asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed at the coal mines of Lancashire on 31st March and 30th April, 1932, respectively?

The number of wage earners employed at coal mines in Lancashire and Cheshire on 31st March, 1932, was 68,569, and on 30th April, 68,968.

asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed at the coal mines in Yorkshire on 30th April, 1931, and 30th April, 1932?

On 30th April, 1932, 155,400 wage earners were employed at coal mines in Yorkshire as compared with 163,200 at the corresponding date in 1931.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the total amount of British coal imported into Canada during 1931, and the total amount imported into that Dominion from the United States of America?

As the particulars for which the hon. Member asks are somewhat de-

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there is any duty on British coal entering Canada; and, if so, will he state the amount per ton?

United Kingdom coal pays an import duty of 35 cents a ton (of 2,000 lbs.) and a special excise duty of 3 per cent. United Kingdom anthracite enters free of import duty, but pays the excise duty of 3 per cent.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether the negotiations with the Governments of Belgium and Germany with regard to the restrictions imposed by those countries on the importation of British coal have now reached a successful conclusion; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of setting a time limit after which retaliatory action shall be taken by imposing special duties against German and Belgian goods under the powers provided by the Import Duties Act?

Will this matter be discussed at Ottawa, in view of the increasing number of miners unemployed in this country?

Every effort will be made by the British delegation at Ottawa to get reciprocal treatment, and I know of no better field than coal.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will take all possible steps to secure the successful conclusion of these negotiations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? Is the discussion never to be brought to a conclusion? Is it going on indefinitely?

No, Sir; it cannot go on indefinitely, but we do not think it necessary at this stage to take the steps suggested.

In the discussions that have taken place have the countries named referred to our import duties in relation to their restriction of coal imports?

They have made no reference whatever to our import duties.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to state exactly why they are restricting coal imports to the extent that they are?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government propose to take in regard to the hours and wages in the coal industry?

I hope to be in a position to make a statement within the next few days.

If a question is put down on Monday next, will the Minister be able to make a statement then?

If the hon. Member puts down a question for Thursday, I hope to be able to give a reply then.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when the Bill will be brought in?

No, I am afraid I cannot anticipate the statement which will be made on Thursday.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to terminate the commercial treaties with France and Germany, in view of the fact that the introduction of quotas in regard to certain British products entering these countries has minimised any advantages to this country under the most-favoured-nation clause in the existing treaties?

There is no present intention of terminating the treaties in question but the existence of import quotas in other countries will have to be taken into account in determining the future treaty policy of this country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of motor-car bodies holding up to six persons, and of those holding over six, exported in 1930 and 1931, respectively; and how many of these were exported to the Irish Free State?.

I regret that I am unable to furnish particulars of the exports of motor-car bodies as these are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the reason for the delay in the publication by the Board of the report on the industrial outlook in the cotton trade in Lancashire by the committee of the University of Manchester; and if he will see that it is issued without more delay?

There has been no avoidable delay in connection with the publication of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. It was the last to be received of a series of five reports on industrial surveys which are now being printed for publication. Proofs of the report are at the present time with the University of Manchester for purposes of final revision and, when this has been completed, publication will take place at the earliest practicable date.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that more than 30 per cent. of British ships entering the port of Manchester were found to be insanitary; that the death rate of British seamen is over 70 per cent. in excess of the normal mortality rate; and what action is being taken to improve the quarters of the crew and the sanitation on British ships?

I am aware that the medical officer of health to the Port Sanitary Authority of Manchester has stated in his report for 1930 that of 1,324 British vessels entering the port in that year, 395 have been found on inspection to be insanitary. This number covers defective as well as insanitary vessels and in many cases the ships had small defects, due to voyage damage or wear and tear, which were remedied before the ships sailed again. The action taken to improve the crew accommodation in British ships is indicated in the statement the President of the Board of Trade circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 7th July last. As regards mortality due to disease arising from the character of the occupation, the special investigation of which this House was informed on the 24th December, 1929, has been completed and the report will be published as soon as possible. It will show that the shipping industry does not compare unfavourably with other industries in this respect.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a Press report in a very authoritative quarter to the effect that the accommodation on these British ships is not as good as the accommodation on foreign ships? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

I have not seen the statement, but if I had seen it, I should have disagreed, as I do now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is the general complaint of the whole mercantile marine service of the country?

No, none of the organisations of the British mercantile marine has made any complaint whatever on the subject.

The men have.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the report by his Department upon the affairs of the St. Mary's Shipping Company, Cardiff, is still denied to shareholders; whether, in view of the provisions of the Companies Act for the protection of shareholders, he will state what action is taken by his Department when an inspector of the Board of Trade reports upon any particular company; and whether in future any such report will be made available to Members of the House of Commons and to shareholders of the company concerned?

A complaint in the sense of the first part of the question has been made to me. A copy of the report of an inspector appointed by the Board of Trade to investigate the affairs of a company in the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers is sent to the company concerned and to the applicants at whose request the investigation is ordered. A copy is also sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions where it is considered necessary under Section 136 of the Companies Act. As the hon. Member was informed yesterday, this has been done in regard to the report made on the affairs of the St. Mary's Shipping Company, Cardiff, and I have no authority to direct that the report shall be made available to other persons.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department intends to restart the work on roads, bridges, and tunnels in order to provide work for unemployed men?

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement of policy I made on 6th May in presenting the Estimates of my Department.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) the latest figures of unemployment for April and May, 1932, and the increase or decrease over the previous month;

(2) the number of persons unemployed registered in the Stratford and Canning Town Employment Exchanges, giving the figures for such Exchanges separately for the month of October, 1931; and whether he will give similar figures for the month ended 30th April, 1932?

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increasing number of evasions in connection with the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, he proposes to increase the number of inspectors?

I have no reason to suppose that the number of evasions of the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act is increasing. The second part of the question consequently does not arise.

Are we to understand that the number of complaints to the Department is not increasing at the moment?

The examinations of test inspections, during the six months ended March, 1932, show that, of the workers' wages investigated, the percentage of cases of workers being underpaid was the same as that in the year ended September, 1931.

Is it not the case that fewer inspections are taking place and that the complaints that have been sent to the Department invariably show that the workers are underpaid?

No, Sir. I have no reason to suppose that there is any increase over last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the continued need expressed by Sir John Hope Simpson, the chairman of the Chinese Flood Relief Commission, for financial aid to the extent of £220,000, he will urge at the coming meeting of the League of Nations Council the granting by each State represented on the League of Nations of a grant in proportion to their resources towards this sum?

The position as regards a grant by His Majesty's Government for the purposes of flood relief in China has not changed since the reply given to the hon. Member on the 25th of April last. My right hon. Friend cannot, therefore, undertake to urge other Governments to make a grant.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will, in the interests of economy, make representations to the League of Nations to the effect that, while we are prepared to pay our proportion of the expenses of the League on the assumption that all other members of the League pay theirs, we are not prepared to pay an additional sum to make good defaults in payment of other members of the League?

No, Sir. The non-payment of contributions to the League by certain of its members is not made good by additional contributions from this country, but out of surplus funds of the League. I would remind my hon. Friend that, as has previously been explained, it has been the practice of the League in some years to reduce contributions of States Members of the League by the deduction, in proportionate shares, of the surplus from the previous year. To this extent the contributions of the States who have paid their allotted shares punctually have possibly not been reduced to the extent they might have been if all contributions had been paid promptly.

Will the hon. Gentleman put forward the suggestion that representatives of those countries that have not paid their contributions should not take part in the deliberations and decisions of the League in the meantime?

asked the Minister of Health if he will give the number of men and women, separately, in receipt of public assistance in the Walthamstow and Leyton area at the end of September, 1931, and similar figures at the latest date for which such figures are available; and if he will give the number per 10,000 of the population on the same respective dates?

The returns made to my Department relate to counties and county boroughs as a whole. My right hon. Friend regrets, therefore, that the figures sought are not available.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement as to the future policy of the Government with reference to the Rent Restrictions Act?

asked the Prime Minister on what date the Rent Bill will be introduced?

I hope very shortly to make a general statement about the business for the rest of the Session.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the prevalence of fraudulent practices in business, as proved by oases recently before the courts, he will consider setting up a Royal Commission to inquire into the extent of these practices and the part played by banks in such transactions, and with a view to suggesting measures for providing for a more complete disclosure of transactions by public companies and for a greater control over new capital issues in order to protect the investor against fraudulent flotations?

I am not aware of any circumstances connected with recent cases before the courts which call for the appointment of a Royal Commission. In my view the existing law is sufficient to deal with fraudulent practices such as the hon. Member has in mind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a very large number of cases comparatively poor people have lost all their savings by putting money into these fraudulent flotations?

If any Royal Commission is appointed, will the right hon. Gentleman include co-operative societies within the scope of its reference?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the reply given by the Attorney-General recently in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed that someone ought to be dealt with in connection with the Kreuger business, but that he had no power; and does he not think that in such cases the Government ought to take power?

I was not aware of that reply, but it would hardly justify the setting up of a Royal Commission.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that as a result of appeals to take such shares made to investors all over the country large sums of money have been lost and that the Government have no power to deal with those persons who push shares.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any definite statement as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the consolidation of bonus and salaries in the Civil Service?

My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the present staff employed by the Tariff Advisory Committee; whether this staff will need to be increased in the near future; and to what extent it has been found possible to reduce the staff of the Board of Trade in view of the amount of work previously performed by that Department which have now been transferred to the Tariff Advisory Committee?

A statement of the staff at present employed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee was circulated in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT. Proposals for a small increase of staff are at present under consideration. The question of reducing the staff of the Board of Trade by reason of the constitution of the Committee does not arise, as the Committee's work is new work arising from the Import Duties Act, 1932.

From what sources will this new staff be drawn?

Probably from other Government Departments, and some are being recruited.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cost to the Crown of the recent Silks trial up to the period of conviction?

I understand that the accounts of expenses in connection with this case have not yet been completed, and I am, therefore, not in a position to give the information desired by the hon. Member.

Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea when they will be completed?

No, I am afraid I cannot, but I shall be glad to give the information as soon as I can.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the weekly cost per patient in Mearnskirk sanatorium?

The weekly cost per patient in Mearnskirk Sanatorium during the year ended the 31st May, 1931 (the only full year for which figures are at present available) was £3 14s. 8d.

Before we part with this Clause hon. Members ought to have a clearer understanding of the grave possibilities involved and the constitutional departure that we are making. Last evening this question was discussed at some length, but a large number of hon. Members who are here now had not the privilege of listening to the Debate. We wish, therefore, to emphasize again our opposition to the policy enunciated in this Clause. We regard it as most extraordinary and as a constitutional departure for which a National Government ought not to be responsible. There are grave possibilities in the House of Commons delegating its power to other persons. Whether it be a question of imported meat or wheat being taxed or one of the items now in the Free List being taxed, the House of Commons ought in. the last resort to be the power that determines whether import duties should be imposed.

3.30 p.m.

May I remind hon. Members of what happened in the last day or two during the Committee and Report stages of the Import Duties Act? Every hon. Member will recall that although the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) had for years demanded Protection as a be-all and end-all, as the solution for all our industrial troubles, he sought to exclude soya beans from the import duty because he realised that to impose a duty upon a cattle food would be placing a further burden upon farmers. In the same way the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) saw the danger of imposing a duty upon precious and semi-precious stones, and appealed to the Chancellor to exclude them, because they were used by some traders in Birmingham for the production of articles either to beautify ladies or for utility purposes. If it be true, as the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth said, that to impose a, duty on soya beans would increase the price of them to the farmers, then a duty would have the same effect in increasing the price of any other commodity. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) told us on the last day of the Report stage—I am sure the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) will recollect this, because he sat beside the Noble Lord at the time—that he had information to show that unless lead and zinc were included in the Free List—

I was not sitting beside the Noble Lord. I was having dinner at the time.

I am awfully sorry the hon. Member was not present, because I think it would have been an education for him as to the dangers of Protection. However, the Noble Lord did indicate that even the threat of a duty on zinc and lead had brought about an increase of 7 per cent. in the price, and so that as both those metals are a raw material of important industries in this country such an increase of price would be deadly to those industries. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), who has always been a loyal devotee of what he calls Protection, who followed the Noble Lord, also saw the danger of imposing a duty upon lead and zinc. All these things lead to the conclusion that while certain industries may be assisted by duties there are other industries which find a duty upon their raw materials having a deadly effect.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in one of his extraordinarily agile speeches, tried last night to place the Opposition on the horns of a dilemma. He said: "The Opposition have to make up their mind whether they are going to support a system whereby we shall have cheap meat, which will result in the agricultural labourers in this country having a very small wage, or whether they will agree to a duty upon imported meat, increasing the price of it, so that the agricultural labourer can obtain a decent wage." That really is not the case. First of all, we regard Clause 6 as a departure from constitutional practice. If it is true that the moment has arisen when, in the national interest, and in the interest of agriculture and of agricultural labourers, it becomes necessary to impose a duty upon imported meat, then let the House of Commons impose the duty, and not delegate their power to three persons who may, conceivably, inflict untold harm upon millions of people, at a time when the House is not in session. We are not accepting the dilemma suggested by the hon. Gentleman. During the Whitsuntide holiday I had the experience of passing through a good deal of agricultural country, and no one can deny that depression has descended upon agriculture in many places, but I am also reminded, every time I arrive at my home, that there are tens of thousands of mine workers who never know where the next meal is coming from. Fewer miners are at work, and those who are employed are working a fewer number of days, and their wages have almost reached vanishing point. In some parts of South Yorkshire men, women and children are turned out of their houses because they are unable to pay present-day rents, and I shall need a lot of persuading before I can agree to three persons, no matter how intelligent or how capable they may be, having the power to impose further burdens upon those wretched creatures, who scarcely know where the next meal is to come from.

I agree that the National Government have the power to do just as they will. We are willing to concede to a National Government the power to do what they think is right at the moment, but we are equally unwilling to allow a committee of three, with no responsibility to the House of Commons, no responsibility to the electorate, and no responsibility to observe our constitutional procedure, to determine what is to be the standard of life for vast numbers of people who would work regularly if they had the opportunity, but who, owing to causes over which they have no control, are at this moment living under terrifying conditions. We are hostile to duties being placed upon wheat or meat at all, and we are hostile to duties being placed upon raw materials which are vital to our in- dustries without the House of Commons having the opportunity of dealing with the question; and therefore we protest against this Clause being included in the Bill; and we are hopeful that all the Members of the Liberal party, whether they are attached to the Liberal National party or to the free Liberal party, and whether they form part of the Cabinet or not, will join with us in the Lobby in a protest against what we regard as a very undesirable and unconstitutional departure.

I have listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and in particular to his account of what happened during the Committee stage of the Import Duties Act. I hope he will take the trouble to re-read those Debates, and then I think he will come to the conclusion that his memory has been a little at fault. He made a reference to soya beans. Soya beans were not put on the Free List primarily because of agricultural interests in this country. He implied that some of us supported soya beans being transferred to the Free List because we were afraid the cost of cattle cake would be raised. But that was not the reason. It happens that the soya bean produces a lot of oil and a lot of cake, and there is a very large re-export trade in that cake, and it might well be that we could not persuade foreign consumers to go on buying that cake. It also happens that monkey nuts or ground nuts—they have many titles; we know them as monkey nuts when were are school boys and when we grow up we call them ground nuts— furnish an oil very similar to that of the soya bean and a cake that is equally good for cattle feeding, and therefore they could just as well feed their cattle on ground nut cake as on soya bean cake. There was, therefore, a risk of some interruption in a very important export trade in soya bean oil and soya bean cake, which in favourable years rises to a total of £1,000,000. For that reason some of us thought that soya beans should be on the Free List.

I have risen to say this because I did not wish our motives to be misunderstood. If at the time we were discussing the Import Duties Act there had been a Clause allowing drawbacks which would have made it possible for those in the soya bean industry to obtain a drawback in respect of re-exports of soya bean oil or soya bean cake, the attitude some of us would have taken with regard to soya beans would have been different. That happened because the Import Duties Act did not contain that very important Amendment which is contained in Clause 8 of this Bill. The hon. Member for Don Valley said that we should not delegate power to a Committee that might inflict injuries on the country while the House is not sitting. May I point out to the hon. Member that under the terms of the Import Duties Act which we are amending the Advisory Committee can do nothing of that kind, and under this Clause they have to take into account not only the interests of the producers but of the consumers as well. They have to investigate all the circumstances, and, even assuming that they do indulge in the indiscretions which the hon. Member for Don Valley fears, it is only a very limited period before the House meets again, and the indiscretions of the Advisory Committee can then be brought to an end.

I support this Clause because it will enable the Advisory Committee to consider the transfer to the Dutiable List of articles which are now on the Free List and which may be there for all time. They may be commodities not produced in any great quantity in the United Kingdom or the British Empire. There are other commodities produced in more adequate quantities in the United Kingdom and the Empire, and therefore it is a matter of business whether they should or should not remain on the Free List. An instance of that is furnished in the case of news print. A specific pledge was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Clause would be introduced into the Finance Bill in order that news print manufacturers might have an opportunity of submitting their case to an exhaustive examination. This Clause is carrying out that specific pledge.

I am anxious that the Advisory Committee shall, with perfect freedom, have the opportunity of transferring temporarily any articles which are at present dutiable to the Free List on the ground that the existing circumstances are such that it is not desirable that those articles shall be made dutiable for the time being, recognising that later on it may be desirable to make them dutiable. The Treasury have power, under the Import Duties Act, to transfer articles to the Free List, and then they are deemed to be in the Schedule of the Import Duties Act and cannot be transferred back. Obviously, it will make the whole thing more flexible if an article can be transferred from the Free List after examination. If the Advisory Committee has that power, it gives them the opportunity of transferring articles to the Free List. The Advisory Committee might hesitate about saying that a thing ought to be on the Free List because it might be of the opinion, in regard to a certain article that, after a period has elapsed, the production of that articie will have so much increased that the manufacturers might be able to supply the whole of the home market at a reasonable price, and in those circumstances the Advisory Committee might decide to indulge in the risk of maintaining a duty which otherwise might not be justified.

We do not object to the National Government doing what the hon. Member has just stated, but we object to this particular power being delegated to a committee of three persons. If the House of Commons wishes to add or withdraw from the Free List any articles, the House should have that power, and it ought not to be delegated to a committee.

The hon. Member for Don Valley may object to the Advisory Committee on constitutional grounds or on practical grounds, but I am very much more concerned with the practical consideration of employment for our own people rather than the abstract consideration which the hon. Member has put forward. I was discussing a purely practical consideration. I know many commodities which are dutiable, and I have received communications, in common with other hon. Members, urging that it is not desirable that certain commodities should be dutiable. Some manufacturers have applied to the Advisory Committee, and they have probably said: "Here is an article which is not made in adequate quantities in this country, but we have reason to believe that it will made in adequate quantities in three or four years' time." Are we to take away from that industry the advantage of a tariff because of a temporary situation like that? In that case, you put the Committee in a position in which in order to do a temporary good they do a permanent evil. This Clause gives the Advisory Committee perfect flexibility, and I am amazed that Free Traders, who have criticised tariffs on the ground that they may lead to lobbying, should oppose it.

We want all these cases examined on merit alone. This House, rightly or wrongly, has taken up the position that this country is to be a Protectionist country, and we have to make our decisions on principle. The function of committees is to examine technical points, and therefore it is right to refer these questions to a committee in order to find out where the balance of advantage lies. If we do not insert in the Import Duties Act the Clause which we are now discussing what will happen? Members of this House will be lobbied on, the ground that there are certain things not dutiable which ought to be made dutiable. If hon. Members desire to remove from politics the one unsatisfactory effect of tariffs it can only be done by giving the Advisory Committee power to examine the circumstances of every commodity. I believe that the situation will require very careful consideration in the future. The other night the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a Financial Resolution dealing with silk which will appear as a new Clause in this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman has asked the Advisory Committee, as an act of grace, though they are under no statutory obligation, to examine the position with regard to the Silk Duties. I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot do that at the moment owing to revenue considerations, but I hope the time will come when the Advisory Committee will examine the circumstances of every commodity. I do not blame the Government for having kept from the Advisory Committee certain commodities which have an important revenue aspect, but, if we want protection which will not corrupt our public life, then we ought to give the Advisory Committee full power to examine every commodity, and every power to determine whether an article ought to be on the Free List or whether it ought to be taken off. I am amazed that Free Traders are objecting to this Clause which will do so much to enable the Advisory Committee to deal fairly with tariffs.

I have not been able to follow quite clearly some of the arguments of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), but the fundamental issue that we are combating on this Clause is the placing of this matter in the hands of three persons. Last night we discussed several proposed Amendments to the Clause, but, owing to the lateness of the hour, there was not so good an attendance in the Chamber as there might have been on an important matter like this. I am glad that we are now able to discuss the Clause at an early hour, because the issue is so tremendous that I want Members of the House to be alive to what they are doing. Hon. Members opposite, who belong to a big party, may from time to time not pay very close attention to the business of the House, but may be inclined to leave much of the work to those who do pay close attention to it, knowing all the time that they cannot get into difficulties because of the strength of the party's voting power. I would ask hon. Members to read the marginal note to Clause 6.

"Power to remove goods from Schedule I of 22 Geo. 5, c. 8."

That gives power to three commissioners to remove goods from the Free List if they think proper—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. Of course it is a recommendation to the Government, and, if the Government believe in it, they will carry it into effect; but it will be the Government of the day, and not the House of Commons. The work of the House of Commons, however, can only be effective when the full light of Debate is thrown upon whatever the Government want to do. In a few years' time, hon. Members may regret what they are trying to do this afternoon, and for that reason I want the House of Commons to direct their attention to what they are doing. Last night the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), who was quite candid in regard to his agreement with this proposal, said:

"Wheat and meat are in a Schedule of free imports into this country. This Clause of the Finance Bill proposes to make it possible for the Advisory Committee to take those two articles out of that Free List." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1932; col. 161, Vol. 266.]

It follows, from the arguments which have already been advanced, that, if the Advisory Committee recommended, and the Government of the day agreed, then, without any Debate here, those articles can be taken out of the Free List, When we are passing from Free Trade to tariffs, and when hon. Members in most of their speeches said they were not in agreement with the taxation of the food of the people, are they going to allow, under the cover of a Government Order, these articles to be taken out of the Free List without debate in the House of Commons? If so, I claim that the fact ought to be brought to the notice of the constituents who sent them here. We who defended our position in the country want to be able to point out to the House where they are going wrong if they attempt to take these articles out of the Free List, and that is why we are arguing against this fundamental constitutional change. It may be said that we are not strict constitutionalists, but, speaking for myself, I am a great believer in Parliamentary government, and it will be a sad time for the country if we neglect the opportunity of making out as strong a case as we can. That is why I do not want to see any attempt to belittle the powers of the House.

Let us assume—and it is within the bounds of possibility—that in four or five years' time we may get a Labour Government. Suppose that in that event we say we will set up an Advisory Committee, consisting of three members of the Miners' Federation, to decide whether the mines should be nationalised or not—[Interruption.] The Government will decide. Suppose that, while we are on holiday during a Recess, or away at an Ottawa Conference, or something like that, the Government bring in auch a proposal and the mines are nationalised without any voice being raised in the House of Commons. I remember its being said some time ago, when we were discussing these matters here, that our case could be torn up by force of argument. What better place is there in which to show our weakness than the Floor of the House of Commons? What is now going to be done will lead up to what we may do when we come into power. Assume that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) does not get in at the next election—I know that he will, but let us assume for the moment that he does not—and that we get into power and say that we will nationalise the Bank of England, and will put Maxton and certain of his people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] No; he is not a Member then; he is free from party taint, and unbiased. Assume that we put him there to decide whether the Bank of England shall be nationalised or not.

Hon. Members say that there can be no prejudice in the minds of big people— that they are far above prejudice; but let me tell them that, however honest a man may be in his opinion, he is bound to have a prejudiced outlook. His environment and upbringing give him a certain amount of prejudice. I claim to be as fair a man as anyone, but, when I examine myself from time to time, I can see a line of prejudice running through my decisions, because of my environment and bringing up. We are told that these powers will be put into the hands of an unbiased Committee who will weigh up everything properly and listen to all the arguments, but I would point out that when we come into office we shall have the right to do the same. I do not want that power to be vested in anyone; I want free and full discussion, on the Floor of the House of Commons, of everything that may happen. I believe in the good will of Parliamentary government, and for that reason, and because of the great fundamental issue which underlies this Clause, I take the strongest possible exception to the House of Commons passing it.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the Treasury Order under the Import Duties Act, he stated to the House that that Order was the natural, logical, and expected sequence of the Import Duties Act. I scarcely think that even the right hon. Gentleman would contend that Clause 6 of the present Finance Bill was either the natural or the logical or the expected sequence of the Import Duties Act. It might well be said that the House might have expected to see such a Clause in the Bill, having regard to the speeches made in the House by tine Chancellor of the Exchequer himself in which he indicated his intention when the time came to introduce such a Clause. But the mere ipse dixit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to what his future intentions may be in no way binds the House in exercising its judgment as to what provisions at shall or shall not insert in an Act of Parliament, and there never was a more deliberate act of the Legislature than that by which the First Schedule of the Import Duties Act was constituted. I would recall to the minds of hon. Members what actually took place. In introducing the Financial Resolution upon which the Import Duties Bill was based, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the Free List would be a short and small list, but a little later, when, after the passing of the Financial Resolution, the Bill was actually presented to the House, the list had been considerably extended, and extended on the initiative of, and presumably after due consideration by, His Majesty's Government. Later still, in the course of the Debate in Committee of this House, not only did the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself suggest additions to the Free List which appear in the Act, but he accepted a number of Amendments moved by hon. Members sitting on the back benches. It was the deliberate act of the Government by which this Free List was constituted. It was the deliberate act of this Parliament whereby this Free List became an effective part of the Act. What is suggested? Here is an Act of Parliament passed as recently as 29th February of the present year, and now, only a few weeks later, it is proposed to alter it in some of its most vital provisions. For what can be more vital than to give to the Government the power which this Act, as it stands, denies to the Government, namely, the power, upon the recommendation of a committee, it is true, but the power to impose taxes upon wheat in grain, upon raw cotton, upon hides and skins, upon rubber and upon all the other variety of goods set out in the Schedule? From our experience of the Government in issuing the recent Treasury Order upon the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, he would be a bold man who would say that the Government would do other than show themselves the obedient, docile and obsequious servant of the Advisory Committee. Although it may be the hand of the Government whereby the Order is made, it is the voice and the discretion of the Advisory Committee which, in fact and in truth, determine whether or not it shall be made. It is, of course, true that the ultimate and executive responsibility rests upon His Majesty's Government.

If this Committee had accepted yesterday the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that no Order under this Clause should be effective until it had first been approved by the Commons House of Parliament, then, I think, some of the objections, at least, to the Clause as at appears in the Bill would have been removed. But the Government have refused all Amendments. They have shown that it is their intention to meet the House of Commons with an accomplished fact when any recommendation comes to be discussed dealing with the Free List. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that, as regards certain items on the Free List, the Government have already taken action alternative to including these articles on the Dutiable List. As regards wheat, for instance, the Government have introduced their Wheat Quota Bill which is already in statutory form. As regards meat, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself challenged a Division of supporters of the Government who were desirous that meat should be put upon the Dutiable List, and the right hon. Gentleman put on his Whips and took his followers into the Lobby for the very purpose of resisting a tax on meat, though it is true the Chancellor indicated in the Debate that he was prepared at a later date to make it possible to remove meat from the Free List. There, again, I say the act of the House speaks louder than any words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are certain items, like tea, which are to be dealt with on an entirely different basis by procedure outside the Import Duties Act altogether, and, indeed, we have seen that by the inclusion of duties upon tea in the Finance Bill now before the Committee.

It has already been stressed, and I shall not stress it again; I merely mention that wheat and meat were the subjects of a decisive pledge made in the country, and repeated more than once in this House by a leading Member of the Government, the President of the Board of Trade, when he said that he would be no supporter of a tax upon meat or wheat. He is now showing that he is willing to consider such a tax, But a. difficulty arises out of the proposal now before the Committee to which, I think, far too little attention has yet been paid. Indeed, I need go no further than quote, what I have often heard quoted with approval by the Lord President of the Council, the phrase of the late Lord Mel-chett, that uncertainty made business impossible. He used rather different words at the time, and they have often been differently quoted, but that was the purport of the words quoted with approval by the Lord President of the Council, now the acting Prime Minister. Yet this Clause imports yet another element of uncertainty into British commercial enterprise. How can boot manufacturers order their hides; how can motor tyre manufacturers consider the giving of orders for rubber; how can manufacturers in Lancashire consider how they shall deal with cotton if, at any moment, without warning, an Order is published without notice and becomes operative the moment of its passing? How can they base their orders or conduct their business with any kind of confidence, certainty or security if they know that they may be put to the greatest difficulty and hardship, and, as has happened more than once, of ruin as a result of duties suddenly imposed? There is nothing more harassing in the conduct of business to the individual merchant or individual producer, or to merchants and producers collectively, than the element of uncertainty—uncertainty which, by this Clause, will be imported into the everyday conduct of business by the action of the Government themselves. For all those reasons, I propose to vote against this Clause.

I would like to offer a word or two of opposition to this Clause, but I would hardly have risen had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). But before I deal with the observations he made, may I say that I was very interested in the volcanic oration delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade last evening. I thought he went out of his way a little to criticise unduly my hon. Friend behind me, because he had really delivered a very forceful and intelligent speech, and I did not think the answer of the hon. Gentleman was good enough in reply to that speech. It was not up to standard even for a Liberal Minister who has turned Tory.

This is a very important Clause, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to reply—he does it without any vitriol, if I may say so—will he be good enough to inform the Committee what is actually the relationship between the Government Department and the Advisory Committee? Does the Advisory Committee come to the Treasury and ask the Treasury, "What would you like to have included in the Free List and what would you like to have removed from that list"? Does it do that? If it does not. do that, does the Treasury go to the committee and say, "Look here, this is not to be taken as official; but, unofficially, we want an argument when we go to Ottawa, and we would like you—this is strictly unofficial—to bear in mind that we shall argue there about meat and wheat, and consequently we should like a recommendation from you on those items. We do not suggest what the recommendation should be, but we would like a recommendation." I have sat on advisory committees and on consultative committees belonging to Government Departments, too. I have an idea, therefore, how they operate. While this House hardly ever gets an official declaration of what the Government want, all its advisory committees must have a shrewd idea of what the Government Department expects them to do. I should imagine that this Advisory Committee will not be unlike any other advisory committee. I should imagine that it will never issue a recommendation to the Government unless it is satisfied that its recommendation will be accepted. The three gentlemen on the Advisory Committee would take it as an insult right away if their recommendations were not accepted by the Government and Parliament. Consequently, the proposition is reduced to this point, that the Advisory Committee, in fact, is part and parcel of the Government and merely recommends the policy which the Government desire it to suggest.

Let me pass to another aspect. We are afraid of these advisory committees because of the experience of the past. I have been in this House for some years, and I have seen many advisory committees and bodies established with extra-Parliamentary powers. I am glad to see the Postmaster-General here. I was here when we gave the British Broadcasting Corporation all the authority it possesses, and I venture to challenge any Member of this House who was here then —and this advisory committee falls nearly into the same category—that no Member of any party in this House, as far as I remember, ever dreamt then that we were parting for good with the whole of our authority over the British Broadcasting Corporation. If anyone wants to raise an issue of any kind in regard to that corporation to-day we are ruled out of order. I do not say that the work of this Advisory Committee falls exactly into the same category, but if the present Government get their way they will hand to the Advisory Committee all the power which Parliament now possesses over these tariff issues.

May I mention another point? I remember, too, the Electricity Control Board being set up. We have had difficulties on the Floor of this House in even criticising the work of that board, because Parliament has washed its hands completely, so we are told, of the work performed by that board. Then there is the case of the Betting Control Board. There are Members who with myself were on the Committee upstairs when we dealt with the Betting Control Board and which we were then informed would be subject to the will of Parliament. True, the Advisory Committee mentioned in this Clause will be subject now to the will of Parliament, but as time goes on I am very much afraid that it will follow the lines of the Betting Control Board. We protest against the work of Parliament being dealt with through outside bodies. The Betting Control Board has on its central authority members nominated by Government Departments. It issues an annual report by way of a Blue Book, but when we want to raise an issue on the operations of that board, we are told that we are out of order. This Government, above all, has developed that tendency. It has done so in relation to the Wheat Commission. We protest against these actions of the Government.

Let me say a word with regard to transferring articles from the Free List to the other list, and vice versa. It is said that the Government are very anxious to pass this Clause because it will mean more employment. The work of the Advisory Committee has to take account of the fact that there is unemployment in a given industry and to increase employment right away by arranging these lists. That is the argument of the hon. Member for South Croydon. I have been trying to find out how much its operations have already increased employment. I have tried, for instance, to get from the Parliamentary Secretary the places where the foreign factories are, and I have not yet got them.

The hon. Gentleman can only say that if he did not listen or did not read the very complete list that I gave of the geographical situation of these factories.

I have heard that story before. Will the hon. Gentleman stand up here and tell me in which towns and villages these new factories are built and operating in Lancashire?

First of all, I should be immediately ruled out of order, because it has nothing whatever to do with the subject which we are discussing, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that I have already supplied these full particulars to the House of Commons, and immediately upon the conclusion of this Debate I will send him a copy. I will also undertake to give the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity a further list.

It is not sufficient for my purpose to say that there are five new factories in Lancashire, because Lancashire is a very big county. I live in Lancashire and I should like to know the names of the towns and villages and the streets where these factories are situated. If they were actually there, we should have had that detailed information long ago. I have searched in vain for these 50 phantom foreign factories. I have heard of one Belgian chocolate firm which has come to this country. It is employing young girls in the main, and I hope the Minister of Labour will in due course inquire into the conditions of work in that factory. The hon. Gentleman is trying to give a hint to the Chair that I am out of order, but I am dealing with the work of the Advisory Committee in Clause 6, and I am replying to the argument employed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). I do not like this Clause at all, because in my view it is a back door trick. If the Government wanted to do this, they should have done it long ago in a straightforward manner. They want to go to the electorate and say: "We did not include wheat and meat for tariff purposes. All we did was to leave the issue to the Advisory Committee." That argument may wash in some parts of the country but not in others, and probably it will not go down in Devonport. Let me come to the Free List itself. The bon. Gentleman was very volcanic last evening. I almost thought he was of Celtic origin. He said:

"My hon. Friend said that there may be a case for the taxation of meat and wheat, but we have not heard it. That case has been presented by my hon. Friend. But when the Government desire to present a case, if the occasion should arise for the taxation of wheat and meat, they will come hero to this Box and advance their arguments."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1932; cols. 155–6, Vol. 266.]

What we are doing apparently by passing this Clause is to give power to the Advisory Committee to recommend to the Government that wheat and meat should be taxed. Will the hon. Gentleman stand up at that Box and say why wheat and meat should be taxed, because they will be taxed, otherwise why give the Advisory Committee power to recommend it? Were it not for the desire of the Government to tax these two commodities, they would not give such power to the Advisory Committee. The hon. Gentleman may be better educated than we are, but it does not follow that we understand less the tricks of the Government. He was very critical last evening of my hon. Friend behind me about some book that he had written. All the books that I have written are in Welsh, so he cannot criticise me. But he cannot throw it at me that I have ever argued in favour of tariffs under any condition whatever. I am a Free Trader because I am an inter- nationalist. I cannot understand for the life of me how men can reconcile the building of tariff walls with support of the League of Nations.

rose—

I will come back from Geneva, and I will return to this list, because it is very interesting. Why does not the hon. Gentleman inform us that the Advisory Committee can recommend transferring from the Free List every one of the items in it? Let me see what the Free List is. Is the committee to recommend anything with regard to gold and silver bullion? France and America have most of that, I should imagine, and I suppose, whatever recommendation the Advisory Committee may make, the gold and silver will not come here, anyhow. Are live quadruped animals to be removed from the Free List? We have recently had some discussion about a German circus coming here. Is the Advisory Committee to take note of live quadruped animals in relation to the German circus? That is a proper question to ask in the Mother of Parliaments. Then there is raw cotton. I take it the Advisory Committee would never recommend that raw cotton should not always be free to be imported from America and Egypt, but they may remove even that from the Free List. These gentlemen who are picked for this special job are nearly all Londoners. Lancashire is to them almost a foreign country.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise, that Sir Sydney-Chapman was a professor of economics at the Manchester University?

I thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knew better than that. To say that a man who has been for a few years a professor of economics at Manchester is a Lancashire man passes my comprehension. I have lived in Manchester for 25 years, but that does not make me an Englishman. The right hon. Gentleman has lived in England for years, but that does not make him an Englishman, no matter how he tries. Let me come back to the Free List once again. The Parliamentary Secretary last evening said further:

"That is not the case that is being advanced from this side to-night, and it is not fair, it is not an illustration of political probity, to paint for the electorate the picture that has been painted to-night."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1932; col. 156, Vol. 266.]

What picture did he himself paint to the electors? He did not tell the electorate at the last election that the food of the people would be taxed, and hon. Members opposite will find out in due course that the people cannot be diddled like that. They cannot be told at the election that their food will not be taxed and then in a few months the very man who made statements of that kind pass legislation to tax food in this manner. I must protest vehemently against the transfer of this Parliamentary power to a committee of any kind. Hon. Members will have noticed in the last 10 or 15 years the general tendency of Governments to transfer large powers to outside bodies. I believe in political democracy and everything that comes with it. Because I want Parliament to retain the power to arrive at decisions of its own free will, I shall oppose the Clause and we on this side will vole against it in the Lobby to-night.

I hope it will be possible for the Committee to come to an early decision on this Clause as we have had the issues very thoroughly thrashed out for two days. The point is not one of very great importance. It is only a point of procedure. The Clause does not tax any article whatever. The Import Duties Act specifically states that any Order made by the Treasury after a recommendation by the Committee must be confirmed by this House. If ever the Stuart Kings had said, "Any of our actions must be confirmed by an affirmative poll of the House of Commons or it will become null and void in 28 days," the great Parliamentary hero of the civil war would have said, "Nunc dimittis." It is exaggerating the position entirely to complain that this procedure is derogating from the power of the House of Commons. The authority of the House of Commons remains unchanged by this. The only question is: Should the House of Commons control every detail of the new policy upon which it is embarking? We contend that it is neither necessary nor desirable for the House of Commons to retain control of every detail. First of all, because owing to the accumulation of small administrative acts which the House would have to carry through, the Debate upon each of those acts would be a graver inroad upon the powers of the House of Commons than anything proposed under this Bill, and, secondly, because we hold that it is desirable that inquiries should take place into the advisability or otherwise of a duty which we think can best be carried out under the aegis of a body such as the Advisory Committee. The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) suggested that there was something secret about the procedure. Tea was on the Free List, yet a tax is to be imposed on tea with the assent, and by the vote, of the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green. This article has been removed from the Free List. How was it removed from the Free List? It was removed without any preliminary inquiry such as he suggests, and without notice such as he suggests. No notice at all was given, and the Resolution was brought into the House and became effective there and then. It had to be so, because when we are dealing with Customs tariffs, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade explained, it is impossible to allow the lapse of many days during the whole of which forestalling will take place. Customs procedure must go along the road which other countries have adopted for Customs procedure, and it is that procedure which we desire to secure in this case. The procedure of inquiry which is laid down here is the necessary procedure before any recommendation can be made.

That is what leads me to the second point. Why not proceed by means of the Finance Bill? That was the argument brought forward by hon. Members opposite. Surely, especially when you are in the initial stages of setting up a new experiment, which no one can deny the country and the House of Commons have sanctioned by very large majorities, it is desirable to allow flexibility, and this is procedure which will allow much more flexibility than would be possible in the long and complex procedure of the Finance Bill. The taxation of wheat and meat does not arise on this Clause. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said, if and when the Government desire to make a case for such action they will have to come here and stand at this Box and make out their ease, and have it either confirmed or rejected by Resolution of the House. That will be the time when it will be reasonable for discussion to take place, and for arguments for and against to be thrashed out and decided upon by the House.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that before the House may have an opportunity of discussing an Order such an Order may already be in operation?

Surely an Order of a grave and far-reaching character would not be embarked upon by any Government unless they thought that they had the support of the House of Commons behind them. The same sort of thing takes place when Budget Resolutions are introduced. They are operative from the moment they are introduced, but, of course, it is quite possible that they may subsequently be reversed by the House of Commons. In such a case, the reversal of a, decision would be taken as the gravest possible censure upon the Government, and the Government would almost be compelled to resign. If the procedure of the House of Commons can allow for the imposition of a tax which often runs for weeks, and indeed for months, before it is finally sanctioned by the vote of the House of Commons, surely it is not unreasonable in this case that we should take a power which is not likely to be unreasonably or rashly exercised to put such recommendations provisionally into effect.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that anybody other than the House of Commons has power to pass a Budget Resolution?

No, indeed not. Nobody other than the House of Commons has the power to pass a Resolution, nor has the Advisory Committee power to pass a Resolution.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Treasury has the power to make an Order without any reference to the House of Commons whatever, and that it can remain in force for 28 days before the House sees it.

Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is hunting a mare's nest. The Treasury, which is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has power to make such an Order, and has power to introduce such a Resolution. It has not power to pass such a Resolution in either case.

I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to confuse the Committee. An Order made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has immediate force. Customs duties can immediately be collected upon it. This House need not know of it. It need not come before the House until the expiration of 28 Parliamentary days. No Financial Resolution for the purposes of the Budget can have any force until it has passed through this House.

The hon. and learned Member is, I think, a little inaccurate in his suggestion. A Financial Resolution can and does have its effect immediately.—[Interruption.] It has to have its Committee stage and its Report stage. As everybody knows, the Budget Resolutions have effect the moment they are introduced, and they do not have their second stage finally validating them, the Report stage, until days afterwards.

The House can immediately negative a Financial Resolution, if it does not wish to accept it, directly it is laid on the Table and before it comes into force. It may allow it to go through and then debate it on the subsequent stages, but it has power to negative it at once.

The House has the power to negative it at once under what I was explaining to the Committee, namely, the procedure of the Finance Bill. I was pointing out to the Committee that the procedure of the Finance Bill is appropriate to the annual finances of the year. It is not, I was contending, appropriate to all the initial stages of bringing in experiments such as we are trying, but in both of those cases there is the authority of the House, in the one ease of that day, and in the other case of not more than 28 Parliamentary days. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member really is straining a point, a ridiculous point, in suggesting that the Government would bring in some far-reaching change—because it is a far-reaching change of which he has complained—which could only last for 28 days whereupon it would be overthrown by the House of Commons.

He means Parliamentary days.

The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green does not do himself full justice. We know that he can advance and continue Parliamentary debate with dignity, but to suggest that it would satisfy the Government to bring in some far-reaching change to be valid only for 28 Parliamentary days—

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite well that the order can come into operation when the House is in recess.