cent. or the composite duty, whichever is the higher. That is the effect of the Clause; and I do not think it is appropriate to bring in an Amendment of this character in here. May I point out that there is nothing to prevent an additional duty being subsequently put on an article of a composite character if the Committee so recommends; and that is really the way in which the object of my right hon. Friend should be achieved.

In view of the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 9—(Power Of Board Of Trade To Require Information)

I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, after the word "of," to Insert the words "agriculture and horticulture and of."

The purpose of the Amendment is that such returns as are called for from other trades and industries which are to benefit under this scheme should also be made by agriculture and horticulture. If the agricultural industry is to receive the benefit of a 10 per cent. duty, with the possibility of additional duties, we are entitled to know the value and quantity of the output, the quantity and cost of materials used, and such information, which is called for in the case of other trades and industries. Wherever such assistance is given, although we disagree with the method of giving this assistance, we think that the Government should impose some system of reorganisation on the industry, and we cannot see why information which is required as to the progress made by a trade or industry should not be required from agriculture and horticulture.

A large number of agricultural commodities, including some of the staple foods of the masses of the people, are excluded from the free list, and we think the right hon. Gentleman should require the same information from agriculture and horticulture that he is seeking to obtain from other trades and industries. We have put down other Amendments to this Clause, most of which are to substitute the words "appropriate Department" for the Board of Trade, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss them on this Amendment. In the case of agriculture it should be the Ministry of Agriculture which should ask for this information, not the Board of Trade. That seems to be fairly clear, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, having realised the fairness of the Amendment and its intention to help him to compel farmers to introduce some method of organisation into their industry, and also in order to see that the consumer is not exploited for the benefit of the landowner, will be able to accept the proposal. The subsequent Amendments are merely drafting and do not fundamentally affect the purpose of the Bill.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion to consider subsequent Amendments to the Clause on this first Amendment. Let me ask the Committee to consider the following points. This information exists in the case of industrial undertakings, and does not exist in the case of agriculture and horticulture. It is therefore reasonable to require this information in the case of trades and industrial undertakings, but it is not reasonable to require it in the case of agriculture and horticulture. Clearly it would be unreasonable to compel this great change in the organisation of agricultural and horticultural undertakings, more particularly as many of them are conducted by very small people who have no facilities for carrying out this some-what elaborate process. It is a little hard that the hon. Member who has done as much as anyone for the smallholder should suggest that he should be put to the trouble of the enormous amount of accountancy which is necessary to supply such a return. It is not difficult for a big firm or a large undertaking to make these returns, although we have had complaints from them as to the amount of statistics that they have to supply. In these proposals we are asking from industrial undertakings the information which they have, and we do not propose to ask from the agricultural industry information which it does not possess.

The difference between agriculture and industry has been recognised by successive Governments since 1906, when the Board of Trade was given power to require at intervals from industrial establishments particulars similar to those which we are requiring in this Clause. Such information has never been asked from agriculture. In the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, we asked for information of agricultural holdings, such as they might be in a position to supply, in regard to the acreage under cultivation and the number of live stock. But even that was considered by the farmer as a totally unnecessary inroad upon his time. It was said that the farmer's time was much too important to be occupied with the making of statistical returns for Government Departments. This is a needless and unnecessary multiplication of statistics, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

The excuse made by the Financial Secretary is a very poor one. In this Bill we are proposing to put taxes upon food and agricultural produce, to give protection in a very large measure to agriculture and horticulture. Why cannot the Amendment be accepted? The information required is very simple; there is nothing complicated about it. Even the smallholder can give information to the Ministry of Agriculture as to the quality and value of his output, the quantity and cost of the materials used, and the number of persons employed. If we are going to give protection to the agricultural industry, then it should organise itself on sound industrial lines. We are entitled to know how much such protection will be used and that reorganisation is faced in a fair and straight forward manner. There is nothing in the Amendment which calls for good scholarship from the farmer or the horticulturist; and, the Government might very well accept it.

I am very pleased that the Financial Secretary has refused to accept the Amendment. I can assure him that the reasons he has given are extremely sound and that the agricultural and horticultural community would very much resent having to compile this vast quantity of statistics. It may be that this information can be very simply obtained in the case of a large factory, which only produces one or two types of article, where the manufacture is scheduled and classified, but it is much more difficult the case of a small farm where the production varies from year to year. To expect a small man who grows a variety of produce and keeps a certain number of stock to be perpetually counting it at certain times would he to impose a very considerable burden upon him. This is a typical Socialist Amendment. It seeks to flood the countryside with a vast army of officials. If hon. Members opposite want to popularise their Socialist views this is the last way they should go to work. The people in the countryside do not want to see a large number of officials going about in expensive motor cars, and I hope we shall hear no more of such demands on the country folk.

6.0 p.m.

We have had two rather different speeches from the other side on this Amendment. The Financial Secretary reminded me very much of the man in Shaw's St. Joan—the only reason why it could not be clone was that it never had been done. The hon. Member who has just spoken rather backed up the Financial Secretary. As a matter of fact, there is no reason why a Government Department should demand enormous and complicated statistics from everyone. They can make the statistics that they demand suitable for the persons concerned. I am rather tired of the way in which the champions of the farming community in this House always represent the farmer as someone who cannot do the simplest thing in returns, and as some-one who must be left in that state. Here the Government are going to put the farmer in a protected position, and the community has every right to get full information with regard to the way the business is carried on, as to rents, as to wages and as to everything else. I do not believe that the Government ought to give an advantage to industrialists or to agriculturists without seeing that the State gets the fullest possible value for it.

Agricultural marketing will require a certain amount of organisation. The policy under the Act should be carried out here also. In fact the members of that Committee were quite agreeable to organisation. The only objection they made was that they should have protection first. Now when they get Protection they do not want the organisation. Our position is that if they are going to have Protection there should be re-organisation. We have on the Paper other Amendments which will considerably amplify the information required. Part of it applies just as much to agriculture as it does to industry. I have read many books by would-be reformers and by agricultural experts, and I have talked with many agricultural experts. They are particularly strong on the need for careful accounting. They say that agriculture is a highly scientific and organised business to-day, and that the men who make it a success are those who adopt these business methods. They measure carefully the foodstuffs that they give to their stock, and judge the results of the feeding; they keep statistics with regard to milk and so on.

If those things can be done by farmers and even by smallholders, I cannot see why they should not fill in a return. Directly there is any suggestion of any control by the State the hon. Member who spoke last always has pictures of highly-paid officials in high-powered cars rushing through the country. If he is against State officials he had better vote against this Bill altogether, for it will call for a greatly increased number of Customs officials. But the hon. Member does not mind officials in the towns; it is only when they are in the country that he objects. Customs officials are going to interfere with business of every kind, but apparently the agriculturist meat be left to go on in his own sweet way, and whether he is running his business well or ill the State and the community, which have to ladle out the money, are not to see that the business is run efficiently.

I hope the Government will resist the Amendment. I am in close touch with agriculturists and smallholders, and I can say that the proposal of the Amendment would place an additional burden upon these people. This class of person is well used to hard work and is not afraid of it, but lie is not used to keeping accounts. The smallholder comes largely from the class of agricultural workers. He has not had the advantage of a secondary education and is not capable of keeping these accounts. In fact they are a great worry to him. He would rather work very hard from morning to night than be bothered by keeping accounts.

I trust that my colleagues will forgive me if I say that the case in favour of the Amendment is much stronger than they have made it out to be. The opposition of the Government is proceeding upon an entire misunderstanding of the Clause. The Clause does not say, thank goodness, that the Government must demand these particulars from every manufacturer or every agriculturist and horticulturist. The Department may issue it to any person, but they are not under any compulsion to send it to everyone. If the demand were sent to every manufacturer the Government would be instituting a very complicated further demand for a census of industry. As I understand it, the proposal is intended to provide the Committee with materials to show whether the trader manufacturing in this country is or is not a person who should be protected more or protected less than he is under the Government scheme. The Committee will want to find out whether the protected English manufacturer is making a monopoly profit, and whether, therefore, he ought to have a lower protective tariff on his article of production or not; or the Committee may be seeking to see whether a manufacturer, if protected by a higher tariff, would charge higher prices and would pass the burden of the tax on to the consumer. For neither of these purposes do the Committee require to demand returns from the whole industry, but only from sample manufacturers. They will be demands that will be repeated frequently in the case of some manufacturers.

If these demands were made from the whole of the potting trade now there will be just as much indignation as there would be if they were made from all smallholders and agriculturists. The questions to be answered are by no means simple. "The quantity and value of out- put"—there is hardly a manufacturer to-day whose output consists of one article. The output is infinitely varied in every manufacture. To ascertain quantity and value would require enormous calculation. "The quantity and cost of raw materials"—that too, without any definition of "raw materials," might lead to infinite inquiries. This Clause as a whole, if it is going to be used as a form of inquisition with every manufacturer, and repeated at frequent intervals according to the class of article that he manufactures and the class of raw material that he uses, will lead to more unpopularity than the Government, even with the Kill Trade Bill, are going to produce. But that is not the object of the Clause. The object of the Clause is to inquire with regard to specific raw materials or specific monopoly articles, what the costs of manufacture are.

Surely the Government need that information more in the case of certain horticultural and agricultural processes than they do in the case of manufactures. There are very few monopoly manufactures. Take the case of tomatoes, which are now unfortunately taxed 25 per cent. The manufacturers of tomatoes in this country, the people who grow the tomatoes in the greenhouses, are very often connected with big concerns. At any rate there are some large concerns interested in the business. It is ridiculous to suggest that there are not some firms engaged in the tomato industry which keep accounts from which this information is as essential or far more essential than in the case of multitudes of manufacturers of purely manufactured articles. The question of tomatoes is of enormous importance to the people of this country. The tomato has become the chief food of a large number of people. That the tomato should now be manufactured in this country at a largely enhanced price, that the price should rise by the full 25 per cent. of the import duty, plus the 40 per cent. due to the fall in the value of sterling, will be a question of really vital importance to large numbers of people. Are the Government not going to put themselves in the position of getting any information about the cost of manufacture of tomatoes, in order to see whether they can be sold at a lower price than that charged to-day?

I have used the word "manufacture" in regard to tomatoes. It is a manufacture. It is not a natural growth. There is all the cost of raw materials, the heating materials, the manure, and the greenhouses; they all come in just as in the case of any other manufacture. Why should the Government deprive themselves of the opportunity of finding out from isolated tomato growers what are the costs of manufacture? As to larger agriculture, farming itself, everyone knows that although the bulk of the farmers elect to be taxed under Schedules A and B, there are considerable numbers who keep accounts. They have to be elaborate accounts for Schedule D, and as one who knows I can say that they get off much more lightly on Schedule D than on Schedule B. If there are some taxed under Schedule D, would it not be possible to find out from them how typical costs of manufacture are made up? Otherwise the Government are obviously providing a loophole whereby the horticulturist and agriculturist can charge the consumer far higher prices, without being checked by their cost accounts.

It is certain that on these committees there will be no members, or very few members, who are connected with manufacture or with horticulture; they are to he impartial people with no axes to grind. This proposal will give them means of finding out in great detail the cost of manufacture and the amounts of raw material used. Well and good. It will be very unpopular with the people from whom the inquiries are made, especially if they are getting a monopoly price that is not justified by the cost of manufacture. It will be unpopular with all of them, just as unpopular as with the agriculturist or horticulturist. But in the interests of the consumer you have to find out the facts. You are finding them out from manufacturers and omitting to do so in the case of agriculturists and horticulturists. Why? Simply because you are afraid of them. You have no objection to their charging monopoly prices. You are depriving the Committee of any authority to find out whether it is a monopoly price or a price based on the cost of raw materials, labour and rent. It is symptomatic that in these questions, A, B, C and D, you inquire into everything else but leave out the question of rent. It is almost blasphemous to ask what rent a man pays.

Very little now.

Where a man goes in for greenhouses and intensive cultivation the hon. Member will find that rent lately has had a tendency to go up.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now anticipating an Amendment which appears later on the Paper.

I thought we were discusing several Amendments at the same time.

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The Amendment I have referred to is not being taken with this Amendment.

In that case the rent question will come up later. It is symptomatic that the omission of rents and the omission of horticulture and agriculture should coincide. There is certain information which any committee considering these matters ought to have. The Government propose to get it from the people who will not, they think, object to giving it, but not from certain other people of whom they are afraid. If the Clause is to be used in order to get sample information from sample firms, to see what are their costs of manufacture, what is the proportion of raw material used, and other information of that kind, it is clear that that is information which the Advisory Committee will require. Is it the intention, however, not merely to ask sample people, but to ask everybody engaged in every form of manufacture all these complicated questions I It will not be possible to get from them any more definite information as to the cost of manufacture, and these other matters, but by that method the antiquated firm and the up-to-date firm will be lumped together so that the up-to-date producers' returns of profits and costs of manufacture will be swamped in other returns, less accurately made out and based upon an industry not so well organised. The Advisory Committee will be overloaded with an enormous amount of material which they will never be able to use.

The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Haslam) talked about officials in their motor cars. It is not officials in motor cars of whom I am afraid, but the creation of a vast new department for collecting all this great amount of material. There could be nothing more ridiculous than the returns which are now sent out by the Ministry of Agriculture every year, in which they ask people how many fowl they keep, and whether they keep pigs or not. In that case there is a series of definite questions which you can answer as you like. I do not know what happens to those returns when they are made. But here it is, apparently, proposed to have returns from every manufacturer; those returns would have to be studied and boiled down and averaged and then made intelligible to a committee of gentlemen who know nothing whatever about manufacture. If you are going to use material, got in that way and on such a scale, you will indeed require a gigantic staff to deal with it. But surely it is not intended that everybody should be pestered with these questions, and that indignation and hostility should be aroused in the manufacturing population by such a procedure. What this Advisory Committee will want will be samples taken from sound manufacturers and sound agriculturists, and those samples they would have no difficulty in getting. The man who is sound keeps sound accounts and knows what those accounts mean. To obtain that information would only require a small staff. What every speaker up to now including the right hon. Gentleman opposite has supposed to be the purpose of the Clause is one which would involve unpopularity, expense and the building up of a Department of State larger than any of the Departments we have at the present time. There would be not merely the recording, tabulating and averaging of the material but the collecting of it. There would be inspection to see that the returns were accurate—inspection which would involve, a chartered accountant in every firm—

I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks now would be more appropriate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

They can be repeated then, Captain Bourne, but we are now considering whether agriculture should contribute its mite of the genuine information, which the Advisory Committee must have, if it is to deal adequately and properly with the consumers' interests, as well as with the interests of those people who want a protective tariff in order to fleece the consumer.

I hope that the Government will not be dissuaded from their opposition to this Amendment by the inconsistent arguments which have been advanced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He objects to the creation of what he describes as a vast new department, hut he is supporting an Amendment which would have the effect of making such a department vaster still. Surely one reason for not accepting this Amendment is that the information which it seeks to obtain is already available from other sources. It seems to me that those who support the Amendment are confusing the means with the end. The end of the Clause is to secure such information as will prevent the consumer being exploited. In the case of industries the information as to quantity and value of output, cost of materials, and so forth, is not available already, but in the case of agriculture and horticulture it is easy to find out the costs of raw material to the farmer and the prices which ought to be charged. The quantity and value of output are already tabulated in returns which show the amount of stock, the amount of land under grass, and under various crops and other particulars. The quantity and cost of materials used can also be ascertained—costing figures are frequently issued by the research stations under the Government—while the number of persons employed is already returned. All the information is available to enable this advisory committee to make a thorough investigation of the cost of agricultural production, and to make sure that any duties levied shall be in strict conformity with the needs of the people in this respect. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the question of rent as an element in the cost of production—

I had to stop the right hon. and gallant Gentle- man from pursuing that subject and I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue it.

I at once bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne. The real objection to the Amendment is that it is unnecessary. While it is true that many farmers keep accurate costing accounts, it is none the less true that many of those engaged in agriculture are smallholders to whom the already burdensome returns required are a nuisance. The complexity of the modern agricultural return is in itself sufficient to tax the energies of the ordinary smallholder. He has to return not only the information to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has already drawn attention, but he has also to descend to such minutix as the number of ducks he has under the age of six months. Where the information is already available, it would be wrong to place this further burden of accounting and statistical returns upon people who have already quite enough to do.

I hope that I will not he charged with inconsistency in supporting this Amendment. The hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Morrison) accused the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) with being inconsistent in a speech which was itself inconsistent. He said that the Amendment was unnecessary; he hoped the Government would oppose it, and then he gave as his reason that all the information sought for was already available. There, he differs from the Financial Secretary who said it was not available and I assume that we must take the word of the Financial Secretary. I can never understand the attitude of the Conservative party on agricultural questions. They pose as the champions of agriculture but when any suggestion is made to make that industry into a really profit-earning industry they oppose it. They want to get everything from the State but to give nothing in return. The opening words of this Clause are:

"With a view to obtaining information as to the condition and progress of trades and industries."

One of the most important industries about which we want information is the, agricultural industry. The Amendment asks that information should be obtained, first, as to the quantity and value of out- put. It should not be difficult for any farmer to know that and, if he does not know that, it is about time he did. As regards the quantity and cost of materials the farmer must know that also. If we are to give certain facilities to the agricultural industry, surely we are entitled to know what the effect will be on the industry. We know already, from figures supplied by the Ministry, that the difference between the prices which the agricultural community get and the prices which the consumers pay is very great. If we are not careful the only effect of a protective tariff applied to agriculture will be to make that difference greater by causing the consumer to pay more while the farmer gets no more. Therefore, for the sake of the industry itself, it is important, in order to see how these proposals will affect the industry, that we should have this information. The Government's attitude apparently is that the collection of this information would be too much of a job. I am disappointed at their opposition to the Amendment, but I am not surprised because it is consistent with their attitude on everything in this Bill. Their attitude appears to be, "Do not let us find out anything at all but just get the Bill through without too much discussion." They are doing nothing to give real help to the industry which, in my judgment, if restored to prosperity, would do more for the general prosperity of the country than any other. I do not see how you can do anything at all for that industry unless you have every bit of available information in regard to it, and I shall support the Amendment.

I have no difficulty in resisting the Amendment, because I would go further and resist all the inquisition which the Clause seeks to establish in industry, but if any small part can be excluded from that inquisition, it is better than that none should be excluded. As a matter of fact I understood that the procedure with regard to the agricultural industry was going to be largely that of reorganising commissions under the Marketing Act, and if that is so, there is going to be quite enough demand for information to keep the agricultural community drawing up returns for a good many months. I am sorry if I was absent from the Committee when the Minister made his reply, but I am not clear why these powers should be required in the case of agriculture in view of the powers already given in Clause 2.

On a point of Order. Can Members give notice to Ministers that they are going to get up and talk?

I am not aware that the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) gave such notice, or that such notice is necessary.

6.30 p.m.

I expect that the Minister has permanent notice that I am likely to do so on these matters. I was asking why there should be any question of obtaining information about agriculture, when the Advisory Committee have already been given powers under Clause 2 to require any person to furnish them with any returns or other information which they consider necessary or desirable for the proper discharge of their functions. Again in Clause 3, Sub-section (7), it is provided that the Committee may at any time make a recommendation that any additional duties ought to be varied or discontinued, and it stands to reason that in order to do that they could ask for any returns which they considered necessary for the discharge of their duties. As that Committee is permanent so far as this Bill is concerned, I cannot understand why the Government should wish the Board of Trade to have similar concurrent powers.

If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at Clause 2, he will see that the Committee may by notice in writing, require any person to send in a return, whereas if he looks at the Clause now under discussion, he will see that the Board of Trade may publish in the "Gazette" notice that they will require returns.

That is extraordinary. Do I understand that the whole of this verbiage, covering two pages, is merely in order that a notice shall be legally inserted in the "Gazette"? If that is all that the Financial Secretary is hoping to get out of this, he had much better make a tiny Amendment in Clause 2 on Report. It is not necessary to set up this elaborate machinery in order to find out what it is already within their power to find out under an earlier Clause. It may be said that it is the Board of Trade which will get this information, but surely my right hon. and gallant Friend will not tell us that the Advisory Committee will be so secretive with this information that it will not even let the President of the Board of Trade know what it has found out.

I am at a loss to understand the purpose of this Clause altogether, but as it is in, it would be worse if you required the unfortunate farmers to be dragged in at the heels of other trades to give this information. I hope we shall have a pretty complete reply from the Government in regard to these inquisitorial powers. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite talked about agriculture being able to charge monopoly prices and said the farmers would be able to get colossal profits as a result of this Bill, but from what one has read in the agricultural Press, they do not share his opinion and do not anticipate such a terrific rise in prices as does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The agriculturists have to provide quite enough information to the Department already. They provide at any rate as much as the Department themselves can assimilate, and if we are to have more information, we shall have the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Trade requiring to be increased in order to digest it, for whatever purposes they may wish to have it. It certainly would not be for their own good health.

I cannot understand why there should be any objection to the Amendment. As to the agriculturists, who for a long time have been contending here that they are not getting a fair deal, would it not be to their advantage if they allowed this Amendment to pass, so that the Board of Trade could, if they wished, get that information and therefore prove their case? I cannot altogether understand hon. Members opposite making use of the argument that agriculturists are so busy at their work and so poorly educated that it is difficult for them to make returns. My knowledge of agricultural people tells me that they are not so simple as all that, that they know the right thing to do, that they know the value of their undertakings, that they know what profits they have made or what losses they are mak- ing, and that they could very easily give this information if they wished.

If this Clause, asking for some information from some industries, is to go in, why not include all industries? Tariffs are going to be put on most things, and I think we are entitled to get some information to justify their being put on. I ask hon. Members opposite to look at it in that way. If they think these tariffs are necessary, they ought not to be afraid to give all the information asked for, in order to prove their case, and if they do that they may justify what they say they are entitled to in the way of tariffs. I do ask hon. Members opposite not to say they ought not to give this information, because, if so, it will give a wrong impression, and their statements, if made without proof or examination, will not have the same value as they would have if they gave the information, so I appeal to them to accept the Amendment in their own interest.

I hesitate to enter into a controversy with the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the question of tomatoes, for the reason that not very long ago, on another Bill, he confessed that he was himself a producer of tomatoes under his own glass. If he will look at the later parts of this Clause he will see what kind of information he wants to be given by the horticultural and agricultural industries, and I do not think, if the duty were put upon him of finding out the cost of producing his tomatoes, he would find that the type of information asked for would be the kind of information which would be necessary to him. I do not think the quantity and value of the output, the quantity and cost of material used, the quantity and cost of fuel and electricity consumed, and the number of persons employed, would guide him very far in regard to the cost of producing tomatoes.

How in the world can the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) think he is performing an act of kindness to the agriculturists, and putting them on a profitable basis, if at the same time he asks them to produce information which would be of no use to the Committee and would probably require 'a chartered accountant to be employed, at considerable cost, in order to provide it? We have to be very careful that, with the advantage which we are giving to industry and to agriculture, we do not cause ail the advantage to be taken away by the increased burdens that we put upon them. Therefore, I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for resisting this mischievous Amendment, which, if it were carried, would cause a very great burden to be thrown upon the agricultural community, already overburdened with too many restrictions.

I am very pleased, as a great grower of tomatoes myself, and a consumer of more than I am able to produce, to have the opportunity of listening to experts. I do not know what the argument is about, but I, as an ordinary workman, have to produce time-sheets and to show everything I have done during the day and the number of hours that I have been employed. Now, when we ask certain bodies in industry to produce their time-sheets, to show what they have done and who they have done, it is a crime against industrial organisation and against their honesty, and an attack on their integrity. Is it true? They are going to get benefits from the State, because that is what it means. They are going to get the right to tax their fellow-citizens. I am not a farmer, but I am the son of an agricultural labourer, and I know of farmers in Essex who bring their stuff up to market, and who have told me that after they have sent their goods up for a week, they have been in debt at the end of the week. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your party policy!"] No, your capitalist philosophy.

I want hon. Members opposite to remember that some of us are not opposed to the agricultural industry, as they say we are. We believe that agriculture ought to be a national industry, organised for national ends, whereas they believe that it ought to he organised for individual purposes, with everybody engaged in it out to do the best they can for themselves and to leave the rest alone. We who live in the towns have an interest in agriculture just as much as those who live in the country. We want the best we can get, at the lowest possible cost, consistent with decent conditions of labour for the people who work in the industry. I do not say that everything is correct in the garden of Eden, but I suggest that the Amendment ought to receive sympathetic support from the other side.

We would like to know the difference between what the farmer has to pay for the production of his goods and what he gets when he sells them in the market. I have had to pay, or my wife tells me that she has had to pay, though I have to find the money, as, I suppose, do most hon. Members, as much as 3d. for a cabbage and has found out afterwards, when she has got into consultation with people—she happens to be a member of some committee dealing with agricultural produce in parts of Essex—that they are very glad if they can get a halfpenny for the same cabbage. Surely that is something in which ordinary people are interested, and we ought to know the cost of production and to have some idea of the cost of distribution. If the farmer does not get his fair whack, he is entitled to get it, and I should vote for his getting it, but if there are people coming in between producer and consumer, and the facts cannot be produced by those responsible for the conduct. of the trade, there is something wrong, and we have a right to know what it is.

Therefore, in so far as this Amendment will help us in that matter, I shall support it, but I am not prepared to support those who say that everything is wrong so far as the farmer is concerned. I have met some decent farmers in my time, and I have met some indecent ones, too. We in the Labour party are not the enemies of the agriculturist, as some hon. Members opposite try to make out. We have a national policy of our own for agriculture which will stand the test of time, but. hon. Members opposite are now on their trial. They are trying by means of tariffs to solve a problem which they have never been able to solve. Governments have come and Governments have gone, but the problem goes on for ever. This method of solving it is like applying an old quack remedy. It "can't be did."

The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has said that what is wanted in this Clause is provided for in Clause 2 (7). Clause 2 will come into operation, however, directly the Bill becomes an Act, and will give power to the Committee to make inquiries of any individual at any time in order to enable them to come to a decision as to impos- ing a duty. Clause 9, on the other hand, does not come into operation until 1933, and it is clear that it affects articles only after they are subject to the protection of an import duty. Therefore, I assume that this provision is made in order to protect the consumer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is very much concerned about the inquisition for which this Clause provides. I agree with him; these inquiries into private business are very objectionable. They are the inevitable result, however, of Protection, and if manufacturers and farmers ask that people shall not be allowed to buy what they like in a free market, and if we tell them that they can have a market free from competition and a monopoly price, inquisitions in this form are inevitable.

The hon. Member raised the point that this Clause cannot come into operation until 1933, but it says that

"the Board of Trade may, before the commencement of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-three."

That makes the power more extensive, and therefore more subject to criticism. I do not like these Clauses, but these powers are the inevitable result of Protection. Let me give the example of milk. There was a great controversy recently about the price of milk. The milk combine resisted giving information to the chairman of the committee dealing with food prices. Milk was particularly selected for inquiry, and the chairman of the great combine, the United Dairies, refused to give the in-formation, defying the appointed officials of the Board of Trade and of this House. When competition is removed, one assumes that, owing to the high duty, the free import of milk from Denmark will be impossible. I believe in the public being allowed to have English milk of good quality when it is available at a reasonable price, but when the combine raises that price against the public, milk ought to be allowed to come in from outside. If the Committee which is to be set up decides that no foreign milk shall come in, they should have a right to inquire into the accounts and methods of business, the quantity and value of output, the quantity and cost of materials used, the quantity and cost of fuel and electricity consumed, and the number of persons employed. That is all that this Amendment proposes to do; it proposes to extend this objectionable power from articles that are not really necessary to articles of necessity like food. I dislike State interference of industry; I am old-fashioned in that respect, and I am still an individualist, but hon. Members in the Labour party are not, nor are hon. Members behind me, and they are not logical. They want the State to interfere to protect them, but they will not face the inevitable result of that protection, which is Socialism in some form or another.

We are very disappointed with the reply of the Financial Secretary. We thought that this Amendment would have appealed to him, and that there would have been no need to take it to a Division. The reply of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was merely that it would involve a lot of work by a large number of farmers. If, as the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) suggests, a large volume of the information will be available at the Ministry of Agriculture when the Ministry of Agriculture marketing schemes are introduced and applied, there will be little or no necessity for the President of the Board of Trade or, as we would prefer, the Minister of Agriculture, to insist upon such information being obtained from all over the country. May I remind the hon. and gallant Member of the first two lines of the Clause:

"With a view to obtaining information as to the condition and progress of"—

"agriculture and horticulture," as we should like to see inserted. Members on the opposite benches have declared that if we only provide agriculture, and for that matter other industries, with some sort of protection, we shall have more land under the plough, larger numbers of men will be employed on the land, and the unemployment problem will be on the way to solution; and yet, when we ask, as we do by this Amendment, for information to show the condition of the industry and the progress which has been made, the Government refuse to enable that information to be collected. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Rosbotham) said that farmers—he referred particularly to smallholders—are not very good at figures, and do not keep statistics. That may or may not be true, but we are not anxious that every smallholder shall be called upon to supply a great mass of statistics with regard to his holding. We do suggest, however, that when the President of the Board of Trade is searching for this information, he should secure the information from those sources where the least inconvenience would be experienced.

The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to the milk combine. The President of the Board of Trade would be carrying into effect the purpose of Clause 9, if agriculture and horticulture were included, by inviting those milk producers within the area of a great combine to say what progress they have made. That also would apply to dairy farming. He could ascertain by sample information, information of the progress which dairy farmers were making, to what extent they were utilising their surplus milk, how far they had gone in developing cheese and butter-making, and how far they had gone to produce marketing schemes and a stabilised price that would transfer agriculture from a mere gamble into the business that we should like to see it. We believe that if the Government are really serious in wanting to establish a sound and efficient agricultural policy, they ought at least to insist upon securing the sample information upon which they can estimate, as they do in other directions, what progress is being made.

The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. H. Haslam), as usual, said that this was

Division No. 75.]	AYES.	[6.59 p.m.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mallalieu, Edward Lanceiot
Briant, Frank	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Harris, Sir Percy	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Cape, Thomas	Hicks, Ernest George	Maxton, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hirst, George Henry	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Holdsworth, Herbert	Nathan, Major H. L.
Daggar, George	Janner, Barnett	Owen, Major Goronwy
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Parkinson, John Allen
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Price, Gabriel
Edwards, Charles	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Salter, Dr. Alfred
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Lawson, John James	Thorne, William James
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Leonard, William	Tinker, John Joseph
Granted, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Lunn, William
Groves, Thomas E.	McEntee, Valentine L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grundy, Thomas W.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. John.

NOES.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Aske, Sir Robert William	Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles	Atholl, Duchess of	Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Apstruther-Gray, W. J.	Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Balniel, Lord	Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

a typically Socialist Amendment in that it would need a horde of new officials. It does nothing of the kind. We require no more officials. The Bill itself will mean a horde of Customs officials at a cost to the nation of £500,000 per annum. We have no complaint to make about that. If you have a Bill of this kind you must pay for all its consequences. We say that when we place an industry in the advantageous position of being able to work behind a tariff barrier, we are entitled to know what progress that industry is making, whether it has taken advantage of the facilities offered by The Government to develop marketing schemes, and so on. If not, this House, be it Conservative, Liberal, Socialist or Nationalist, will be justified in withdrawing from the industry any advantages that may accrue to it as a result of the Bill. Unless the right hon. Gentleman will undertake before the Report stage to reconsider this question, we shall be obliged to proceed to a Division. We do not, as some hon. Members opposite would have the Government believe, want every smallholder and farmer in the country to supply volumes of statistics; we merely want sample statistics in order to ascertain the progress of agriculture in its various forms.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 327.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Fuller, Captain A. G.	Magnay, Thomas
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Ganzoni, Sir John	Maitland, Adam
Blindell, James	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Bossom, A. C.	Glossop, C. W. H.	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Boulton, W. W.	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Goldie, Noel B.	Marjoribanks, Edward
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Bracken, Brendan	Graves, Marjorie	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Millar, Sir James Duncan
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Grimston, R. V.	Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Burghley, Lord	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Burnett, John George	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Moreing, Adrian C.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Morrison, William Shephard
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Moss, Captain H. J.
Caine, G. 8. Hall-	Hanbury, Cecil	Munro, Patrick
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Hanley, Dennis A.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Hartland, George A.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Carver, Major William H.	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Nicholson, O. W. (Westminster)
Cassels, James Dale	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'f'd)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	North, Captain Edward T.
Castle Stewart, Earl	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Nunn, William
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)	Palmer, Francis Noel
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Patrick, Colin M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hillman, Dr. George B.	Peake, Captain Osbert
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Pearson, William G.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W)	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Peat, Charles U.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Hopkinson, Austin	Penny, Sir George
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Chotzner, Alfred James	Horobin, Ian M.	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Clarke, Frank	Horsbrugh, Florence	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Howard, Tom Forrest	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Purbrick, R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Pybus, Percy John
Colfox, Major William Philip	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Conant, R. J. E.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Cook, Thomas A.	Hurd, Percy A.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Cooke, James D.	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Cooper, A. Duff	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Ramsden, E.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Rankin, Robert
Crooke, J. Smedley	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Croom-Johnson, R. p.	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Remer, John R.
Cross, R. H.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Crossley, A. C.	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Renwick, Major Gustav A,
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Ker, J. Campbell	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)	Kirkpatrick, William M.	Robinson, John Roland
Davison, Sir William Henry	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Dawson, Sir Philip	Knebworth, Viscount	Ropner, Colonel L.
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Rosbotham, S. T.
Denville, Alfred	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Runge, Norah Cecil
Dickie, John P.	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Donner, P. W.	Leckie, J. A.	Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)
Doran, Edward	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Drewe, Cedric	Levy, Thomas	Salmon, Major Isidore
Duckworth, George A. V.	Lewis, Oswald	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Liddall, Walter S.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Duggan, Hubert John	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Eales, John Frederick	Llewellin, Major John J.	Savery, Samuel Servington
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Scone, Lord
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n)	Selley, Harry R.
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Elmley, Viscount	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Lymington, Viscount	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Mabane, William	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Ertkine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Smith-Carington, Neville W,
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	McEwen, J. H. F.	Somerset, Thomas
Everard, W. Lindsay	McKie, John Hamilton	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Fermoy, Lord	McLean, Major Alan	Soper, Richard
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)	Weymouth, Viscount
Spencer, Captain Richard A.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Thompson, Luke	Whyte, Jardine Bell
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Stanley, Hon. O. F.C. (Westmorland)	Thorp, Linton Theodore	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Stones, James	Touche, Gordon Cosmo	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Stourton, Hon. John J.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Strauss, Edward A.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Strickland, Captain W. F.	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Stuart, Hon, J. (Moray and Nairn)	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)	Wise, Alfred R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	Withers, Sir John James
Summersby, Charles H.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)	Womersley, Walter James
Sutcliffe, Harold	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Tate, Mavis Constance	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.	Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Templeton, William P.	Wedderburn,Henry James Scrymgeour-	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)	Wells, Sydney Richard	Captain Austin Hudson and
		Commander Southby.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 8, line 29, to leave out from the word "description," to the word "the," in line 31.—[Mr. Attlee.]

In line 31, after the word "Act," to insert the words:

"or would be so chargeable but for the fact that they are exempted under the provisions of Section one, Sub-section 2 (a)."—[Mr. H. Williams.]

In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:

"(a) The capital, nominal and paid up."—[Mr. Attlee.]

In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:

"(a) The rent of land or premises."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:

"(a) The profits."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

In page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:

"(a) Overhead charges."—[Mr. Lawson.]

The subsequent Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) are out of order. I propose to take the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse, and to treat that Amendment and those standing in the names of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), the hon. Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) as one discussion as it seems impossible to keep the discussion separate. That does not interfere with the rights of the Opposition to have four Divisions if they desire.

I beg to move in page 9, line 7, at the end to insert the words:

"(a) The capital, nominal and paid up."

The object of this Amendment and of the following Amendments is to secure that the information which has been asked for in this Clause shall be full and complete. This Amendment deals with the capital while the other Amendments deal with rent, profits, and overhead charges. If one looks at the object of this Clause, it is:

"With a view to obtaining 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 a duty."

It is obvious, therefore, that the points which we have put down in our Amendments are extremely irrelevant. At the present time we have a claim put forward by industry after industry to Protection, but they are extremely reluctant to give full information with regard to their profits, their capitalisation, their wage costs or anything else. We desire that this information should be obtained. The Amendment which I move deals with capital, nominal and paid up. In the course of discussions on industry we often hear of an industry which is said to be paying very little in dividends, but we do not know what its real capitalisation is. We do not know how far an industry, claiming Protection because it cannot get on owing to foreign competition, is really waterlogged by the amount of watered capital in that industry. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this and the subsequent Amendments in order that the country may know, not only the production figures for the various industries but also the figures with regard to capitalisation, rent, profits and overhead charges.

I would like to know what exactly my hon. Friend means by this Amendment. If it refers to an ordinary partnership or to an individual carrying on this manufacture, then it is obviously wrong. If, on the other hand, it refers to a company which is registered, then he already has available to him at Somerset House particulars of the capital, nominal and paid up. I would like some explanation of that point.

The hon. Member has just said that certain information is obtainable at Somerset House, but that information does not show the amount, paid for rent and all these four Amendments are being taken together.

This is merely a question of giving information, and I would not like any suggestion coming from my hon. Friends opposite to look ludicrous in an Act of Parliament. This one certainly would, because you have that information with regard to companies, and it does not cover the case of individuals or partnerships.

May I suggest to the hon. Member that the point he raises is a very flimsy one? It is perfectly true that that information is obtainable at Somerset House, but we want it to be available for the President of the Board of Trade in the one document with the other information, so that it can be examined there and then, without a visit having to be paid to Somerset House to dig it, out. [Interruption.] It may seem very thin to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), whom we are pleased to see back in his place. He is always so very pleased to lecture us that he will be giving us the benefit of his world-wide, comprehensive knowledge in a few moments. But I suggest to the hon. Member for South Croydon that even Solomons have been known, on occasions, to be wrong, and not able, to anticipate wholly the intentions which lay behind the mind of the other fellow. In this instance, we are entitled to ask—

I would like to ask the hon. Member what he really means by the nominal capital of an individual?

The nominal capital of an individual does not come into it at all. It is the capital of the trade or industry which is referred to in Clause 9. Only trades and industries are referred to; it is not a question a individuals. Apart from the question of capital, we want the Government to consider the advisability of adding to the four heads of information the amount paid for rent of land or for use of premises, and also what profits have been made. If the consumer of goods is called upon to pay an increased price as a result of these duties he is entitled to know what profit is being made, either direct or indirect. We are also entitled to know what the overhead charges are. We have had experience of industries which have not only been suffering, as the Lord President of the Council said, from too much dead weight of capital, but of many concerns suffering from dropsy, and we wish to know on how much watered capital work-people are providing profits. If the right hon. Gentleman will extend the information to be given he may remove a good deal of suspicion and turn a good deal of useful thought in a tariff direction. But if the information sought is to be limited to the four items (a), (b), (e) and (d), suspicion is bound to remain. Hon. Members below the Gangway may jibe at us in the Labour party for trying to make the Bill a good one, trying to remove all the doubts and suspicions which still remain in our minds, but we believe that if the right hon. Gentleman would include information relating to the rent of land and premises, profits and overhead charges it would whittle away many suspicions, anxieties and apprehensions from which we suffer, and I support all four Amendments which are covered by this discussion.

One sympathises, of course, with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, but if he examine the exact proposition before the Committee he will realise how difficult it would be to accept it. He has asked us to include "capital, nominal and paid up." My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) has already pointed out that that information is available, and I hope my hon. Friend will accept that answer and not press his point, because the information would be completely redundant. He next asks for the rent of land or premises. The object of obtaining the information for which we ask is that we may be able to relate one period with another, and all the items in each unit of comparison must be identical. In some cases firms or individuals are possessors of the freehold, and therefore to add the item of rent would not give a basis of fair comparison, and it is for that reason, partly, that rents have not been included in the formula. He next asks that profits may be included. Here I would follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel and ask him what he means by profits. If there is to be a standard of comparison we must have a definition of what a profit is. Accountants compute profits in many different ways, and the standard of comparison would be again vitiated. Further, we want this information in respect of definite calendar years. All firms do not make up their accounts at the same date, and that, again, presents an obstacle in the way of accepting this Amendment. Lastly, my hon. Friend wishes to introduce the item of overhead charges. There are great differences of opinion as to what may properly be regarded as overhead charges.

If my hon. Friend looks at the particulars for which we have asked, and contrasts them with the particulars for which he asks, he will see that our particulars can be readily forthcoming whereas furnishing the particulars be seeks could only introduce delay and cause confusion. What we wish to ascertain is the volume of production, so that we may set one year against another, and therefore all the details in our comparison must be precisely related. As I have said, we appreciate what my hon. Friend bas in view, and had it been at all possible to include a number of other queries which could shave disclosed useful relevant information we should have been only too pleased to accept what he suggests, but we ask him to realise that, as regards most of the additional questions which he wishes to put answers could not be forthcoming in a form which would be profitable.

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman's explanation hardly satisfies us. I do not appreciate what it is the President of the Board of Trade really wants to get at. The hon. Gentleman has told us that all they want is the volume of production, but the first thing they ask for is "quantity and value of output." What is the "value of output," if I may ask him a question?

The sale value.

May I suggest that it would be a very good thing to say so, if that is what it means, because the expression "value," as used in an Act of Parliament, generally means not a sale value but the value put upon the goods by someone who is competent to value them. If this means the price obtained for the goods, it would be a very good thing to say so, because otherwise we are embarking upon the prospect of an infinite amount of litigation over whether information supplied is the right information or not. The hon. Gentleman will find, when these forms are sent out, that a great many people will put a value on their production which is different from the sale value or the selling price. It would be a very good thing to insert "selling price" on the Report stage. Further, if the hon. Gentleman wants only the volume of production, why does he ask for the quantity and cost of materials used? What has that to do with the volume of production? Nothing at all. If he is told the amount of materials and the cost, it will not enable him to say what has been produced from them.

If the Board of Trade know the quantity and the cost of the materials used, that will answer the question of his previous argument.

They must be very much cleverer than anybody I have ever heard of if they can tell from the cost of the raw materials what the value of the finished article is. May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are such things as cost of wages, overhead costs and rent to be considered in the case of manufactured articles.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that we do not know that?

Apparently the hon. Gentleman did not, judging by his interruption, and that is why I took the trouble to tell him. Let me continue to deal with the point of the Parliamentary Secretary that these figures are required only for the purpose of ascertaining the volume of production. What has the quantity and the cost of the electricity consumed got to do with the volume of production of an article Nothing at all, is the answer. What has the number of persons employed got to do with the volume of production? It is quite clear that the Board of Trade are anxious to get data on more points than those connected with the cost of production. They are anxious, under (b), to find out whether these taxes have led to a rise in the cost of raw materials. A large number of materials will be taxed, and they want to see the influence upon the price of commodities. They want to know the number of persons employed, but are not interested to know what wages they get. May I suggest to the hon. Member that if he really wants to find out the effect on employment he must also have the wages paid? If he is really to find out the true facts about these businesses, and the true reactions of the taxes which have been charged, he must get a lot of other information than is being asked for under (a), (b), (c) and (d), among other things, the information asked for in these four Amendments.

7.30 p.m.

He suggested that the word "profits" means nothing. I suggest to him that a good deal of experience in Income Tax law has shown that profits mean something pretty definite. There would be no need for putting in profits here if it were possible to obtain from the Income Tax Department, or from the Board of Trade, the profits of all the various companies and concerns who are trading, but as I understand it, that information is confidential, and the Income Tax authorities are not entitled to communicate it to the Board of Trade. If the hon. Gentleman would like us to change the wording of this Amendment to—

"profits as calculated for Income Tax purposes"

we are quite prepared to make that alteration in our Amendment. Surely one of the things in which the Board of Trade must be most interested is to ascertain what effect this taxation has had upon the profits of the companies which are to benefit by the taxation. It is the most material figure of all, if the object of this taxation is to assist British industry, because the mere volume of production may go up or down, but the Board of Trade will not be able to tell from that whether the taxes have benefited it or not. If the industries have an increased volume of production, but make less out of it, owing to their having to pay more for their raw material, they will be worse off, although I daresay hon. Gentlemen would like to come here, subject to the criticism of the "Economist," and say: "Look at this figure and see the wonderful thing we have done. We have increased the production of this or that business by 100 per cent." It will be material also to inquire if those businesses have made any profits out of the increased production. Surely that is the most material of all inquiries to be made. If, as a result of the price of the raw material going up, you make the business less prosperous, you reduce its profits. It is possible that in those circumstances the result of the taxation may be to reduce and not to increase the profits of a business.

I suggest that this is an opportunity to get hold of some valuable information about British industry, so that the Board of Trade may be equipped at any time to use that information for various purposes which may in future be necessary. It is a chance which we suggest should not be missed. The vast majority in the House of Commons are only too willing to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade any powers he likes to inquire into any industry and to get any information that he wants. If he should miss this opportunity, it may never occur again, and it will be a great misfortune indeed to the Board of Trade and to British industry. We have put down this Amendment. in order to assist him, slightly against the will of his more reactionary followers, to get information which we know that he wants—for instance, for a review of the steel industry, so that when he goes down to make that review he will have all this information in his pocket, and he will be able to make a sound review of the whole industry.

The hon. and learned Member who has just addressed the Committee does not seem to be very familiar with the Census of Production. That census was introduced in 1907 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and we have had three reports of that census since. One has just been issued. The information here demanded is to enable us to get a quick survey of a similar character to that which we have every five years in the Census of Production. The Government of 1924, of which the right hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Wedgwood) was a distinguished and attractive Member—always attractive I—set up a Committee on Trade and Industry. It had no policy, so it appointed the Committee on Trade and Industry in order to discover one. In the last volume of its reports that committee suggested that such information should be furnished in connection with safeguarding industries.

This will give just the information that any Department needs in order to determine whether an industry is definitely advancing or receding. If all the other information which is now demanded is to be incorporated in an annual return, there will be an enormous delay in getting the results. We want to be able to get the results quickly, in order to show what progress each industry is making.

There are some industries in this country in which the information is already available. Coal, for instance. There you can get complete information. The same with iron and steel. You can get complete information. In some industries, information is not collected, partly because trade associations are not completely effective for the purpose. We should have, in respect of all industries, that kind of quantitative information which we have in respect of the iron and and steel trade, and coal, and that we already have in respect of agriculture. I cannot understand why in the discussions on the earlier Amendment this point was not effectively pointed out. The Clause is merely a request that manufacturing industries shall furnish us with the same kind of information that agriculture already furnishes. If you pile up, in respect of these industries, a lot of additional information, your return for 1933, instead of being available in the early weeks of 1934 will not be available until 1937. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will only try to understand what it means to aggregate rapidly a mass of statistics so that you can quickly furnish to the country and to the House of Commons some definite statement, they would never press that this heterogeneous mass of information should be added to the return. The hon. Gentleman who accused me of being a Solomon did not seem to have the faintest idea of what was meant by nominal and paid-up capital. This does not apply to limited capital. It applies to

"any person who appears to the board to have been…the occupier or manager…"

Not necessarily the proprietor.

The proprietor may be an individual. There are a vast number of small companies in this country. The very people who are concerned are the small individuals—[Interruption]—I am talking about private businesses owned by private individuals, of which there are a vast number engaged in manufacture. There is also a vast number who work as partners. It is precisely of these people that you are asking for information. Other industries are very largely in the hands of large groups. What you want is information of the great mass of small industries and trades, precisely the industries where there is no capital in the legal sense, either nominal, paid-up, watered or anything else. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would only sit down and produce an Amendment which has some relation to reality, instead of putting down Amendments which would involve people in unbelievable loss and expense, they would he rendering some valuable national service.

I am satisfied now that this Government is doing nothing more nor less than carrying out obedience to the Tory party. The hon. Gentleman for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) seems to know the history of these proposals from the beginning. I do not know whether he will consider it an honour that I have read his book on the subject. Hon. Gentlemen have criticised this Amendment from several angles. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question as to whether he would agree with our Amendment if we altered it to make it read as follows:

"Capital nominal or paid-up."

He does not seem to object to the principle so much as he objects to the wording of the Amendment. This is the first time that I have heard that a person can run a business without capital.

You are asking for a legal definition. I say that you cannot define capital, nominal or paid-up, in the case of a business owned by a private individual.

The hon. Gentleman cannot run away from it in that way. If he will look at his own words in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will see that he stated definitely that there were some businesses run by small private owners without any capital.

No, no.

We are making a definition in this Bill. There is nothing wrong with that. Let me pass on. I am interested in the words "overhead charges." My name is attached to an Amendment to include the words "overhead charges." It is assumed that because we are Labour men we know nothing at all about business. I have the honour to be the secretary of a society with a capital of £400,000 invested funds.

Paid-up?

All paid-up and all soundly invested. I want to disabuse the minds of some hon. Gentlemen of what may be their impression, that because we are Labour men, because we are colliers and factory workers, we know nothing about finance. I think I have handled more finance than has the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon.

Obviously.

Let me return to these words "overhead charges." The right hon. Gentleman has already replied to the discussion, so perhaps he will follow me. So far, I have come across cases where overhead charges have been made that had no relation to the business. I know firms where there are two or three managers and two or three motor cars, and all the expenses of those managers, only one of whom comes to the business occasionally, are set against the expenses of the business, and then we are told that the business does not pay. They have taken the swag away, in the first place. We ought to have definite information about the overhead charges from all firms and businesses. I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. These industrialists and manufacturers are coming to the Government to ask for a 10 per cent. tariff. Indeed, they are asking for more. Some of them will probably ask for an additional 50 or even 100 per cent. tariff. If they come to the State to ask for Protection for their manufactures, then the State is entitled to know and to get a balance-sheet from them in order to know where they stand financially.

The hon. Gentleman has referred to overhead charges. He seems to think overhead charges are the salaries of absentee directors.

I did not say directors at all. If the hon. Gentleman knew as much about business as some of us he would not talk so glibly about it. How many relations come to the factory and the office and never do any work at all and are paid wages? They call that "overhead charges." Now does the hon. Gentleman understand?

You are not asking for that form of overhead charges to be shown separately. Everybody knows that overhead charges include rents, rates, taxes, office expenses, etc.

That shows that the hon. Gentleman does not know as much about business as we do. We want these items inserted for another reason. We are not satisfied with paragraph (d), "the number of persons employed." I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade understands what he is talking about, although some of his supporters do not. He has got down here "the number of persons employed." What indication is there in the number of persons employed as to whether the industry is doing well or not? A statement was made the other day from this bench to the effect that one shipbuilder produced, a few years ago, two and half tons of shipbuilding, and that five years later he produced six and a-half tons of shipbuilding. It seems to me to be quite clear from that that to-day 100,000 men can produce as much shipbuilding as 300,000 could five or ten years ago. What indication, therefore, does the mere number of persons employed give as to whether an industry is doing well or otherwise? If we are to be criticised because our Amendments are not in good form, what about the proposals of the Bill itself?

I have seen it actually happen in industry that, where 50 persons were employed on a process 10 years ago, there are to-day only five employed, on exactly the same process, and producing very nearly as much as the 50 did 10 years ago; and the time may come, say some of the economists, when one man will be employed and 99 other men will be watching him producing all that is required for the community. There seems, therefore, to be much more sense in some of our proposals than there is in this particular item of the number of persons employed.

Whatever may be said about any of the other Amendments that we have on the Paper, the point with regard to overhead charges is a very important one, because of the facts that I have mentioned. Firms will be coming to the Government to ask for additional protection, and I am afraid that, unless these words are included, they will not show proper returns. I am not so sanguine as some hon. Members that manufacturers will come with clean hands to the Government. The House of Commons is embarking on a, very bad principle in politics, and we shall live long enough, I am afraid, to see that this Bill, in spite of all the nice things that are said about it, will have been found to have turned politics into a system of "graft" such as exists in America at the present time. I support these Amendments, and I trust that the Minister will have been convinced that there is substance in some of the points which I have made.

I think that hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench quite misunderstand the provisions of this Clause of the Bill. I have supported a good many of their Amendments, but I regard it as my business to try to make the Bill workable rather than merely to take up an obstructive attitude. Coming down to the House to-day, I travelled in the train with a gentleman who is interested in one of our great Dominions. I do not want to mention the name, because I refuse to be allied with those who would say one wrong word about the Dominions, but in that particular Dominion mistakes have been made with regard to tariffs, and the four provisions made by the Board of Trade in this Subsection will, I think, overcome any mistakes of that kind.

They ask, in the first place, for the quantity and value of the output, the object being, I take it, that no duty shall be given to an industry which is not warranted by the size of its output. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) asks what the number of persons employed has to do with this question. I take it that, if a tariff is to be levied, one of the most important things to know is how a tariff will apply in providing employment, and bow many people are employed in the particular trade in question. Surely, we ought to accept what is workable and reasonable in the Bill. Then the particulars asked for with regard to the quantity and cost of materials used are very essential. They show how subsidiary trades may be affected, and there can be no criticism of the Government on that point.

With regard to the Amendment which asks for a return of profits, it is possible to ascertain the capital of a firm by applying to Somerset House, and exactly the same thing is possible with regard to a balance sheet. The particulars as to profits can be obtained in that way. Again, particulars as to rent, which another Amendment proposes to include, really give no serious enlightenment as to the condition of any industry. The rent may he a purely nominal charge. As regards overhead charges, I venture to say that among any half-dozen Members of the House who are in business there would be a difference of opinion as to what really constitutes overhead charges, and, therefore, I do not think that such particulars would afford any really useful guidance. I am pleased to find myself in agreement with the Government on the four specific points mentioned in the Bill, and I am afraid that I cannot lend any support to the Amendments suggested by the Opposition.

The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) does not apear to have read Clause 9, to which these Amendments relate. The Clause deals with the power of the Board of Trade to require

"information as to the condition and progress of trade and industries engaged in the manufacture in the 'United Kingdom"—

and so on. If the object of the Board of Trade is to obtain information, surely they would desire to obtain accurate information on the points in question, and, if that be their desire, the returns ought at least to be understandable. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Government Bench said that the sole object of the Government was to ascertain the volume of production, and later on he said that, by the value which is mentioned in the Bill, he meant the selling value. But what is the selling value? There is no such thing. Any economist will tell you that. You can talk about the selling price of an article, but but to talk about its selling value is nothing but nonsense, and it was obvious to me that a later speaker, who said that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the economics of the Bill, whatever else he may have understood about it, was speaking perfectly truly.

There is no such thing as the selling value of anything. It has a selling price, which varies from day to day. It is governed by circumstances, and no one can say to-day what the circumstances will be to-morrow. For instance, normal selling prices in our markets to-day are entirely different from what they were 12 months ago. The selling price is governed by a number of factors, which cannot be determined from day to day. The cost of production enters into the value of the article, but has very little to do with the price. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should go to some of the old Liberal economists, if he does not like to read the more up-to-date Socialist economists, and get some of the elementary knowledge which they give as to the meaning of price and value.

I take it that, if information is wanted, it is full and useful information that is wanted, and not only for the Board of Trade. They are not the only people concerned, and the manufacturers are not the only people concerned; the public generally ought to be, and no doubt will be, far more interested than either, and the public have a right to know some of the particulars for which we are asking here. It is my definite opinion that an attempt is being made to keep back from the public that information which they have a right to expect from a Government that calls itself a National Government. Why should they not know the real cost of production? Why should they not know what are these overhead charges that firms and companies will put forward when these inquiries are being made?

Not very many years ago, I had personal knowledge of a firm of timber merchants in the city, whose overhead charges were entirely and deliberately misleading. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has referred to some of the practices that are followed in business to-day, and to what he has said I may add that in the case of the particular firm of which I am speaking, and which is still in existence, two aunts of the principals in the business were always paid a regular salary year by year, though neither of them ever visited the business or took any part at all in it. Again, there was a young nephew of the principal, who at the time of which I speak was eight years of age, but whose name was on the books and who was paid a regular salary year by year. It all went into the cost of production, or, at any rate, into the overhead charges. How is it possible to get accurate information if people do as they are doing to-day, namely, setting out deliberately to mislead in their statements and returns?

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said that it was impossible, in the case of a business owned by an individual, to get the information sought for in the first of these four Amendments. That may be so, but is the fact that it is impossible to get it from all a reason why it should not be obtained in those cases where it can be obtained? We are not asking that company information should be obtained from individual owners of businesses, but we ask that, where a company which comes forward as a company could and ought to give this information, an effort should be made to get the information as accurately as possible. The hon. Member for South Bradford said that the information could be obtained by applying at Somerset House, where the companies are registered; but why should that be necessary? A fee has to be paid, and, although it may be a small one, unless it is paid the in- formation is not available. We desire that this information shall be made public, and that the public shall know what profits are being made, what overhead charges are being charged, and how they are made up.

With regard to the items in the Bill itself the hon. Member for South Bradford says that the number of persons employed is of importance. It may be, but what is of more importance is the character of the people employed—I do not mean their personal or moral character, but whether the labour is just cheap boy labour, or whether it is adult labour. We ought to have some information as to the type of people employed, and also as to the type of wages paid, but that is another matter. I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government made no reply at all to the important facts which were put forward in support of these Amendments, but evaded them, though, if I may say so, not very successfully, and showed that, as regards part of them at any rate, he had not the slightest idea of the meaning of the terms employed in the Bill. The Bill would be very much strengthened, and the information obtained generally would be of very much greater value, if the Government accepted the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

I think the right hon. Gentleman would get much more useful information if he altered the expression to "market values." The hon. Member who has just spoken clearly does not understand the running of private businesses. The capital in a private business may be quite nominal. He does not seem to appreciate that the real thing that one depends on in a private business is the actual capital that is behind it. It seems to a good many of us that hon. Members on the Labour benches have been putting personal questions in all these things and what they want is to get some personal information which may be used as Labour propaganda.

It seems to me that the whole of this Clause is a shocking waste of public money. I cannot understand what the Government mean by including in a Bill which is supposed to impose taxes this Clause, which has nothing whatever to do with the imposi- tion of taxes. This is a Clause solely for making annual that Census of Industry which has previously been an expensive five-yearly production. It has nothing whatever to do with protected industries, and the results of the Clause cannot be used to check the industries that are being protected. An hon. Member opposite thought—and for a time I thought that he was right—that, by testing the output of some protected commodity, we could see whether they were producing enough of it to meet the demand—whether there was a supply capable of meeting the home demand—but I do not think for a moment that you could get any information that would be useful to that end out of this Clause. You could out of Clause 2. In that Clause the Commissioners can get all the information which they want about any specific article.

This Clause demands from every manufacturer in the country their total output. Take varnish. I like to take a business I know nothing about. You are asking for the total quantity, in tons presumably, of varnish produced by a certain factory. They will produce in that factory dozens of different sorts of varnish, some made of goods that are taxed coming from abroad and some not, and some articles over which they have a patent monopoly or certain rights. All you get out is the gross total in tons of all sorts of goods produced in the factory. They may produce many other things besides varnish. Go, for instance, to Imperial Chemicals, Limited. You will get the total production in quantity and value, as sold to the wholesaler, of a gigantic factory. What guide is that to the Board of Trade or the Tariff Commission or anyone else?

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman looks at the Amendment a few lines later down, he will find that we are trying to provide that the word "description" shall come in. We want to have the items described.

I can assure the hon. Baronet that that Amendment will not be accepted, and I can tell him why. It would be simply intolerable to ask the manufacturer of varnish to specify the total amount and value of every sort of article that he supplies. Take the case of the industryy with which I am connected. In the factory with which my name is associated we produce the best china in the world.

Barring Swansea.

Swansea was the century before last. That is one portion of our product. We produce earthenware—an entirely different article. We provide what is known as old Wedgwood—white figures on a blue background. In every single one of these three departments we have at least 10,000 articles—teapots, saucers, etc., with varying patterns and every one of the articles differing in price.

Is there any provision in these Amendments which will deal with the particulars that you are complaining are not given?

I am not complaining. I say it is impossible to ask any manufacturer to supply them in such detail that they would be of any use whatever. You might if you got the head of any business up before the Commission and cross-examined him about specific articles, but you will not get it under this omnibus Clause except in broad outline. I believe all these returns under the Census of Industry are confidential. They are not open to the public. The Board of Trade would not dream of passing on the return of one manufacturer to a rival. There is nothing on earth to be gained from this from the point of view of the public or of the special committee. The only people who are going to benefit are the vast army of officials at the Board of Trade who are going to spend the rest of their lives collating and building up these returns.

I ask the Committee not to let the Government take the bit between their teeth and inflict an utterly useless annual return at enormous expense upon the industries of the country. It cannot help from the point of view of Protection or of production in any way. It cannot be any sort of check upon the finance of the companies. When the Companies Act was before the House two or three years ago, the Labour party rightly pressed for a maximum amount of publicity in the interests of the shareholders and the public. They were turned down every time. But this has simply nothing whatever to do with that. This is simply in order that the statisticians of the Board of Trade may add up beautiful columns at the end of the year.

Both representatives of the Board of Trade have gone, but fortunately we have the Treasury present. Might I ask whether any estimate has been formed of what the cost of this return will be to the Treasury in increased staff at the Board of Trade and increased inspection? In Sub-section (4) any person who makes a false return is liable to a fine not exceeding £50, and it goes up. Who is to discover whether they have made false returns or not? An army of inspectors, I suppose. I do not know whether the Board of Trade has considered what it means. The Census of Industry has cost a great deal in the past, for no benefit to anyone except Chiozza-Money and the statisticians. The Treasury have already made it quite clear what their opinion is of statisticians and political economists. Why, therefore, go to the expense, year after year, of doing this—compiling the figures, adding up the totals, checking the manufacturers, employing lawyers to find out when they have given incorrect returns and all the rest of it? In Subsection (7) the Board of Trade take power to get the money to an amount approved by the Treasury. Do the Treasury really approve authorising the compilation of a Census of Production year after year Have they estimated what it will cost? That is a question we may reasonably ask when we are discussing Amendments to the Schedule of questions that will be put down. When we have got, as I hope we shall get, an estimate of what it is going to cost without these Amendments, proposed from Farnborough and elsewhere—you may add what it will cost with them if you like—let us remember what it is going to cost industry itself. It will not cost much to the big firms but it will cost something to the small trader.

I should like to see the items expanded. "Quantity and value of output." Are we sure that that means only the gross quantity of all articles produced? "Quantity and cost of materials used." You do not just use raw materials. Some of the materials are partly manufactured. Are you going to distinguish between partly manufactured and raw materials? Of course, the cost varies enormously. "Quantity and cost of fuel and electricity." That will be fairly simple. "Number of persons employed." What on earth is the service of the number of persons employed? It is the number of hours worked by the people who are employed that matters. Most firms' employés are working three days a week. Are those people employed? My hon. Friend the Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee) pointed out that the number of persons includes infants in arms almost—boys and girls, women and men. Are you asking solely for the number of persons employed? We do not know. In any case it is no service unless you know whether they are working full time or short time. This is not merely going to be a vast expense to the Government. I press again for a figure of the estimate and I ask whether the Treasury really contemplate putting the Clause into common use in the present parlous state of the national finances.

Secondly, we have to consider the cost to the trade of the country of providing the returns. I should have thought the fact that the Board of Agriculture are said to be fed up with complaints about the simple returns asked of farmers would not encourage the Board of Trade recklessly to embark on the asking of infinitely more serious questions from manufacturers. I hope that the representative of the Treasury when he replies will give an estimate of what it is going to cost, and, if possible, give a pledge that the Clause will not be acted upon and the expense involved incurred until the country is in a better condition to meet the expense.

I wish to refer to the question of overhead charges raised by my hon. Friend. I am not concerned as much as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) about production and the number of men employed, because I believe that practically every trade union in the country and all associations of employers could practically tell the number of men employed in the mining industry, the iron and steel industry, the cotton industry, the shipbuilding industry, and so on. In fact, as far as the iron and steel trade is concerned, if one went to our statistical department at Gray's Inn Road, London, he would be able to ascertain every blast furnace, every mill, every tinplate mill, and every sheet mill working in the country, the number of men employed, and the number of men out of employment. The employers' associations could give exactly the same information.

I do not think that there is anything causing more trouble among the working men of the country than the question of overhead charges. You may perhaps have an employers' association coming forward to meet the leaders of the men in regard to a proposal to reduce wages, or they may be introducing some labour-saving machinery and want to reduce the wages of the men employed or reduce the number of men employed on the old machines. But the question that is always in the minds of the men is that of overhead charges. I am not going to attack families in any way. A father owning works, often employs three or four of his sons. I am simply going to use a term made use of by the ordinary man in the street. They call them the "collar-and-tie men." I am not going to attack any persons, managers or under-managers, who are called "collar-and-tie men." You may go to a particular steel works and find at least from half-a-dozen to a dozen collar-and-tie men, and you may go to a steel works in another district and only find about two collar-and-tie men. Our men go to their officials before they go into conference with the employers and point out these things. They may say: "The works cannot possibly pay their way. You have the employer. You also have half-a-dozen collar-and-tie men." These men may have motor cars, and may be married, with wives and families to keep. This sort of thing has developed in the lifetime of the men who are employed in the particular industry. They say, "When we started working here only the father was employed, but to-day you have the father and four sons employed. All these considerations enter into the overhead charges."

They come into the wages bill; they are not overhead charges.

They enter into the costs of production. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the point, not only in the interests of the men who are always complaining and grumbling that this kind of business is going on, but in view of the costs of production. There are pages of evidence of this kind of business in the report of the Sankey Commission pointing out certain mines where collar-and-tie men were much in evidence.

Will the hon. Member allow me to say a few words? He is saying a good deal about the collar-and-tie men, and, I understand, refers to the men who are developing progress and looking after the scientific side of the business. I happen to know of a great many factories and even steel works where the advent of even 50 per cent. more collar-and-tie men has resulted in a very much reduced cost of production. We frequently have from the opposite benches a comparison drawn as between our steel works and those on the Continent, and I believe that if the hon. Member were to go on the Continent he would find perhaps that those collar-and-tie men who worry him so were just as much in evidence there as they are here. In many factories in this country and in Germany it is a great advantage to have a further number of collar-and-tie men, because they bring science into industry and help to lower the costs of production.

I think that I have made myself perfectly clear. I did not attack the men who work in the interests of research in laboratories or anywhere else. I made myself clear by saying that I did not attack the employer and his sons and so on. I simply call then collar-and-tie men. If hon. Members wish me to give illustrations, I will give them, but I shall have to bring persons into it, and I do not want to have to do that kind of thing. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to get into that atmosphere I can do so even as far as Members of this House are concerned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Go on, let us have it."] You want it, do you? You shall have it. There are even Members in this House. I remember a particular firm in South Wales which started with four tinplate mills and to-day it is in a combine which owns over 200 mills in South Wales. There are five or six sons in that family, and all those sons, and their sons are in the tinplate trade to-day.

What is wrong with that?

I will tell the hon. Member what is wrong. I will give the case of a tinplate works with four mills in it, and with simply one manager. I will give another tinplate works under that particular combine with four managers, sons of directors or shareholders in that particular works.

Will the hon. Member say how this line of argument is connected with the Amendments under discussion?

I am dealing with the overhead charges. These matters come into the cost of production. I am pointing out how important this matter is so far as the workmen are concerned, because they always bring these things up.

Is it suggested by the hon. Member that these facts would be disclosed in any way to the workmen, even if they were ascertained?

Why should not they?

Because anyone who did disclose them would he liable to a fine of £50.

But this is a matter of overhead charges. I know something about the trade with which I have been connected for the last 30 or 40 years. Let us assume that works "A" have standing charges of 15 per cent. Works "B" have standing charges of only 7½per cent. The reason for the difference is that there are two or three managers in works "A" as against only one manager in works "B." Surely, therefore, if the proprietors of works "A" go before the Committee and ask for a protective duty in their particular case, the public are interested in that, and certainly the working classes.

The bon. Member has not read the Bill. If he wilt read the next Clause, he will find that:

"If any person publishes or discloses any information contrary to the provisions of this section, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

Neither the hon. Member nor any of his party have put down any Amendment to modify that Clause. Therefore, however much of the information was acquired it would be utterly wrong, indeed impossible under the terms of Clause 10 to disclose it for the purposes which the hon. Member has in mind.

What we suggest in our Amendment is that it should be disclosed to the advisory committee.

The hon. Member suggested that it should be disclosed to the workmen. He hinged part of his argument on the assertion that they had a sense of grievance and that this information should be disclosed to them. He also suggested that it should be disclosed to the public.

Assume that the evidence was submitted to the advisory committee. The advisory committee would make certain recommendations. Therefore, I think in the interests of the public this House ought to know when the recommendations are made what is the evidence on which the recommendation submitted by the advisory committee is based.

If the advisory committee did that each individual member would be subject

"on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine."

I may be called to order, but I am coming definitely to the conclusion that until we have utility organisations in the different businesses, no good will be done.

8.30 p.m.

We have listened to a very interesting contribution from the Front Opposition Bench and also to interesting speeches from the back opposition benches. The hon. Member who has just spoken and several of his colleagues have spoken in support of their "class" statistical inquisition. We have now come to a position in organised industry when, if it is to take its place in the world, we must have the data for which the Government ask. While I would not do anything in the way of establishing a quasi-economic department purely for the amusement of quasi-economists, I realise, as does every person who has had experience of industry on its proprietorial and managerial side, that it is essential, if we are to face the competition of other countries, that a great forward movement should be made in the acquiring of the certain knowledge of industry which the Government desires we should have. If the Government are to take proper steps in support of industry those facts and figures are vital. I share the desire for statistical research which has been put forward by the Opposition, but not for the purpose for which I am afraid they may desire it, for one class only: I want the whole community to benefit thereby. The hon. Member who has just spoken let the cat out of the bag. Whereas in the United States of America the trade unions work hand in hand with leadership in industry and help forward the productions of industry as a whole, one regrets that in this country some—not all—trade unions consider that they must be antagonistic to the interests of those who are endeavouring to build up industry.

I hope that the Government will do all in their power to acquire such essential statistics as shall make this venture, if it may be so called, this great tariff movement, this experiment, as some might describe it, thoroughly efficient. Never forget, it is an emergency Measure. The need for reliable statistics in regard to British industry is most urgent. We can go to the American Consulate in London or we can go to American chambers of commerce and obtain particulars in regard to the position of every industry in the world. Even figures in regard to our own industries which are not available in a Government Department, namely, the Board of Trade, can be obtained in the American Consulate in London. I hope that in the interests of the future of our country, the future of industry, the provision of work for our people and for our trade unionists, our splendid craftsmen, everything possible will be done to obtain the most accurate and the most up-to-date information affecting our industries. While we do not desire that the search for the information shall be in any way objectionably inquisitorial, or to put industries to unnecessary expense and trouble, we do desire that such information shall be obtained as shall promote the efficiency of marketing throughout the world the productions of our magnificent craftsmen, of whom, indeed, we have every reason to be proud.

I agree with the general sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Sir W. Sugden), but he will forgive me if I say that it has no relation to the Clause. It would be a very desirable thing to obtain statistical information in regard to the progress and condition of industry in this country, but that is not what this Clause is concerned with. This Clause is entirely foreign to the whole purpose of the Bill. Whatever views we may entertain in regard to the Bill, we must recognise that this Clause is totally unrelated to its pro- visions. Whether one is in favour of or against the imposition of tariffs, one's position is totally unaffected by this Clause. The proposed Amendments would not improve the Clause, but might make it a little worse. No Amendment could improve the Clause. The only thing to be done with it is to cut it out of the Bill altogether. It is no use amending this particular Sub-section. To what use is the information to be put when it has been gathered? There is no provision in the Clause which indicates what use the Board of Trade is going to make of it. Is it to be placed before the Advisory Committee? What use is the Board of Trade going to make of the information after it has been demanded from various companies, after they have issued these forms, in any manner they think fit, because they can issue them to individuals and to groups of trades, to anybody they like—

The hon. and learned Member will understand that if there is to be a meticulous inquiry into every department of industry it would never end, and would be quite useless for the purpose of this great change. All that is desired is to obtain information of certain industries and groups of industries which thereby will save the Treasury expense and give the Board of Trade the information they desire.

I must remind hon. Members generally that we are not now discussing the Clause. We are discussing certain proposed additions to the information which it is proposed to ask.

The Amendment specifies additional information which is to be demanded; the Amendments vary the actual items set out in the Bill, and suggest that information should be asked in that form. In this connection it is relevant to know to what use this information is going to be put, otherwise it is impossible to determine the relevancy of these items.

The hon. and learned Member is quite right up to a certain point and I have allowed him to proceed, but when he discusses generally whether it is advisable to obtain this information or not, he is going outside the Amendment.

Is it not obvious that the information is to enable the objects of the Bill to be carried out?

This Clause does not enable the Board of Trade to utilise this information in any way. The Board of Trade may utilise it by giving it to the Advisory Committee, who are to make recommendations with regard to the orders to be made, but there is no provision for the utilisation of this information before the Advisory Committee make an order. If there was a provision for the Board of Trade to make an order on the information which is provided by this inquiry I could understand it. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the Bill, but the logical purpose of this information. There is nothing in the Bill to show what the Board of Trade is going to do with this information after it has been provided.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again—

I am afraid I must interrupt both hon. Members. It is quite obvious that the hon. and learned Member is getting on to the principle of the Clause and away from the particular Amendment. For the purposes of this discussion he has to assume that the Clause will require information of some sort to be given, and he can only discuss what information shall be provided.

I have not the slightest desire to transgress the rules of order. There is only one point upon which I should like some information. The Board of Trade is going to ask for information relating to the quantity and value of output, to the quantity and cost of materials used, to the quantity and cost of fuel and electricity consumed, and to the number of persons employed. When the Board of Trade has obtained information relative to all these items—

May I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman. If I answer the hon. and learned Member I shall be out of order. He is asking what use the Board of Trade propose to make of this information, and is doing so before we have even considered the Clause itself. It is quite impossible for me to reply to the discussion and keep in order.

The hon. Member will no doubt appreciate, after what the Financial Secretary has said, that he is really transgressing the rules of debate.

If it is more convenient for me to make my observations on the question of the Clause standing part I accept it. Let me take one item, the quantity and value of output, as a specimen. In what form will the Board of Trade seek that information? Take one instance, a huge company with many concerns carrying on different kinds of industries, a concern like Imperial Chemicals. Are you going to ask that company for the quantity and value of output?

I do not wish to limit the hon. Member, but I should like to make an appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on the limited point before us, as to whether these four items should be added to in the manner proposed by the Opposition, then we can discuss the wider question, which the Committee obviously desires to discuss, and indeed has been discussing for some time—the question as to whether any information should be required at all. It should be possible to dispose of this relatively small point, and then we can discuss on the question that the Clause stand part, whether any information should be demanded at all.

Until we know what details are to be asked for under these four general headings we cannot tell whether the Amendments suggested by the Opposition are practical or not.

That is the point. We may discuss the details now, but the question as to whether any information should be demanded at all should he discussed when the question is put that the Clause stand part.

In that case I will reserve my remarks. The real question is the relevancy of this Clause to the Bill.

I desire to make a few remarks which I think will have some relevancy to the question before the Committee. There is, I think, a case for arguing that further information should be required. The Clause is not very relevant to the Bill; it seems to have been taken out of something else—

The hon. Member is now doing exactly what the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) did, and what he himself said he would not do.

I quite agree. My point is this. I am not so much interested in the four proposals in the Subsection, but there is something to be said for including a provision with regard to profits. We are told that there is to be no increase, or at any rate very little, in prices. It seems to me that it might be very useful to the Board of Trade, if they found that in a particular case, as a result of putting on a particular tariff in a certain industry, prices had gone up considerably, to be able to check the trade by asking for information from it as to the amount of profit that was being made. For that purpose it would be useful to have this Amendment embodied in the Clause. It will be noticed that the word in the Clause is "may," not "shall," and that the Board of Trade can exercise discretion in every case. It can ask for information in the one or two or three cases that may occur in the course of a year. It has been suggested that this information can be got already from Somerset House. That is not so. Private companies would not be covered at all. The Amendment is a sound one. It will do something to make a reality of the aspirations of the Lord President of the Council, who said that when a protective system was brought in by his party it would not have as one of its objects or results the making of this country into a profiteers' paradise.

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

I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:

"(a) The rent of land or premises."

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 248.

Division No. 76.]	AYES.	[8.48 p.m.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Batey, Joseph	Hall, George H (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Briant, Frank	Hicks, Ernest George	Maxton, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hirst, George Henry	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Cape, Thomas	Janner, Barnett	Owen, Major Goronwy
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	John, William	Parkinson, John Allen
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Price, Gabriel
Daggar, George	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Thorne, William James
Edwards, Charles	Lawson, John James	Tinker, John Joseph
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Leonard, William	Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Lunn, William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McEntee, Valentine L.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	McKeag, William	Mr. Cordon Macdonald and Mr.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Groves.
Grundy, Thomas W.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Dickie, John P.	Kirkpatrick, William M.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Drewe, Cedric	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Duggan, Hubert John	Leckie, J. A.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Lewis, Oswald
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Liddall, Walter S.
Aske, Sir Robert William	Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Elmley, Viscount	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R,
Balniel, Lord	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	Mabane, William
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Barclay-Harvey C. M.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Fuller, Captain A. G.	McCorquodale, M. S.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Ganzoni, Sir John	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	McEwen, J. H. F.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	McKie, John Hamilton
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Glossop, C. W. H.	McLean, Major Alan
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Blindell, James	Goldie, Noel B.	Magnay, Thomas
Borodale, Viscount	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Makins Brigadier-General Ernest
Boulton, W. W.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Greene, William P. C.	Marjoribanks, Edward
Bracken, Brendan	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Gunston, Captain D. w.	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Millar, Sir James Duncan
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)	Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Burghley, Lord	Hanbury, Cecil	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Hanley, Dennis A.	Moreing, Adrian C.
Burnett, John George	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter	Hartland, George A,	Moss, Captain H. J.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Monro, Patrick
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)	Nunn, William
Cassels, James Dale	Hillman, Dr. George B.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Castle Stewart, Earl	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Palmer, Francis Noel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Pearson, William G.
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Peat, Charles U.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Hopkinson, Austin	Penny, Sir George
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Clarke, Frank	Howard, Tom Forrest	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Colfox, Major William Philip	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Purbrick, R.
Conant, R. J. E.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Pybus, Percy John
Cook, Thomas A.	Hurd, Percy A.	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Cooke, James D.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Ramsay, Alexander (W, Bromwich)
Craven-Ellis, William	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Crooke, J. Smedley	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Cross, R. H.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Ramsden, E.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Rankin, Robert
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)	Ker, J. Campbell	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Kimball, Lawrence	Remer, John R.

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.	Thompson, Luke
Renwick, Major Gustav A.	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam)	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n A Kinc'dine.C.)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Robinson, John Roland	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Ropner, Colonel L,	Somerset, Thomas	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Rosbotham, S. T.	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Runge, Norah Cecil	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)	Wells, Sydney Richard
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. sir Arthur	Weymouth, Viscount
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)	Stones, James	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart	Storey, Samuel	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	Strauss, Edward A.	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Savery, Samuel Servington	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Scone, Lord	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Selley, Harry R.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Wise, Alfred R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Sutcliffe, Harold	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)	Templeton, William P.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)	Mr. Womersley and Commander
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)	Thomas, Ma)or U. B. (King's Norton)	Southby.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:

"(a) The profits."

Division No. 77.]	AYES.	[8.57 p.m.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Grundy, Thomas W.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Batey, Joseph	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Briant, Frank	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Brown, c. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Harris, Sir Percy	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Cape, Thomas	Hicks, Ernest George	Maxton, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hirst, George Henry	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Holdsworth, Herbert	Owen, Major Goronwy
Daggar, George	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Parkinson, John Allen
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Pickering, Ernest H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Price, Gabriel
Edwards, Charles	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Lawson, John James	Thorne, William James
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Leonard, William	Tinker, John Joseph
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Logan, David Gilbert	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lunn, William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	McEntee, Valentine L.	Mr. Croves and Mr. John.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Davies, Maj. Geo. F, (Somerset, Yeovil)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Dawson, Sir Philip
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Denman, Hon. R. D.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Burghley, Lord	Dickie, John p.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Drewe, Cedric
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Burnett, John George	Duggan, Hubert John
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Burton, Colonel Henry Walter	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Butt, Sir Alfred	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Balniel, Lord	Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Elmley, Viscount
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Cassels, James Dale	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Castle Stewart, Earl	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Chalmers, John Rutherford	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Fuller, Captain A. G.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Ganzoni, Sir John
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Clarke, Frank	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Clayton, Dr. George C.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Glossop, C. W. H.
Blindell, James	Colfox, Major William Philip	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Borodale, Viscount	Conant, R. J. E.	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Boulton, W.W.	Cook, Thomas A.	Goldie, Noel B.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Craven-Ellis, William	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Crooke, J. Smedley	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Bracken, Brendan	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Graves, Marjorie
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Croom-Johnson, R. p.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Cross, R. H.	Greene, William P. C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Grimston, R. V.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 258.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Magnay, Thomas	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Savery, Samuel Servington
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Marjoribanks, Edward	Scone, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Selley, Harry R.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Martin, Thomas B.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Hanbury, Cecil	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Hanley, Dennis A.	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Millar, Sir James Duncan	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Hartland, George A.	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)	Milne, John Sydney Ward law-	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Mitchell, sir w. Lane (Streatham)	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmstord)	Moreing, Adrian C.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Hillman, Dr. George B.	Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Somerset, Thomas
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Moss, Captain H. J.	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Munro, Patrick	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Hortbrugh, Florence	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Spears, Brigadier-General El-ward L.
Howard, Tom Forrest	Nunn, William	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	O'Connor, Terence James	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Palmer, Francis Noel	Stones, James
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Peake, Captain Osbert	Storey, Samuel
Hurd, Percy A.	Pearson, William G.	Strauss, Edward A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas w. H.	Peat, Charles U.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Penny, Sir George	Stuart, Hon. I. (Moray and Nairn)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Satellite, Harold
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A,(P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Templeton, William P.
Ker, J. Campbell	Purbrick, R,	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Pybus, Percy John	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Kirkpatrick, William M.	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Thompson, Luke
Knight, Holford	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Leckie, J. A.	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Ramsden, E.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Lewis, Oswald	Rankin, Robert	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Liddall, Walter S.	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)	Warrender, Sir Victor A, G.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Remer, John R.	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Renwick, Major Gustav A.	Weymouth, Viscount
Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Mabane, William	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)	Robinson, John Roland	Wills, Wilfrid D.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Ropner, Colonel L.	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
McCorquodale, M. S.	Rosbotham, S. T.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Wise, Alfred R,
McEwen, J. H. F.	Runge, Norah Cecil	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
McKie, John Hamilton	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
McLean, Major Alan	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo	Mr. Womersley and Commander
		Southby.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 9, line 9, after the word "The", to insert the word "description."—[ Sir A. M. Samuel.]

Having received an assurance that the point raised in this and a consequential Amendment is covered by the wording of the Clause, I do not intend to move them.

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

"showing separately the quantity and cost of such materials which were imported."

The object of the Amendment is to make paragraph (b) a little more perfect than it is at present. In the material used, there may be some imported and some that is made here, and we feel that it would he far better if the information given separated the two. You might find 75 per cent, of the material used British made and 25 per cent. foreign made, and there are many cases to show that it is vital, in our opinion, for the Board of Trade to be able to ascertain what is the difference. You might have a low percentage of the materials used imported, but costing more than the materials of British make, and if the Board of Trade are to gain anything by this information, the information given to them ought to separate the two. If they could say that the materials used cost, say, £1,000,000, and that £250,000 of, it had been spent on foreign made materials, that would be some guide to them as to the action they should take. All that we want is to make paragraph (b) a little more useful to the Board of Trade. We agree entirely with the paragraph, but we feel that the Board of Trade itself would benefit by the addition of these words. We do not intend arguing the Amendment, but we hope it will be accepted.

We are much indebted to the hon. Member for the cursory and courteous way in which he has put the Amendment, and I hope he will not consider me discourteous if I ask him to consider whether it would be in fact helpful, as he suggests, since a great many firms do not know offhand whether the materials they are purchasing are imported or home produced. They are often bought from merchants. You could find out this information, but it would add enormously to the imposition, it would add to the cost, it would add to the difficulty, and it would delay the usefulness of the return; and as the hon. Member knows very well, often promptitude in getting hold of a, return is quite as important as the fullness of the return when made. Therefore, I hope he will not press the Amendment.

I understand that the purpose of the return is to enable us to judge of the working of a particular tariff, to find out, for example, whether, as a result of foreign goods not coming in, the public are being exploited by unduly high prices. It seems to me that a manufacturer might find that his prices of production had gone up owing to the fact of foreign yarns having to be used. In the hosiery trade, for instance, a great number of hosiery manufacturers have imported a large number of foreign yarns, and if there is a 50 per cent. duty on foreign yarns, a considerable increase in the price might follow. Then there would be an agitation by people like myself who are Free Traders to have the duty withdrawn, though, as a matter of fact, the particular cloth or hosiery manufacturers might not have got any profit, the raising of the price being due to the fact of his raw material being a manufactured article that was subject to the tax. That example could be multiplied by the thousand. In order to see what advantage is taken of these tariffs by the manufacturer, it is very advisable to have this Amendment. I think the information would be given in practice, but it should be as full as possible, and particularly it should show where the cause of high prices was due to the fact that the raw material or semi-manufactured material was being taxed.

I hope the Amendment will not be accepted. I am not very much in favour of the Clause at all, because I think that the less inquisitorial the Board of Trade is, the better it will be for the Board of Trade and for the manufacturers. We want as little as possible of bureaucratic control of industry.

I think perhaps the hon. Member was not in the House some time ago when I pointed out that hon. Members must not talk about the Clause generally, but must confine their remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.

All that I wish to add is a confirmation of what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, to the effect that to call for these particulars as to what is produced at home and what abroad would be to put an unfair burden on the manufacturers of this country.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:

"(e) The quantity and value of goods sold for export and the countries to which they were exported."

This Amendment is on very much the same lines as the last one, and I do not propose to delay the Committee at any length with it. But it seems to us again that one of the most material things to know, when you are dealing with the value and quantity of the output, is the destination and distribution of the goods, whether it is output for export or for sales in the home market. That is a matter which the manufacturer will know in practically every case. There might be cases where he would not know, and then it would be a sale for the home market, but export sales he would clearly know, because otherwise they would not fall within the definition of export sales. It seems to us that either this Clause will provide useful information which will be valuable to the Board of Trade for future needs, or else it is merely laying down the few matters that are there and will be quite useless afterwards.

Again I would ask the hon. and learned Member to consider that in many cases a manufacturer would sell to a merchant, and if he were to return that as a home sale, it would give quite a misleading picture of the industry; and, furthermore, that you have the trade returns, which give you the value of the exports. Therefore, I hope that in this case also he will not find it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:

"(e) The number of machine units forming the equipment in industries where the machine, unit is a significant measure of capacity."

This Amendment is intended to get information which will be of real value to industry. In 1924, the Home Office inquired into the number of principal machine units comprising various textile industries, with benefit to the industries concerned. After the passing of the Census of Production Act these duties were handed over to the Board of Trade, but, unfortunately, I understand they did not consider that their powers entitled them to ask for information with regard to such important machine units as combs, looms, carding engines and other textile machines of that sort. Attempts have been made to obtain this information, but unfortunately they have failed. The idea of the industry is that these powers should be granted to the Board of Trade, and that if they made use of them the Board would be able to supply the industry with information which would really be valuable to-day. Since 1904 they do not know whether the machinery in the industry has increased or decreased. That is an unfortunate position, and if they were placed in possession of the facts it would be of real help to them.

Will it not rather hamper the operation of the Bill if too much is imposed on the investigation that is to be made for the purposes of the Board of Trade? Surely the information is required to enable the Department to determine the relative competition of industry in this country and of industry abroad. We are not asking for the information to enable industry in this country to have a full knowledge of its internal capacity for production; we need it in order that we may protect industry in this country from unfair competition from abroad.

I have every sympathy with the Amendment, which I understand has had the consideration of some of the trade associations concerned, but I would ask my hon. Friend whether there is not a danger of overloading the inquiry which we are about to make. I think that there is a definite danger in that. Although it is very desirable to have a census of machinery, are these the proper powers under which to procure it? Statistics would have to be collected in considerable detail; they would have to take account of types of machines, capacity, age and so on, and the work involved would be of a very intricate character. This is more in the line of the work of trade associations than the work of the Board of Trade. Consider this point. Statistics would have to be taken of machinery in factories which have been closed down during the year. The powers under Clause 9 would not enable the Board of Trade to obtain information in respect of such machines in factories. In this case, as in so many others, the best is the enemy of the good. We are trying to get information to enable us to work this emergency scheme—

Emergency scheme?

We are putting through an emergency scheme for the present difficulty. I am not discussing what we are going to do hereafter, but at the present moment we are discussing a Clause which in many parts of the Committee has already aroused the suspicion that it is going too far. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether it is wise to load it further. The sense of the Committee seems to be rather apprehensive that too much is being asked of industry rather than too little. Therefore we should not press the matter too far, and I hope that this explanation will make it possible for my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

An important statement has just been made by the Financial Secretary. He has told us that this is an emergency scheme, and he made that his argument against this Amendment. Let me remind the Committee that the words in this Clause are

"before the commencement of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-three."

It has nothing to do with the emergency. This Amendment has to do with the working of the proposals in the Bill, and I hope that it will not be turned down on the ground that this is an emergency scheme, for that is humbug. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) is more honest; he is quite clear about it. This is a permanent change in our tariff system.

If the hon. Member does not think that it is going to be an emergency to get a full-blown tariff in operation in this country in one and a half years I do. Anyone with experience of departmental administration knows that this will entail close attention and an enormous extra work on the part of the Department, and the first to complain if it was not done would be the hon. Member who is pressing us to collect more statistics than the machine can possibly get.

I only want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to be sincere with the Committee, and to make it clear that this does not pretend to be an emergency scheme.

I am sorry that the Financial Secretary has not been willing to accept my Amendment because it would have been very valuable to the industry. They can only obtain the information through official channels, and it would have been of real value to the Advisory Committee. However, in view of the right hen. and gallant Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move in page 9, line 15, to leave out the words, "manner required by," and to insert instead thereof the words, "accordance with."

This is a very small Amendment to provide that the form shall not only be filled up in the manner required, but within the period required. The period was omitted, and the words "accordance with" will meet that point.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move in page 9, line 27, at the end, to insert the words:

"and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months."

I move this Amendment simply to bring the Clause in accordance with Sub-section (2) of the following Clause. I think that it will be necessary to make that alteration, but, if the wording does not quite appeal to my right hon. Friend, perhaps he will on Report see if he ran meet me by finding words which will bring the two Clauses together in their application.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to this matter. He is quite right; the wording will require a hale alteration, and I will look into it between now and the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee has now reached the final consideration of Clause 9, and I do not think that we should allow the Clause to pass without one or two comments upon it. The Committee will notice that there has not been a single change in the Clause. Not a line has been altered except one or two words moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. All that is in spite of the fact that we on these benches have put forward several Amendments which we thought were very pertinent to the Clause. I was very pleased to hear the short speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace), who followed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). The purport of their remarks may be summed up in this way—that Clause 9 is not necessary in the Bill at all. We on these benches will go into the Lobby in order to try to delete this Clause from the Bill altogether.

What does the Clause really purport to do? The Government want more information. I was very interested to hear from the statement made to the Committee by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) who suggested that the information required in this Clause would be after the event, when the duties had actually been imposed, in order to find out exactly what was happening in the several industries. That is not quite clear in the Clause itself. I hope the Committee will pardon me if I repeat one or two statements I have already made. The country was told during the General Election that we were to have a tariff system because the Government were very much concerned about unemployment, low wages and bad labour conditions. That, indeed, was the main reason for the birth of this Measure. If we take the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite during the election, what provisions ought to have been included in this Clause? Not an inquiry as to the amount of the commodities produced, nor the quantity and cost of fuel and electricity consumed. The first item of inquiry in accordance with the promises made at the General Election should have been as to whether the wages paid in these industries were such as to warrant the imposition of a tariff to protect them, to prevent wages becoming lower still. Here we have a Clause to make inquiries about all conceivable matters except the one thing that was promised, namely, as to the wages and conditions of the workers. What is the use of finding employment for all the workers in this country if their wages are to be reduced to a level where they cannot live a decent life on them? I do not for a moment believe that these tariffs are going to find employment at all.

9.30 p.m.

We on these benches are very disturbed because an inquiry into the conditions of labour of the workpeople is not to be made under this Clause. The balance of trade is important, and the value of the pound is important, too, but surely the wages of the working people in these protected industries are as important as anything else? There has been a statement made that some trade union leaders abroad—and there has been a suggestion that even in this country there are some Labour leaders also—who would be willing to have a tariff imposed provided they could be assured that the tariff would safeguard the interests of the workpeople. Let me make this statement about what has happened in this country. We have lived long enough to see in this country several trades safeguarded under the Safeguarding of Industries provisions, and, except in one case, those safeguards never helped the workpeople by one-halfpenny per hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is there any hon. Gentleman who will stand up and say it has? [HON. MEMBERS: "Motors, paper, lace and glove industries!"] The cutlery trade in. Sheffield was safeguarded for five years. I give that as one instance. I am assured by the trade union concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—surely they know better than some hon. Members here?

Let me repeat a classic example. A woman employed in the Sheffield cutlery trade at 21 years of age and over, after five years of Safeguarding, is paid 23s. a week. That figure is lower than any point in the trade boards' scales of any industry in the land. The trade boards were set up in order to prevent sweating. I am assured that low conditions apply to sections of the silk industry in Macclesfield as well. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) was not here last night; I am glad he is here now.

May I ask if the hon. Gentleman will explain the reason why 6,000 operatives in the cutlery industry petitioned this House for the Safeguarding Duty to be allowed to continue for a further five years, seeing that be says Safeguarding has done nothing for the cutlery industry?

Those workpeople were probably misled by their employers. They are not the first workpeople to be so misled, and if any body of workpeople in this land have been induced to believe that this Bill is going to give them an increase of wages, they will find out in less than 12 months that the statement cannot be borne out in fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait and see!"] We have been waiting and seeing a long time, and wages have declined steadily during the last five or six years.

Particularly in the last two years.

Hon. Gentlemen say the introduction of these duties will improve wages. The history of tariffs in every country in Europe—and it has been proved by the best authorities in the world—is that where you have a tariff system in operation, whatever else it has done—and it may help certain industries—it has not helped the workpeople or the wage-earners.

On a point of Order. May I call attention to the fact that the object of this Clause is to empower the Board of Trade to require information, and that it does not raise the question of tariffs in other countries?

I have been thinking that the hon. Member was getting rather wide of the Clause.

I was asking, with due deference to the hon. Member that we should secure information about what is more important than anything else to the workpeople, and that is the wages they have to live upon. Hon. Members do not like to talk about wages now. Before this Bill appeared they told the work-people "We will give you tariffs, and that will mean good wages and decent conditions of labour." We have a really genuine complaint against the Government for not including in this Measure an inquiry into the conditions of labour of the workpeople.

The hon. Member a few moments ago said he would make some remarks in reference to Macclesfield, and I should be glad if he will tell me what they were.

The information about Macclesfield is this, that the safeguarding of the silk industry in the Macclesfield area did not improve the conditions of the workpeople.

May I inform the hon. Member that the silk industry is not safeguarded at all. There are taxes on the raw material, but that trade at the present time has got no protection of any kind.

I hope to prove to the hon. Gentleman, in due course, and I hope on the Floor of this House, that he is wrong in regard to this industry. [Horn. MEMBERS "Why not now?"] The wages of the workpeople in some of the industries which are probably to be protected under this Bill are declining rapidly, and if the Committee will bear with me I will mention one or two instances. One difficulty with which I am confronted in dealing with this problem is that we do not know which industries are actually going to be protected. For example, is the cement manufacturing industry—

The hon. Member cannot go into the whole question of tariffs on this Clause; and I would remind the Committee, also, that there are other important Amendments to be dealt with this evening.

I will conclude by saying that I agree entirely with the statement of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that this Clause is not necessary for the working of this Measure. It could be administered without it and I was very pleased to learn from a prominent business man that this Clause will be regarded as very irritating to business men. Having said that, I feel sure that I can carry every Member on this side of the Committee, and maybe a few of those below the Gangway, to vote against the Clause.

Whatever may be the merits or demerits of this Bill, the unfortunate thing about this Clause is that it has no relation to the Bill. The Clause provides that the Board of Trade may send out a form demanding information either from whole trades, or persons engaged in those trades, or from sections of a trade, or from individuals in any given trade, and it specifies the information that will he required. Companies and individuals will be put to great expense and trouble in providing the information, and, after all, it will be of no value for the purposes of this Bill. I am not arguing whether it is a desirable thing to impose duties upon commodities coming into this country. The question is whether the information to be sought under this Clause will assist the working of this Bill. After the information has been obtained, all that the Clause provides for is that it shall be tabled in this House; apart from that it will be valueless. Clause 2 sets up an advisory committee which can call evidence and make recommendations. That is evidence which is being used for a specific purpose. Under this Clause the companies are to be put to great expense to provide additional information which is not to be used for any purpose at all except to be laid on the Table of this House. There can be no justification for putting companies to such expense and trouble for a useless purpose.

The only reason that I can conceive for inserting this Clause in the Bill is the argument put forward by those who are concerned about the condition of the workers, that no protection should be given to an industry unless it shows that it is doing its best, so that we shall not protect inefficient industries. If there were a provision in the Bill to enable the Board of Trade to see that these industries were efficiently conducted I could understand the purpose of the Clause, but there is no such provision. All the information will do is to fill an additional Blue Book, which no one will ever read, adding to the cost of running the Department and adding to the cost of running all the industries of the country; and all to no purpose. For those reasons, I hope the Government will reconsider the Clause and cut it out.

I think the discussion on this Clause has already gone on so long that the Committee are getting rather tired of it. May I make a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He has already undertaken to reconsider the powers given in Clause 2, Sub-sections (7) and (8). Could he not at the same time consider this Clause with a fresh mind in conjunction with that one and see to what extent it might be possible, perhaps, to dispense at any rate with some of these powers? If he would give some such assurance it would probably satisfy the Committee and we could pass on to something else.

We have put down Amendments to this Clause in an endeavour to make it a really effective instrument, and 5o that the Committee could have an opportunity of taking a broad survey of the economic situation of the country. The Government have not accepted any further Amendment, and as the Clause now stands we are inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. H. Morris) that in practice it will be useless. There is not enough information in it, and as it is quite clear that the Government do not intend to make use of this Clause as an effective instrument, we propose to vote against it.

I think, with the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), that the Committee has discussed this Clause so long that it is getting a little bored, and therefore I want to say, first of all, that we most readily give the assurance that he seeks, not that we shall consider this Clause in itself, for he will realise that there is no time for that, but that the Chancellor will naturally consider very carefully before the Board of Trade issues a demand for information which will throw an extra burden upon an industry. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will be satisfied.

Two points were raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughten (Mr. Rhys Davies) and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. H. Morris). The first complained that no attempt was being made to inquire into the vital question of wages. Let me point out to him that inquiries into wages have been held, and are continually being held. An inquiry is being held at this moment by the appropriate Department of the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour in 1924 received 127,000 returns which gave particulars of the wages paid to over 5,000,000 workers, In 1928 they got 51,000 employers to whom inquiries were addressed, and approximately 40,000 furnished returns, covering 4,000,000 work-people. Of 110,000 employers to whom application has been made for the purpose of the inquiry now in progress, nearly 70,000 made returns, and more are coming in every day.

It is a fact, is it not, that under this Measure the Committee will not be entitled to consider those facts?

The Committee will be entitled to consider those facts. This is not the hon. Member's lucky evening. The Committee, I assure him, will he entitled to consider those facts, and other facts coming under Clause 2. In certain industries, for instance the cotton industry in which he is interested, in the wool, worsted, pottery, and the boot and shoe industries, in which he is also interested, the Ministry of Labour receive monthly returns, and the information for which the hon. Member is asking is there- fore entirely unnecessary; it is being covered in the proper way by the proper Department. To get the information he wants would be to overload this inquiry, and to make the figures that were obtained too late for any deduction to be drawn from them.

The hon. Member for Cardigan said that there was no reason for this Clause and that he could not imagine why it was put in, except at the will of the bureaucrats, who always desired to extend their power. Let me point out to him that the information authorised by the Clause was asked for not by bureaucrats but by business men. It was asked for by the Committee on Industry and Trade under the signature of men like Sir Arthur Balfour and Sir Harry Goschen, Sir Norman Hill, the shipping magnate, Sir John Hindley, Sir Clare Lees, Mr. Pybus, and now more familiar to us in this House in another association, Mr. Arthur Shaw, representing the woollen industry from the Labour point of view, Sir Allan Smith, Chairman of the Engineering Employers' Federation, and Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith. It is not possible for us to dismiss requests for this information made by those authorities, when there is an opportunity of obtaining it.

I had not said anything about it not being desirable to obtain information for a scientific tariff. That is one thing. What provision is there, in the present case, when you have obtained this information, desired by all these eminent gentlemen, for using that information for the purposes of the tariff?

I can assure the hon. Member that we do not intend to obtain this information and then, as he says, seal it up in blue books which nobody will look at. It will be the duty of the Tariff Committee to use these facts, the collection of which he alleges is already covered by Clause 2. It is not covered by Clause 2. The difference between Clause 2 and the present Clause is that Clause 2 will cover a specific demand made in writing to a certain person, but this Clause covers information published in certain journals, and the machinery applicable to one is not applicable to the

Division No. 78.]	AYES.	[9.54 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.	Aske, Sir Robert William
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Atholl, Duchess of

other. In view of the fact that this information was asked for by the Committee on Industry and Trade and the Committee on Finance and Industry, and under the hand and seal of eminent business authorities, and not under the hand and seal of politicians and civil servants, he will perhaps consider that the point that he made is to some extent dealt with. I would like to ask hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench to consider the information I have given as to the compilation of the inquiry. The Department of the Ministry of Labour, whose special responsibility it is, is following and tracing these matters, which it would be altogether out of place to put in a Clause like this.

I have listened with very great interest to the discussion on this Clause, and nothing has surprised me more than the docility of the Government supporters in regard to it. A little while ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did see the red light when one of the hon. Members below the Gangway belonging to his own party moved an Amendment which was subsequently rejected. This is the situation in which we find ourselves. British industry is on its hands and knees, begging Parliament to give it Protection. When, in moving Amendments to this Clause, we seek to have further information which we think desirable in the interests of the general well-being of the community, that information is refused to us. It ought to be distinctly understood that when British industry comes to Parliament and begs for Protection in the way it is now doing, it is the right of Parliament to insist that all necessary information for the general well-being of the community in the future in regard to the operation of British industry shall be at the disposal of Parliament. From that point of view, we on these benches have every reason to be very hostile indeed to the reception which has been given by the Government this afternoon to Amendments.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 306; Noes, 43.

Bailey, Eric Alfred George	Fermoy, Lord	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	McLean, Major Alan
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Ganzoni, Sir John	Magnay, Thomas
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Balniel, Lord	Gibson, Charles Granville	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Glossop, C. W. H.	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Marjoribanks, Edward
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Bernays, Robert	Goldie, Noel B.	Martin, Thomas B.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Gower, Sir Robert	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Millar, Sir James Duncan
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Graves, Marjorie	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Borodale, Viscount	Greene, William P. C.	Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Bossom, A. C.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Boulton, W. W.	Grimston, R. V.	Mitcheson, G. G.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Boyce, H, Leslie	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Moreing, Adrian C.
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Guy, J. C. Morrison	Moss, Captain H. J.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Munro, Patrick
Briant, Frank	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	North, Captain Edward T.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Hammersley, Samuel S.	Nunn, William
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hanbury, Cecil	O'Connor, Terence James
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hanley, Dennis A.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Burghley, Lord	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Palmer, Francis Noel
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Harris, Sir Percy	Patrick, Colin M.
Burnett, John George	Hartland, George A.	Peake, Captain Osbert
Butt, Sir Alfred	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Pearson, William G.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Peat, Charles U.
Caine, G. R. Hall-	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Penny, Sir George
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)	Petherick, M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)
Cassels, James Dale	Hillman, Dr. George B.	Pickering, Ernest H.
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Castle Stewart, Earl	Holdsworth, Herbert	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Purbrick, R.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Pybus, Percy John
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hornby, Frank	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Horobin, Ian M.	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Horsbrugh, Florence	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Howard, Tom Forrest	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Chotzner, Alfred James	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Clarke, Frank	Hudson, Capt. A. O. M. (Hackney, N.)	Ramaden, E.
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Rankin, Robert
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Raid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Colfox, Major William Philip	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Renter, John R.
Colman, N. C. D.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Rentout, Sir Gervais S.
Conant, R. J. E.	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Cook, Thomas A.	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Cooke, James D.	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Craven-Ellis, William	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Robinson, John Roland
Crooke, J. Smedley	Ker, J. Campbell	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Cross, R. H.	Kirkpatrick, William M.	Rosbotham, S. T.
Crassley, A. C.	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Knight, Holford	Rungs, Norah Cecil
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Knox, Sir Alfred	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Dawson, Sir Philip	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Leckie, J. A.	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Dickie, John P.	Leighton, Major B. E. p.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Dormer, P. W.	Liddall, Walter S.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Drewe, Cedric	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Duckworth, George A. V.	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Savery, Samuel Servington
Duggan, Hubert John	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Scone, Lord
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)	Selley, Harry R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Mabane, William	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Elmley, Viscount	MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)	Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	McCorguodale, M. S.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)	McEwen, J. H. F.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	McKie, John Hamilton	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

Somerset, Thomas	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Somervell, Donald Bradley	Sutcliffe, Harold	Wells, Sydney Richard
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)	Weymouth, Viscount
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)	Templeton, William P.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Soper, Richard	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	Thompson, Luke	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.	Thorp, Linton Theodore	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Touche, Gordon Cosmo	Wise, Alfred R.
Stones, James	Turton, Robert Hugh	Womersley, Walter James
Storey, Samuel	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Stourton, Hon. John J.	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Strauss, Edward A.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Strickland, Captain W. F.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)	Commander Southby and Mr.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.	Blindell.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Batey, Joseph	Hicks, Ernest George	Maxton, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Hirst, George Henry	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Nathan, Major H. L.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Owen, Major Goronwy
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Parkinson, John Allen
Dagger, George	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Price, Gabriel
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)	Lawson, John James	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Leonard, William	Thorns, William James
Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert	Tinker, John Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	Lunn, William	Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	McEntee, Valentine L.
Grundy, Thomas W.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
		Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Clause 10—(Prevention Of Disclosure Of Information)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 15, to leave out the words "for the purposes of this Act".

This Amendment and the next Amendment which stands in my name—in page 10, line 17, to leave out the words "and requiring that information for those purposes"—are designed to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of looking at these returns which come to the Board of Trade. As the Clause stands at present, no Government Department will be able to have access to this information except for the purposes of this Act. That means that, for the purposes of the Budget or anything of that sort, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be entitled to have access to any of this information. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman now intends to deal with a part of this matter in the Finance Bill, owing to his inability to move certain Amendments which he had on the Paper the other day. If for that purpose any of this information is required, some Amendment will have to be made in this Clause, because otherwise, when the right hon. Gentleman comes, in the Finance Bill, to deal with the question of articles being taken out of the free list, neither the Committee nor a Government Department nor anyone else will be able to look at any of these returns which the Board of Trade have obtained under this Measure. I am sure in the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman will see that this is a useful Amendment, which will in fact serve his purpose very well.

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman but I should like to look into the matter a little further. The Amendment as drafted would give power to the Inland Revenue Department to make use of the information that is extracted by the committee from firms, and I do not think that would conduce -to confidence and willingness to give the information that we desire. Therefore, I should not like to have it in these words, but I will look into it between now and Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 11—(Provision As To Shipbuilding Yards)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 29, after the word "yard," to insert the words "or marine engine works."

In moving this Amendment, I wish to draw attention to this Clause, which is a departure from the general structure of the Bill. I should like to know the intention of the Government.

"Where goods imported into the United Kingdom are consigned direct to a registered shipbuilding yard within the meaning of this section,"

the Commissioners may do certain things, that is to say exclude the goods from the duty chargeable. The definition in Subsection (3) of shipyards for that purpose is

"occupied and used for the purpose of the building, repairing, or refitting of ships."

We contend that marine engines are an essential part of the building of the ship and should be included in the Clause. It would appear that it is not very clear whether marine engine works are included or not. Whilst they are dissociated in some senses from shipbuilding yards, they are really part and parcel of a shipbuilding yard. We have put the Amendment down in order to get a direct statement from the Government of their intention.

Many Members were, indeed, surprised to see Clause 11 in the Bill, and I think many Members were even much more surprised to see the Amendments on the Paper to extend the operation of the Clause. I really cannot think that two bad things will make one good. The arguments which my hon. Friend has put forward in no way convince me that it would be advisable to bring in marine engineering works. Do hon. Members imagine that marine engineers, or even shipbuilders, are any more in distress than those industries which are supplying them? When one knows the terrible distress in the iron and steel industry, one would certainly not imagine that there could be any trade in such terrible straits. I have looked into the question of what is done in other countries with regard to marine engineering works. I find, for example, that in France, though there is exemption in some ways for shipyards, it does not include any marine or auxiliary engines, boilers, electrical machines, or anchors. In Norway and Sweden there are many restrictions in the matter. In Germany I am told the administration of the rules for duty free entry allows as little of this material as possible to enter duty free. Surely, having an Advisory Committee set up, we should leave it for them to deal with. The Chancellor of the Exchequer some days ago referred to the character of this Committee. He said:

"If it is to commend the general confidence of the public, it must be an independent body and if we had said that we were going to take out of their hands the decision as to what is perhaps the most fundamental industry in the country, the industry which most affects other industries, we should have been handicapping that independence and making it extremely difficult for this body to carry out their duties according to their own ideas. We thought it better to leave full discretion to the committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1932; col. 1603, Vol. 261.]

This is particularly a matter that should be left to the advisory committee, and the question should be in no way prejudged at this stage. The two branches of the iron and steel trade which are mainly dependent on the marine engineering industry are those of heavy castings and forgings and in those two trades there is serious distress. In 1914 it was found that they were key industries. The Admiralty programme was held up because of the lack of their supplies. If we allow the heavy forgings and castings required to come in free and these industries get no help, I can visualise that when a state of emergency may again arise that they will be found lacking in equipment. That equipment takes a long time to build. It is very heavy and there are only two or three firms in the country capable of turning that plant out. It is mast important to consider the heavy casting and forging industry when we are considering the marine engineering trade.

I again appeal to the Chancellor to leave the matter for the decision of the advisory committee. It may be that the Board of Trade are judging the position at the moment with regard to shipbuilding by the figures in the Board of Trade returns. Those figures are most misleading. There are a very large number of heavy forgings coming into the country, not in the rough state, but in a semi-finished and in a finished condition. I appeal to the Board of Trade to make investigations and find out exactly the amount of heavy forgings which are coming in at the present time. I feel sure that if such a record were carefully compiled the right hon. Gentleman would see that this is very dangerous ground upon which to proceed. It is said that this may be a matter that aplies only to my constituency of Sheffield. I hold in nay hand a memorandum which was sent to me on Saturday from the Midlands. The trades which are affected by marine engineering are all over the country. The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce sent rue a memorandum in these word:

"The ramifications of the shipbuilding industry reach into several important industrial regions throughout the country. Birmingham and the Black County embrace a large number of factories which have specialised in the production of a wide variety of commodities which are integral parts of ships or are ancillary thereto. The effect of Clause 11 of the Bill is to leave such manufacturers unprotected not only in respect of the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty, but also in respect of any additional duties contemplated by the Bill."

I submit that Clause 11 is one that should be dealt with by the Advisory Committee. While most warmly supporting every other part of the Bill, I think that we are running grave danger in deciding the question of shipbuilding and marine engineering trades. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give further consideration to the matter, and not only to resist the Amendment on the Paper at once, but to consider whether it would not be possible to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Advisory Committee.

The hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) expressed the view that there is not greater unemployment in the shipping trade than there is in the iron and steel trade. The hon. Member is very wide of the mark. On the North-East coast the unemployment in the shipping trade is at the present time 75 per cent. more than in any trade in the country, and if the hon. Gentleman's proposals are carried out, our shipyards will be shut down for good and all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is only with the greatest difficulty that it is possible to get any orders at all at the present time. One difficulty under the Clause as it stands is that the building of ships within the meaning of the Clause means the building of entire ships. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It means not only the hull but the engines. Many shipbuilding yards build both hulls and engines. Other yards only build hulls. The position is that if the Clause goes through as it stands, the yards which build both hulls and engines will be able to get into their yards all the materials free of duty both for hulls and engines, whereas in the case of yards which only build hulls, the engines being built in other works, the result will be that duties will have to be paid upon materials used in building the engines which come into the country. Therefore, there is a serious discrimination between one set of shipbuilding yards and others. As time is so short, I merely put the point, because I am sure that it will commend itself to the Minister.

The point that has just been made, not an unimportant one, shows how complicated this question is, and how unfair it would be to the Advisory Committee to take this very important part of the whole field out of its purview. I do not think anyone here would underestimate the importance of safeguarding the interests of shipbuilding in every way or of giving shipbuilding every concession that is necessary for its success, treating it, as far as may be necessary, as an export industry; but I do submit that it is a very considerable departure from the principle of the Bill to take the whole of this field, interlocking in all sorts of ways with other phases of engineering, cabinet work and construction work, entirely out of the purview of the committee, and not to enable the committee, after careful investigation, where they have the advantage of the knowledge to be gathered in further investigations, to make a definite recommendation. For instance, it might be possible for the committee to recommend the free entry to registered shipbuilding yards of certain foreign materials, coupled with conditions as to quantity, and not only under conditions such as those mentioned in the Clause.

I believe that in a great many foreign countries where there is nominal free entry into shipbuilding yards, it is strictly limited by quota. It might very well be that the committee would recommend that, coupling it with a variety of important conditions. I suggest, therefore, very earnestly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should reconsider the Clause before Report from the point of view of reinstating into it the authority of the committee, and then, if he feels it essential to the shipbuilding industry, to allow a suspension for the moment from the powers of the Clause, but to do that only pending a definite recommendation from the com- mittee. It certainly seems a great pity that this very important field should permanently be excluded from the general consideration of our industrial structure.

On a point of Order. Is it desirable or in order to have a general Debate on the whole Clause? I appreciate the speeches that have been made in favour of the exclusion of the Clause, but I would point out that my Amendment refers to the definition of a shipbuilding yard.

As there are eight Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with various parts of this Clause, may I submit that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the whole subject could be discussed on the first Amendment?

It is true that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) is confined to shipbuilding yards, and I have not so far heard any speeches that have been far away from that. A general discussion is out of the question, seeing that we are only within five minutes of the fall of the Guillotine.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in his reply, let me know whether ship plates are included, because our men are paid on a sliding scale?

I agree that it is a pity that time prevents us from having a full discussion on this very important question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault is that?"] So much time was used in the reiteration of arguments on a previous Clause that we no longer have an opportunity of examining a proposal concerning one of our principal industries. The Government have given attention to this matter and have put down this Clause as the result of very close and sympathetic consideration. After taking into account all the arguments on both sides, it has been decided to allow goods for the building and repair of ships to be imported into the United Kingdom free, provided they be consigned direct to a registered shipbuilding yard. My hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment in so earnest a speech wishes to add the words "marine engine works" so that anything consigned to marine engineering yards would be exempt from duty in exactly the same way as if it were consigned to a shipbuilding yard.

But only if the material is to be used for the building of ships.

Precisely. I was aware of that, and so I believe is the whole Committee; because we are only dealing with shipbuilding.

Are we not dealing with the refitting of ships?

Not in this Amendment.

I do not think any hon. Member is in any doubt as to the subject with which we are dealing. My hon. Friend wishes to apply the exemption to marine engineering yards, because he thought the Clause did not go far enough. My hon. Friend who followed him from a steel-making quarter thought it went too far and, therefore, the Committee will realise that to some extent these two arguments cancel each other out. I want to assure my hon. Friends that the Government have tried even before they saw the Amendment on the Paper to meet the point in advance. The difficulty is that marine engineering yards are many, and they do not always confine themselves to work for the shipbuilding trade. Many of them make equipment of an entirely different kind. Try as we would we found it impossible to devise a formula to meet my hon. Friend's point. It is administratively impossible. Therefore, my hon. Friend will understand that it is not lack of sympathy that has caused the Government to reject the principle of this Amendment. We have to have something of this kind in the Bill because our principal rivals in shipbuilding have a clause based on the same principle. In Germany and in Holland, where they have a protective system, in one case high and in the other low, they give exemption on exactly the same basis as we propose to give it here, and we are, therefore, following their practice. I wish it had been possible to accept the point put forward in the Amendment, but it has been found to be administratively impossible.

Does not Subsection (2) cover the very points covered by the Amendments?

Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer my question as to whether ship plates are included?

Do I understand that if a correct form of words could be obtained, they would be accepted by the Government?

It being half-past Ten of the Clock the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 17th February, to

Division No. 79.]	AYES.	[10.31 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Aske, Sir Robert William	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Maxton, James
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Harris, Sir Percy	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Batey, Joseph	Hicks, Ernest George	Nathan, Major H. L.
Bernays, Robert	Hirst, George Henry	Owen, Major Goronwy
Briant, Frank	Holdsworth, Herbert	Parkinson, John Allen
Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield)	Janner, Barnett	Pearson, William G.
Buchanan, George	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Pickering, Ernest H.
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Price, Gabriel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Cripps, sir Stafford	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Rothschild, James A. de
Daggar, George	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Davies, David U. (Pontypridd)	Lawson, John James	Storey, Samuel
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Leonard, William	Thompson, Luke
Edwards, Charles	Logan, David Gilbert	Thorne, William James
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Lunn, William	Tinker, John Joseph
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McEntee, Valentine L.	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Groves, Thomas E.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Craham.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Carver, Major William H.	Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Cassels, James Dale	Elmley, Viscount
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Castlereagh, Viscount	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles	Castle Stewart, Earl	Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Alien, sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Cayzer; Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Chalmers, John Rutherford	Fermoy, Lord
Atholl, Duchess of	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bailey, Eric Alfred George	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Fraser, Captain Ian
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Chotzner, Alfred James	Ganzoni, Sir John
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Clarke, Frank	Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Balniel, Lord	Clayton, Dr. George C.	Gibson, Charles Granville
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Clydesdale, Marquess of	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Glossop, C. W. H.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Colfox, Major William Philip	Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Colman, N. C. D.	Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Colville, Major David John	Goldie, Noel B.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Conant, R. J. E.	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Cook, Thomas A.	Gower, Sir Robert
Blaker, Sir Reginald	Cooke, James D.	Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Blinded, James	Courthope, Colonel Sir George L	Graves, Marjorie
Borodale, Viscount	Craven-Ellis, William	Greene, William P. C.
Bossom, A. C.	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Boulton, W. W.	Crooke, J. Smedley	Grimston, R. V.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Boyce, H. Leslie	Croom-Johnson, R. p.	Guy, J. C. Morrison
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald	Cross, R. H.	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Bracken, Brendan	Crossley, A. C.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Dawson, Sir Philip	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Hammersley, Samuel S.
Brown, Col. D. C (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Hanbury, Cecil
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Danner, P. W.	Hanley, Dennis A.
Burghley, Lord	Drewe, Cedric	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie	Duckworth, George A. V.	Hartland, George A.
Burnett, John George	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Butt, Sir Alfred	Duggan, Hubert John	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Caine, G. R. Hall-	Eastwood, John Francis	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 301.

Hillman, Dr. George B.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Selley, Harry R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Milne, Charles	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Mitcheson, G. G.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Hornby, Frank	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Horobin, Ian M.	Moreing, Adrian C.	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Horsbrugh, Florence	Moss, Captain H. J.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Howard, Tom Forrest	Munro, Patrick	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.	Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & King'dine, C.)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	North, Captain Edward T.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Nunn, William	Somerset, Thomas
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	O'Connor, Terence James	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Han. William G. A.	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Palmer, Francis Noel	Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Patrick, Colin M.	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Peake, Captain Osbert	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Peat, Charles U.	Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Ker, J. Campbell	Penny, Sir George	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Kerr, Hamilton W.	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Stones, James
Kirkpatrick, William M.	Petherick, M.	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)	Strauss, Edward A.
Knebworth, Viscount	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Knox, Sir Alfred	Procter, Major Henry Adam	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lamb. Sir Joseph Quintan	Purbrick, R.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Pybus, Percy John	Sutcliffe, Harold
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.	Tate, Mavis Constance
Leckie, J. A.	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Templeton, William P.
Lewis, Oswald	Ramsbotham, Herwald	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Liddall, Walter S.	Ramsden, E.	Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Lindsay, Noel Ker	Rankin, Robert	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Held, James S. C. (Stirling)	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Lloyd, Geoffrey	Renter, John R.	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Renwick, Major Gustav A.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Robinson, John Roland	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
McCorquodale, M. S.	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell	Wells, Sydney Richard
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Ropner, Colonel L.	Weymouth, Viscount
McEwen, J. H. F.	Rosbotham, S. T.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
McKie, John Hamilton	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
McLean, Major Alan	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Wills, Wilfrid D.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Runge, Nor ah Cecil	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo	Wise, Alfred R.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David ft.	Salmon, Major Isidore	Womersley, Walter James
Marjoribanks, Edward	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Martin, Thomas B.	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.	Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Savery, Samuel Servington	and Major George Davies.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)	Scone, Lord

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Division No. 80.]	AYES.	[10.43 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Briant, Frank
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T, (Leeds, W.)	Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.	Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles	Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'd., Hexham)
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)	Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Sernays, Robert	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)	Burghley, Lord
Aske, Sir Robert William	Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Atholl, Duchess of	Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Burnett, John George
Attlee, Clement Richard	Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)	Butt, Sir Alfred
Bailey, Eric Alfred George	Borodale, Viscount	Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Bossom, A. C.	Caine, G. R. Hall-
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Balniel, Lord	Bracken, Brendan	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

The committee divided: Ayes, 342; Noes, 29.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil	Hammersley, Samuel S.	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Carver, Major William H.	Hanbury, Cecil	Martin, Thomas B.
Cassels, James Dale	Hanley, Dennis A.	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Castlereagh, viscount	Harris, Sir Percy	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Castle Stewart, Earl	Hartland, George A.	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)	Millar, Sir James Duncan
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. Ft. (Prtsmth., S.)	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Milne, Charles
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm., W)	Heilgers, Captain F, F. A.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)	Mitcheson, G. G.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Chotzner, Alfred James	Hillman, Dr. George B.	Moreing, Adrian C.
Clarke, Frank	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Clydesdale, Marquess of	Hirst, George Henry	Moss, Captain H. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.	Munro, Patrick
Colfox, Major William Philip	Holdsworth, Herbert	Nathan, Major H. L.
Colman, N. C. D.	Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Colville, Major David John	Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Conant, R. J. E.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	North, Captain Edward T.
Cook, Thomas A.	Hornby, Frank	O'Connor, Terence James
Cooke, James D.	Horobin, Ian M.	O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.	Horsbrugh, Florence	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Craven-Ellis, William	Howard, Tom Forrest	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Owen, Major Goronwy
Crooke, J. Smedley	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Palmer, Francis Noel
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Parkinson, John Allen
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Patrick, Colin M.
Cross, R. H.	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Peake, Captain Osbert
Crossley, A. C.	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Pearson, William G.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Penny, Sir George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Jackson, sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Dawson, Sir Philip	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Petherick, M.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.	Janner, Barnett	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Dickie, John P.	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Pickering, Ernest H.
Donner, P. W.	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Drewe, Cedric	John, William	Price, Gabriel
Duckworth, George A. V.	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Purbrick, R.
Duggan, Hubert John	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Pybus, Percy John
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Eastwood, John Francis	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Eden, Robert Anthony	Ker, J. Campbell	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Edwards, Charles	Kirkpatrick, William M.	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Ramsden, E.
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey	Knebworth, Viscount	Rankin, Robert
Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Rea, Walter Russell
Elmley, Viscount	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Latham, Sir Herbert Paul	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Lawson, John James	Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Leckie, J. A.	Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Reynolds, Col. Sir James Philip
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)	Leonard, William	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Fermoy, Lord	Lewis, Oswald	Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Liddall, Walter S.	Robinson, John Roland
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Lindsay, Noel Ker	Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Ropner, Colonel L.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Rosbotham, S. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ganzoni, Sir John	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)	Rothschild, James A. de
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Gibson, Charles Granville	Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.	Runge, Norah Cecil
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Lunn, William	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Glossop, C. w. H.	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Mabane, William	Salmon, Major Isidore
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.	MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Goff, Sir Park	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Goldie, Noel B.	McCorquodale, M. S.	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Gower, Sir Robert	McEntee, Valentine L.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. O.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)	McEwen, J. H. F.	Savery, Samuel Servington
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	McKie, John Hamilton	Scone, Lord
Graves, Marjorie	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Selley, Harry R.
Greene, William P. C.	McLean, Major Alan	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Grundy, Thomas W.	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Magnay, Thomas	Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Guy, J. C. Morrison	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Mander, Geoffrey le M.	Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)	Marjoribanks, Edward	Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Somerset, Thomas	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-
Somervell, Donald Bradley	Sutcliffe, Harold	Wells, Sydney Richard
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Tate, Mavis Constance	Weymouth, Viscount
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)	Templeton, William P.	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Soper, Richard	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.	Thompson, Luke	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.	Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.	Thorp, Linton Theodore	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Spencer, Captain Richard A.	Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo	Wise, Alfred R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement	Womersley, Walter James
Stones, James	Turton, Robert Hugh	Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Storey, Samuel	Wallace, John (Dunfermline)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Stourton, Hon. John J.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Strauss, Edward A.	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.	Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
		and Mr. Blinded.

NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Groves, Thomas E.	Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Batey, Joseph	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Boulton, W. W.	Hicks, Ernest George	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Boyce, H. Leslie	Knox, Sir Alfred	Thorne, William James
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Daggar, George	Nunn, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Peat, Charles U.	Mr. Louis Smith and Major
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Remer, John R.	Beaumont Thomas.

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.

China And Japan

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain, Margesson.]

I would have preferred, as I expect the House would have preferred, that the subject which I am going to ask it to consider for a few minutes should have been dealt with at an earlier part of the day and have had a longer time devoted to it, but I understand there is very little likelihood of our getting a day for its discussion for some little time, at least, and also that the Foreign Secretary may have to leave England to go to Geneva, and I felt, as I think the Foreign Secretary does, that a rather fuller statement than is possible at Question Time ought to be made at the earliest possible moment. We are all aware of the difficulties of the situation, and we want the House to understand that we are leaving the responsibility to the Government. I shall state our own view about the matter, but in the last resort responsibility for whatever action is taken must rest with the Government. We as an Opposition cannot accept any responsibility. There is one point on which I wish to ask the Foreign Secretary if he can give us any information. A good many people in this country and elsewhere are concerned to know whether there is any real Red Cross organisation—

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what subject he is talking about?

If the hon. Member does not mind I will—

But you have not mentioned the subject.

I am sorry. I thought everyone knew that the subject was Shanghai, and the difficulties that have arisen there. I gave notice of it at Question Time, and I took it for granted that everyone knew. I would like, if possible, to hear whether there are any Red Cross hospitals or units out there, and also whether the Foreign Secretary can say whether any effort has been made to remove non-combatants, women and children, from the area of the fighting. I ask that question because I have read in some Press telegrams, though I am not taking it for granted that it is true, that women and children were being killed during the fighting. The fundamental question to which everything I say will lead is; What actual immediate means do the Government intend to take—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Margesson.]

I want to ask the Foreign Secretary what actual immediate means the British Government intend to take through the League of Nations to bring about an Armistice and a conference for ending the dispute. Whatever any of us may say or think, that is the most important question both to-day and to-morrow. I want also to say—and I beg the House to bear with me, even if hon. Members thoroughly disagree with what I am saying; I am going to try to say nothing of a provocative character if I can help it—I want to state our position if I may, and to put a question to the Foreign Secretary as it is my duty to do as a Member of the House. I am also speaking for my hon. Friends behind me. We acknowledge to the full that the fighting area is a dangerous and difficult one, and that that danger and difficulty arise because of its nearness to the international settlement. The right hon. Gentleman who was Foreign Secretary in the late Conservative Government will remember that when a similar difficulty arose in regard to the British Government and our own troops, we took the line, quite definitely, that the best and most pacific measures to take were to evacuate, not only civilians, but the troops as well. We—and I say this after a very great deal of consideration—would prefer to leave the bricks and mortar and property to take care of themselves, rather than that at any period our soldiers, our sailors, or our civilians should be involved.

I believe, and I think the Foreign Secretary will agree with me, that there is a very large body of opinion that feels that the League of Nations should bring into operation some of the powers which we believe rest in the Covenant of the League. I do not want to say which of the powers or what of the powers should be used; nor am I going to say that I wish them to be used at this moment, but only that the British Government and the other Governments connected with the Council of the League must freely make up their minds whether they are ever going to consider taking some action, drastic action, in order to bring the conflict to an end; whether by economic measures or by withdrawing Ambassadors is for the Government to consider.

I do not think that the civilised world can stand still and see this thing that is happening carried right through to the bitter end without any protest. I would point out that the League of Nations last week, through its Council, has put it. on record clearly and distinctly—I am not bringing up anything that is not public knowledge and that is not officially put on record—that Japan has refused arbitration, and disregarded her obligations under the Covenant, the Nine-Power Treaty and the Kellogg Pact.

Then I want to say that we who sit here—and I hope that this applies to everyone in the House—are neither pro-Japanese nor pro-Chinese; we are pro-humanity. We are internationalists, and in this matter our interest is not to gain an advantage for one country over the other—not even for our own country over another. I would like to say this, and I would like to say it to the Japanese people. The people of China, as the people of Japan did years ago, have suffered very considerably through the interference of foreign nations in their affairs. I think the people of Japan ought to remember that Japan herself, not so many years ago, got rid of the power of foreign nations to act in her ports as we are able to act in certain treaty ports now, and I think that the Chinese people have a right—an inalienable right—to say that the day must come, and ought to come soon, when China's ports and her territory shall be under her own control.

There is one thing in that connection that I would like to put to the Foreign Secretary, and I do so without a shred of suspicion on my part that what I am going to put to him is true, but I want him publicly to contradict it here. There is a very widespread belief in China, and I have had this brought to me on the very best authority, that some of the Powers are in alliance with Japan, that some of the Great Powers have encouraged Japan to take the action she has taken, telling her that in the end the Great Powers would not interfere with her. I cannot believe for a moment that anything of that kind can be true, but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will stand up and tell us the truth about it, and categorically deny it.

The other thing that I want to say in that connection is with regard to something that was raised by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) this afternoon. I would remind him that, when the ultimatum was delivered to the Chinese General, the Chinese General replied that he had sent the ultimatum to the Government in China at Nanking, from whom he took his orders. The question was raised this afternoon as to which Government in China the General was responsible to. He himself has put that on record. I would ask the House to remember that, when the right hon. Gentleman was Foreign Secretary in 1926, he took a line which I hope will be taken to-day. I cannot believe that the present Foreign Secretary will take any different line from that which the right hon. Gentleman took then. It will not take me a minute to put it to the House.

Let me first say that Japan undertook, in the Nine-Power Treaty signed in Washington, to provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable. Government; and in 1926, when our British goods were boycotted and British lives and property were in danger, the British Government adopted a policy of liberal and friendly co-operation with the new China; and, in a memorandum by the right hon. Gentleman to China on the 28th May, he laid down the principle which I now recall, and to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will still subscribe, that all the Powers should abandon the idea that the economic and political development of China can only be secured under foreign tutelage, and that it should be the policy of the Powers to endeavour to maintain harmonious relations with China, without waiting for or insisting on the prior establishment of a strong central Government. I have recalled that because I think that is the central doctrine which needs to be kept in mind at this moment.

I am not, as the House knows, acquainted with foreign affairs as hon. Members are. I have had no experience of them, directly or indirectly. I should like, if I have the power, to say to the Japanese Government and nation what I am saying to this House. In private life, in public affairs, or in international affairs, when people rely on brute force, and break their word, and do the sort of things which are not usually done between man and man, it produces Dead Sea fruit. The Japanese military forces may overwhelm the Chinese forces, but they will reap Dead Sea fruit as a result. That is the lesson of all Imperialist domination, and I beg the House to remember, I beg the so-called civilised world to remember, that this great struggle is the old economic struggle of one Power against another in order to obtain either raw materials or markets. We want peace at home and abroad and we want it on the only lines that it ever can be secured, that is, on the basis of co-operation between men and women for the good of one another. We believe that, if the Western world has anything to give to the Eastern world, it must give them the law of co-operation and not the law of fighting, the law of brotherhood and not the law of death.

I warmly agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is desirable to take such opportunity as is open to the House for a rather more continuous statement about the very serious situation that has developed and is now existing in the Far East. I told the House to-day, in answer to a question, that in a day or two there will be available in a White Paper the reports that have been sent from Shanghai to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations in connection with the investigation that the League of Nations is making. Perhaps it would be convenient if I occupy two or three minutes in placing before the House as clearly as I can how it appears this struggle at Shanghai actually arose. The House is aware, of course, that the international settlement, spreading along the north side of the river, is a very large area, something like eight miles in length and an average of a mile, perhaps, in depth, and it is occupied in common by a large number of foreign nations. There is no division of it up between Americans, British, Italians, Japanese and so forth. We are aware, of course, also that outside the international settlement there is a large part of the Chinese population of Shanghai and many Chinese live also in the settlement. It was on 18th January, according to this report which the House will receive to-morrow or the next day, that the immediate trouble began, but before that date, for a long time, certainly running back into the middle of last year, there had been a very intense anti-Japanese boycott operating in this great Chinese city. It was a boycott of the most severe kind, including not only the refusal to buy, but including penalties and punishments of all sorts imposed upon all those concerned with Japanese trade. On 18th January there was an attack on some five Japanese, not inside the settlement, but just to the north of it, in the suburb with which we are all now familiar. I mean the suburb of Chapei. A few days later there came the counter-blow. Fifty Japanese youths armed, we are told, with knives and clubs, went to the place where this attack occurred, set a factory on fire, and on the way back came into very serious collision with the police of the Settlement: There was killing on both sides.

Thereupon, the Japanese Consul presented five demands to the Mayor of Greater Shanghai, that is to say, the Chinese Mayor. He demanded an apology, compensation, punishment of the wrongdoers, the stopping of the boycott, and so on. That was on the 20th January. On the next day, a Japanese admiral, who was a commander of some Japanese ships in the river, declared that unless a satisfactory reply was given, he was going to protect his Japanese Nationals. Japanese reinforcements arrived in the river some three or four days afterwards, and a week elapsed from the first demands when on 27th January the Japanese Consul announced that there must be a satisfactory reply by 6 p.m. the next day. In that situation the Municipal Council of the Settlement—the Settlement has its own municipality and to a large extent governs itself—considered that a situation arose which justified declaring a state of emergency, and various guards and troops therefore took up their places, and it so happened, for the purposes of defending the International Settlement, a portion of the lines of defence extend outside the boundary of the International Settlement, and project into the Chinese town. There may be strategical reasons for that, but it is an unfortunate circumstance. Just as a decision was reached that there must be a state of emergency proclaimed—in fact, the same afternoon that the state of emergency was to come into operation—the Chinese Mayor announced that he accepted all demands made upon him.

That, I think, is stating quite impartially how the matter arose. The view taken by the Japanese Admiral was that he was not satisfied with these promises. The view taken by the Municipal Council was that the emergency really continued and that the Settlement must be protected, and the consequence was that very shortly afterwards some Japanese marines were landed and the trouble began. I am not attempting to apportion the blame, but it is desirable to understand how the matter began, because it has now reached dimensions which everybody who cares for the authority of the League of Nations, for the maintenance of peace, and for the preservation of good relations between the different nations of the world must regard with the most profound disquiet. Here perhaps I may be allowed to say without offence that I greatly appreciate the public spirit and moderation with which the right hon. Gentleman has brought these matters before the House.

The House is familiar with the way in which the thing developed. It has reached very serious dimensions. The actual situation is this: In spite of the fact that the League of Nations appointed a commission which very promptly went on its way and will very soon be on the spot, a commission which, let the House observe, was appointed with the assent of the Japanese representatives in order to investigate the relations between China and Japan which were calculated to produce disturbance and conflict; in spite of the fact that the four Governments of the United States, France, Italy and ourselves, the four principal foreign Powers immediately interested in the Settlement, made proposals on 2nd February to the Japanese Government, which it is fair to say the Chinese authorities said they would accept but to some of which the Japanese authori- ties took exception; in spite of the fact that the League of Nations, through its council, unanimously addressed a note of appeal to the Japanese Government on 16th February, we are faced with the situation which is now before us. We are faced with the lamentable fact that, in spite of all these efforts which have been made to establish on a firm foundation a new world order and to secure that disputes between members of the League shall be solved peaceably, by methods of conciliation; in spite of the fact that the Kellogg Pact and the Pact of Paris, which both these nations have signed, and to which America and ourselves and other nations were parties, denounced war as an instrument of policy —in spite of this fact fighting is actually going on at this moment on Chinese soil, between the forces of two members of the League and, indeed, of two members who, as it happens, at the present time are both members of the council of the League.

I should like to state what I conceive to be the principles of British policy in facing this most disastrous and dangerous state of affairs. I will try to formulate them under three heads. First of all, let me advance this proposition—I am sure for the general acceptance of the House—that the British Government will direct the full influence of Britain, in conjunction with other Powers, whether they are members of the League or not, to support the moral authority of the League of Nations. However disappointing it is to find that in this instance—in some respects, a very very difficult case—the League of Nations has not been able to prevent the outbreak of fighting, let us recognise that the League is the organised expression of public opinion of a very large part of the world. I say on behalf of the British Government, and on my own behalf, with deep conviction, that it is only by affirming with boldness and sincerity the principles of the League that we shall find the best means of restoring peace. Japan and China both remain members of the League. Representatives speaking in their name are at present at the Council table, and, if we show ourselves devoted to the purposes of the League, the time may soon come, notwithstanding the wreckage of our hopes, when the moral authority of the League will be seen to exercise its influence on the side of peace. To my way of thinking that is a proposition which we all may affirm. Great Britain has, from the beginning of this unhappy trouble, shown that she is ready to lend her good offices, whether in combination with other members of the League or in association with the United States of America, or in any other way that is most practical. Our Minister, Sir Miles Lampson, our Consul-General, Mr. Brenan, and our Ambassador at Tokio, Sir Francis Lindley, have all exerted themselves to the utmost, and we stand ready, at the first moment which offers itself as a useful and practical occasion, to serve the cause of peace and help in any arrangements which may put an end to this horrible conflict between two nations, with both of whom Great Britain remains in friendly relations.

The third proposition is this: The British Government are in a very special degree charged with the protection and defence of British interests, and there is no part of the world in which it can be said with more complete truth than in the Far East that British interests are summed up in the words "Peace and trade." We do not seek to secure trade through the boycott of other people. We have made, we believe, the most complete arrangements for the safety of life and property in the International Settlement, and the right hon. Gentleman may consider, as a matter of fact, that those in the International Settlement are feeling quite secure. I deplore the incidents which have occurred and while we have made it plain to both parties that we must reserve our rights, we look to them to continue their efforts to avoid injuring innocent neutrals in any way possible. But this is far from being the full extent of our duties, because I agree that the duty of the British Government and the duty of its representatives at Geneva, as well as of the whole of this House, is above all to use its influence in the best way it can to get the fighting stopped and the bloodshed ended. I am quite aware that in some quarters there is a desire, as is only natural, to discuss other aspects of this matter, and apportion blame, but I must point out what is really the nature of the duty which the League of Nations has been called upon to discharge. This dispute has been brought before the Council and before the Assembly, and the duty of the League is to collect as rapidly as possible all the information, and to hear both sides. As I have already said, and must repeat, it would be quite improper for anyone to attempt to pronounce a partial or interim judgment in a matter where everything depends on the report which will have to be made by the League of Nations, recognised on both sides as proceeding from a complete sense of impartiality. In this matter, therefore, I feel sure that the House, in supporting the Government, will reflect the opinion of the country.

As one who has held the same responsible office which is filled by the Foreign Secretary, and held it in less but still in critical times in the Far East, I desire, for what my support may be worth, to assure him of my whole-hearted approval of the statement he has just made. I am sure that in this matter it is unwise to show a preference until the League's investiga- tion has taken place, and until we have its report and its advice; and that for this House and hon. Members to advocate the cause of one or other of the parties in the meantime must be injurious to the authority of His Majesty's Government and through them to the authority of the League. I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as the proper policy for the Government to pursue and I hope we may leave it at that.

I intended to say to the Leader of the Opposition that, of course, I most gladly do what he asks, that is to give the most absolute contradiction, as far as any knowledge of mine goes, to the suggestion that there is any secret compact or understanding whatever.

It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Volume 262: debated on Monday 22 February 1932

House Of Commons

British Museum

Oral Answers To Questions

India

Situation

Imperial Economic Conference

Export Duties

Tea Industry, Assam

Attack On Armouries, Chittagong

Congress Flag

Kashmir

Ordinances

Prisoners

Discharged Officers (Compensation)

Franchise Committee

Disturbances, Beranpore

Burma

Chamber Of Princes

Congress Workers (Refreshments)

Russia

Lena Goldfields (Arbitration Award)

Debts, Claims And Counter-Claims

Reparations And War Debts

Manchuria

China And Japan

Floods, China (Relief)

Trade And Commerce

Export Credits (Russia)

South America (Press Service)

Safeguarding Duties (Translucent Wares)

Cotton Exports (Indian And Australia)

United States Liquor Laws (British Whisky)

Agriculture

Sugar-Beet

Spraying Materials

Canadian Tomatoes And Foreign Tomato Pulp (Imports)

Meat And Meat Products

Post Office

Press Telegrams (Charges)

Committee Of Inquiry

Petrol Supplies

Grand Opera (Government Grant)

Transport

Waterloo Bridge

Road Services Liofwces

League Of Nations (Building Contracts)

Coal Industry

Export Trade (France)

Bandon Hold Colliery (Accident)

Government Departments (Conscientious Objectors)

Business Of The House

British Museum

Orders Of The Day

Import Duties Bill

Clause 4—(Preference For Dominions, India And Southern Rhodesia)

Clause 5—(Colonial Preference)

Clause 6—(Application Of S 8 Of 9 And 10 Geo 5 C 32 For Purpose Of Imperial Preference Under Part 1)

Clause 7—(Preference In Case Of Certain Foreign Goods)

Clause 8—(Charge Of Duty In Case Of Composite Goods)

Clause 9—(Power Of Board Of Trade To Require Information)

Clause 10—(Prevention Of Disclosure Of Information)

Clause 11—(Provision As To Shipbuilding Yards)

China And Japan