House Of Commons
Thursday, 25th May, 1933.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Oxford Corporation Bill [ Lords,]
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Sheffield Extension Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Offences Relating To Motor Vehicles
Address for
"Return showing the number of Offences relating to Motor Vehicles in England and Wales, together with the results of the proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction, and the number of persons cautioned or prosecuted for such offences, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1932 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 118, of Session 1931–32)."—[Mr. Hacking.]
Oral Answers To Questions
Unemployment
Workmen's Compensation Cases
1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make arrangements to close the gap between the cessation of payment of compensation to injured workmen and the commencement of unemployment benefits in cases where the workman is served with 10 days' notice and is then declared fit for work by the medical referee?
I cannot at present add anything to the reply on this subject given to the hon. Member on 23rd February. My right hon. Friend is, however, looking further into the matter in consultation with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) put a similar question to the Minister of Health, who has made up the difference in regard to National Health Insurance, and cannot the same thing be done for those who receive workmen's compensation?
I am not sure from the question exactly to which period my hon. Friend is referring—whether to the 10 days' notice or to what happens after a man has been declared fit for work by the referee. If he is referring to the latter point, he will realise that the law as regards Health Insurance is not quite the same as the law with regard to workmen's compensation. The latter is a little more complicated, but I hope to see if we can get an arrangement on the same lines.
I am referring to the latter point, and I accept the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that he will go into the matter and see what can be done.
Doncaster
3.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were unemployed at Doncaster on 1st May, 1933, or the nearest date when figures were available and similar figures for the comparable date in 1932?
The number of unemployed persons on the registers of the Doncaster Employment Exchange was 10,338 at 24th April, 1933, and 14,356, at 25th April, 1932.
Can the hon. Gentleman say of what class of person the decrease consists?
The decrease of over 4,000 has been, I am glad to say, in respect of men.
Has the hon. Gentleman any figures for the last fortnight with regard to the large number of miners who have been dismissed?
The hon. Member knows that the figures for the 24th April are the last that we have. No doubt when the count which was taken last Monday is received, I shall be able to give him further information, but there was a definite drop of 4,000 during the period ending the 24th April.
Do these figures include the figures for the Don Valley Division?
These are men who were registered at the Doncaster Employment Exchange, and no doubt some of them may live in the Don Valley.
Farm Work
31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the extent to which unemployed urban men are being engaged to work on farm land; where such a policy is being carried out; and what are the conditions governing such relief work?
I am not aware of a policy on the lines to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. If he would be good enough to send me particulars of what he has in mind, I should be happy to go into the matter and communicate with him on the subject.
Entertainment Industry
2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statistics showing the present number of unemployed actors, actresses, musicians and other theatrical employes; and if not, whether he will arrange to obtain such statistics at an early date?
As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement:
The following table gives the information desired so far as it is available:
Unemployed men and women, aged 18 years and over, on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 24th April, 1933, who were applicants for employment in the undermentioned occupations:
| — | Men. | Women. |
| Musicians | 2,679 | 367 |
| Actors, Actresses, Variety Artistes, etc. | 1,037 | 1,029 |
| Other Theatre, Music Hall and Cinema Employees. | 2,597 | 1,097 |
Wages
4.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can state what is the latest information in his possession as to the comparative real wages in the following countries: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Czechslovakia, Italy, Spain, and Portugal?
The latest statistics of comparative real wages in oversea countries relate to July, 1930, and were published by the International Labour Office in the "International Labour Review" for October, 1930, and reproduced in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for November, 1930, page 404. The International Labour Office have not compiled and published statistics of comparative real wages in respect of any date later than July, 1930.
Why is the International Labour Office not publishing the figures any longer?
I understand that certain foreign countries took exception to the conclusions that were drawn as a result of this inquiry and objected that the figures were not properly comparable.
Do the figures referred to include the wage value of social services?
The hon. Member will find full particulars in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, page 404.
Will the hon. Gentleman have these figures published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
I do not think that I can undertake to do that.
Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the information about wages in his possession is very meagre as very few wages agreements are sent to the Ministry?
As far as this country is concerned, I do not think that that is so. As regards real wages, we can make a fairly good estimate, but we have not that information for foreign countries.
Would it be advisable to go to the expense of publishing a White Paper showing the wages for these countries?
That is the point of my reply—that we have not the informa- tion available, and that the International Labour Office have ceased to collect statistics.
Central Criminal Court (Sentence)
7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on or about 5th May, 1932, the Governor of Wandsworth Prison received a confession from a man named Hoye, admitting that he had committed the crime for which Henry Kendall, of 43, Goldsmith Row, Shoreditch, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in April, 1932; whether he has verified this confession; and what action he is taking in the matter?
Kendall was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on the 10th March, 1932, on two separate charges. In respect of the first charge, that of receiving a motor car and storebreaking, he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. In respect of the second charge, that of robbery with violence, he was sentenced to three years' penal servitude to run concurrently with the sentence of five years' penal servitude, and he was also ordered to receive 12 strokes with the cat. Statements to the effect mentioned in the question have been received in respect of the second charge and were carefully investigated, but my predecessor found no grounds for any action on his part. The case has again been reviewed, but I can find no reason for differing from the view taken by my predecessor.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has a paralysed arm and was sentenced for committing robbery with violence, and will he give me the opportunity of privately putting some facts before him?
I shall always be prepared to consider any facts which the hon. Member places before me.
Manchester Prison
8.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can make a statement as to the present position of discipline in Manchester prison?
There is nothing in the present position of discipline in Manchester prison which calls for any statement by me, but I am glad to have the opportunity of contradicting statements published in certain newspapers in regard to a recent incident which are grossly exaggerated or untrue in almost every particular. They appear to have been made on information furnished by an ex-prisoner who seems to have given a garbled account of an incident when one prisoner, who was under mental observation, smashed some panes of glass and a few prisoners shouted as he was being removed by prison officers. On being ordered to do so these prisoners went quietly and obediently to their cells. Disciplinary action has been taken by the Visiting Committee against five prisoners in respect of the incident, which was in no way connected with any complaints against food. There has been no other disturbance, no refusal to work, no application for police help, and no person has been injured.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of the newspapers that circulated the report?
I understand that it was circulated in the "Daily Dispatch" and, I believe, also in the "Evening Chronicle."
Not the "Daily Herald" this time.
Housing
Yorkshire
9.
asked the Minister of Health whether any of the housing authorities in Yorkshire have yet submitted their slum clearance scheme; and, if so, whether he can give details?
No slum clearance scheme has reached me yet from any housing authority in Yorkshire in response to the request which I made on 6th April. The request was for the submission of schemes not later than the end of September; so that no inference should be based upon the fact that schemes have not yet reached me.
10.
asked the Minister of Health whether any local autho- rities in Yorkshire have, Since the suspension of housing subsidies, constructed houses without subsidy; and, if so, whether he can give details?
No such houses have been actually built, but the Shelf Urban District Council has been authorised to build 16 three-bedroomed non-parlour type houses.
Birmingham
11.
asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking with respect to the application of the City of Birmingham for permission to borrow for the purpose of building small houses to let without subsidy?
I have asked the City of Birmingham to bring its proposals for building small houses in general into relation to its programme for clEarlng or reconditioning slums, which I have not yet received. The most pressing need is for slum clearance or reconditioning, and it is obviously necessary to prepare the programme of fresh building and reconditioning under the slum scheme before it is possible to judge the needs or the means for other fresh building.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if a scheme is submitted to him under the enlightened policy of the Corporation of Birmingham, they will have the support of his Ministry in carrying through slum clearance?
I think there is a hypothetical element in that question.
Building Societies' Loans
15.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state what is the total amount of loans which building societies have indicated that they are prepared to make under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1933; and how this amount is distributed between the principal building societies?
This is not a matter on which I have precise information. It is not necessary that a society prepared to make loans should specify any total amount.
Delayed Schemes (Housing Act, 1924)
20.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities whose applications to erect houses under the terms of the 1924 Housing Act were out of date, have, on consideration, been permitted to complete their schemes; and how many houses are involved?
The hon. Member will see from the circular which was issued to local authorities on the 22nd instant, a copy of which I am sending to him, that local authorities who consider that their proposals are entitled to consideration under the proviso to Section 1 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, which only became law last week, have been invited to submit their applications, supported by full particulars of the grounds on which they are based, before the 30th June next, and that I propose immediately after that date, in consultation with the Treasury, to proceed to the approval of such applications as are found to fall within the limits of the Act.
Statistics
21.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses were in course of erection by private enterprise and by local authorities on 1st May, 1932, and 1st May, 1933?
The numbers of subsidised houses in course of erection in England and Wales on 30th April, 1932, by private enterprise and by local authorities, respectively, were 1,114 and 33,493. The corresponding figures for 30th April, 1933, were 1,388 and 29,122. Information is not available as to the number of houses under construction without State subsidy.
Mltcham
13.
asked the Minister of Health if he will reconsider the application of the Mitcham Urban District Council and assist the council, by way of grant or otherwise, to re-house the occupants of houses destroyed by the recent explosion in Mitcham?
Proposals for rehousing have been submitted to me by the council and are being dealt with as a matter of the greatest urgency, but I am afraid that I have no power to make such a grant as the council have suggested.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of the Mitcham Urban District Council these houses that were destroyed by the explosion would have been scheduled as a slum area? In view of his well-known desire to help in providing new homes for people living in slum areas, will he reconsider the application from that point of view?
I have gone into the matter, and I am advised that legally it is not possible for me to make such a grant.
Local Authorities (Contracts)
12.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the increasing practice of local government bodies stipulating in their schedules or contracts a particular make or brand of certain articles and whether, in view of the direction of the Ministry of Health in Appendix VI of its Annual Report for the year 1931–32, which states that it is undesirable that particular makes of goods or fittings or proprietary designs should be specified, and specifications should be drafted to permit of supplies being obtained through competitive agencies, any further action can be taken to secure compliance with the directions laid down by the Ministry?
It is the practice in cases where my sanction is required to a loan to require open tenders and, where the matter comes before me, to object so far as practicable to the specification of proprietary articles, unless there are special reasons to the contrary. Contracts for ordinary supplies which are paid for out of revenue are not subject to my approval. I am not aware that the practice of asking for particular articles is increasing, but I propose to call atten to the matter again in my forthcoming Annual Report.
If particular cases are brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend, will he look into them?
I will certainly look into any case which the hon. Member brings to my attention.
Water Supplies
19.
asked the Minister of Health if he will request local authorities who have been invited to arrange local conferences with housing interests, in order to stimulate the erection of houses to let at low rents, to consider also the provision of adequate water supplies?
I have already issued a circular to county councils and rural district councils on rural water supplies. Supplies in urban areas are generally satisfactory, and the best course is to deal specially with any individual case which requires attention.
Will my right hon. Friend follow up those conferences with regional conferences on water supplies, dealing with the areas that could most conveniently be linked up?
That is a matter which would be best considered in relation to particular areas. If my hon. Friend has any particular area in mind, I will very gladly go into its case.
World Economic Conference
22.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the resolution passed by the organising committee of the World Economic Conference not to intensify the measures which at present misdirect and paralyse international trade, provision will be made for the effects of any devaluation of currency?
If any unforeseen situation should arise while the Tariff Truce Resolution is in force, whether in regard to the level of currencies or otherwise, the Organising Committee would no doubt meet again to consider how to deal with such a new situation in conformity with the spirit of the resolution.
45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to accept the guidance of expert industrialists upon the terms of international trading agreements which representatives of His Majesty's Government propose to submit for acceptance at the World Economic Conference?
His Majesty's Government are taking steps to arrange for the appointment of industrial advisers to the United Kingdom Delegation, in order that the Delegation may have the advantage of consulting them as occasion requires. An announcement will be made as soon as the list can be given.
Have the Government any intention of using the expert advice of Lord Snowden?
indicated assent.
German Loan (British Investors)
23.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that a portion of the proceeds of the German 5½ per cent. loan of 1930, floated in London, was paid into the Treasury, His Majesty's Government will accept re sponsibility for maintaining in full the terms of the contract by which British investors were induced to subscribe their savings to a loan to Germany as part of the British policy of European pacification under the Young scheme?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) on Thursday last.
Finance Bill
Brewers' Licences
24.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated financial effect in a full year, on the basis of last year's figures of production of beer, of the reduction in the rate of duty on brewers' licences?
As stated in the Budget White Paper the estimated revenue effect of the alteration proposed in the duty on licences to brewers for sale is negligible.
The word "negligible" may mean anything. Cannot we have any more definite information in regard to a duty which has not been altered Since the beginning of the War?
The alteration in the duty is necessitated by the fact that brewers no longer have the option to decide whether duty should be paid on the standard barrel or the bulk barrel. They now have to pay on bulk barrels. Before they could pay on standard barrels. The duty has been reduced accordingly, but the effect on the revenue will not be more than a few thousand pounds one way or the other.
Entertainments Duty
25.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the desirability of minimising unemployment due to the levy of the Entertainments Duty, he will arrange to obtain statistics showing the proportion of this duty which is yielded by the duty on dramatic entertainments, musical entertainments, music hall entertainments and cinematograph entertainments and sporting events, respectively?
I regret that separate particulars of the receipts of entertainments duty from different classes of entertainments are not obtainable, because in the case of duty paid by the purchase of stamps or stamped tickets there is no information as to the class of entertainment for which the stamps or tickets may be used.
In view of the deadly effect of this tax on small cinemas, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to attempt to ascertain this information before the Amendments on the Order Paper are dealt with?
Before we could do that the method of selling stamps or tickets would have to be changed.
Could the right hon. Gentleman not call for a return from cinema proprietors on which he could base his final judgment when the Schedule referred to is fiNaily dealt with?
No, the duty is paid by purchase of stamps, and cinema proprietors could not give that information.
Social Services (Exchequer Contributions)
26.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount paid by the Exchequer for the year ended 31st March last to the unemployment insurance (including transitional payments), the national health insurance, the contributory pensions (old age, widows 'and orphans'), and the old age non-contributory pensions?
The amounts paid by the Exchequer for the year ended 31st March, 1933, to the services mentioned by my hon. Friend are as follow:
| £ | |
| Unemployment Fund (including transitional payments) | 79,400,000 |
| National Health Insurance Fund | 6,331,000 |
| Contributory Pensions Scheme | 11,000,000 |
| Old age pensions (including contributory old age pensions where the recipients are over 70 years of age) | 39,710,000 |
Trade And Commerce (Cloth Exports)
28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difficulties caused to the trade by the present enforcement of the new regulations governing the export of cloth for finishing, he will take steps to ensure smoother working in this respect in future?
I am not aware of the particular difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers, but if he will communicate with me I will have enquiry made.
Lincolnshire (Catchment Area)
29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state the reasons for the delay in the negotiations concerning the establishment of a catchment area on the East LinColnshire coast; and if he will indicate what action he proposes to take?
The delay has arisen mainly in connection with the question of the inclusion of the County Borough of Grimsby within the proposed catchment area, on which matter the views of the county borough have only recently become available to the Lindsey County Council. The question is, to-day, being further discussed at a meeting between officers of the Ministry and of the County Council.
Agriculture
Ego Prices (Broadcasting)
30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider arranging for the re-introduction of the broadcasting of National Mark egg prices; and what is the reason why such broadcasting was abandoned?
The practice of broadcasting National Mark egg price quotations was abandoned because, in the opinion of the Board of National Mark Egg Control, the form in which it was possible to broadcast these price quotations was misleading. I understand that the Board have recently been approached with a view to the resumption of the practice of broadcasting the quotations in question, and if they consent to this course, I will do my best to make the necessary arrangements.
Credit Facilities
32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the need of immediate Capttal on many farms in the country; and if he is further considering the possibility of affording farmers a better system of short-tenn credits?
I am aware of the circumstances referred to in the first part of the question. In regard to the last part of the question, however, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on the 18th May to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Mac-donald).
Fat Cattle (Prices)
35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the price of fat cattle at the present time and at this time last year?
The average price per live cwt. of first quality fat cattle for the week ended 17th May, at markets for which the Ministry obtains reports, was 40s. 10d., as compared with 49s. 10d. for the corresponding week in 1932.
Do those figures not show that the restrictions on imports are not severe enough and will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take immediate steps to increase them?
Are not these prices due to the poverty of the people rather than to a shortage in the supply?
Obviously, more factors have to be taken into account than the factor of restrictions. There is the possibility of a change-over to other forms of meat.
Is the Minister not aware that cattle now coming on the market are store-fed cattle, that they cost more to produce and that they give more employment than is given by grass-fed cattle, and will he take steps to make store feeding profitable?
We can do nothing until the Bill is on the Statute Book and then with the co-operation of the hon. and gallant Member we shall be able to see that it is made effective.
Russian Butter (Imports)
39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of Soviet butter which has been imported into this country Since the establishment of the embargo on Russian imports; and to what extent licences have already been issued for the importation of such butter in the immediate future?
19,286 cwts. of Russian butter have been imported under licences issued under Section 2 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933, and licences will shortly be issued for a further quantity of 10,000 cwts. All this butter had been substantially paid for before the issue of the Royal Proclamation on 19th April.
Is the Minister not aware of the urgent necessity for restricting the importation of butter from all sources into this country, and thus giving encouragement in the dairy industry?
I am quite well aware of it, and, if it can be done only to the detriment of the persons against whom it is directed, that is all very well, but I do not like to penalise our own people.
Would it not be possible to know who are the purchasers of this butter?
Cattle (Import Regulations, Canada)
54.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will enter into negotiations with the Canadian Government to ensure that cattle imported from this country to Canada are subject to the same conditions, with regard to quarantine, as Canadian cattle imported into this country; and whether, failing agreement, he will impose similar conditions in this country to those imposed by the Canadian Government?
I am advised that the incidence of animal diseases in this country —such, for instance, as foot and mouth— is different from their incidence in Canada, and the regulations of each country in respect of the import of cattle from the other must be expected to reflect that difference. I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Canadian regulations are a great handicap to our farmers; and will he consult the Minister of Agriculture and see whether anything can be done to help?
I shall be delighted to consult the Minister of Agriculture.
Oats (Argentine Agreement)
40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the fact that tariff adjustments with the Argentine are to be the subject of further discussions, he will give consideration to the serious position of the producers of oats in Great Britain and take steps to protect their interests when these discussions are taking place?
The interests of producers of oats in the United Kingdom will certainly be borne in mind during the tariff negotiations with Argentina.
Sugar Beet Industry (Subsidy)
33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any agreement has been reached between the beet-sugar interest and the refining interests on the future of the sugar industry in this country; whether this affects the continuance of the sugar-beet subsidy now granted by the Government; and, if so, to what extent and on what lines?
As (has already been announced, the Government have under consideration certain proposals, agreed between the refining and beet-sugar interests and submitted by them, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement either as to the nature of these proposals or as to their likely effect on the future needs of the sugar-beet industry.
Before the Government come to a conclusion on this matter, will they carry out the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last year, that there shall be an inquiry into the operation of the present beet-sugar subsidy?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that he asked a question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th March on that point, and I have nothing to add to the answer then given.
Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he expects to be in a position to announce the nature of these proposals?
We hope to be in a position to do so certainly before there is any anxiety about the future arrangements which have to be come to.
Royal Botanical Gardens
34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, for the convenience of visitors from the country, he will arrange for the glasshouses at the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, to be opened from 10 o'clock onwards on all week days instead of on Tuesdays and Fridays only, as at present?
These glasshouses are open to the public every day from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., and on Tuesdays and Fridays, which are students' days, also from 10 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. I regret I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion, having regard to the time occupied in cultural operations, rearrangement of plants, and other necessary work in the glasshouses.
Naval And Military Pensions And Grants
37.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will inquire into the case of Mr. J. L. Johnson, of 34, Hawthorn Street, Newcastle-on-Tyne, in view of the fact that this man is helpless through gunshot wounds and is destitute; and will he state if he will do anything in this case?
As my hon. Friend is aware, this case has recently been investigated at his instance, and the full facts have been communicated to him. The pensioner in question is in receipt of a life pension at the rate appropriate to the extent of disablement resulting from his War service. There are no grounds on which I should have authority to increase the award.
36.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many claims for disability pensions were received by his Department during 1932; how many were recognised and awards made; and how many were refused?
The information asked for in this question is contained in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Crooke) on 21st February last, of which I am sending him a copy.
Navigable Waters (Oil Pollution)
38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that an efficient separator is now being produced, it is proposed to take any steps to prevent the discharge of oil at sea?
The discharge of oil within the territorial limits of this country is prohibited under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922. If the hon. Member has in mind the compulsory fitting of separators on vessels, this is a matter for international action, the possibility of which is being considered.
Is it not possible for the Minister to get the authority of this House to impose very much heavier penalties upon those who discharge oil at sea?
I am advised that that proposal would not have the desired effect.
Does the Minister anticipate that nothing will be done to stop this pollution of the sea?
Aviation
Flying Regulations (Noise)
41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the annoyance caused by the noise of aeroplanes to a large number of people, he will consider the desirability of restricting commercial flying to definite lines of traffic and pleasure flying to thinly-populated districts?
My Noble Friend regrets that he cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. It would unduly restrict the reasonable development of commercial flying, and would to a large extent, deprive the general public of reasonable opportunities for pleasure flying.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to do anything to relieve people from the infliction that they suffer from aeroplanes?
The hon. Member suggests that flying should be concentrated in thinly-populated areas; but people usually go there to be quiet, and the inhabitants would be the first to complain if the hon. Member's suggestion were carried out.
Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to prohibit the use of open exhausts on aircraft engines?
My Noble Friend knows that we will do whatever we possibly can to restrict noise.
Aerodromes
42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that the establishment of aerodromes greatly reduces the value of neighbouring property; and if he will introduce legislation to compensate those whose property has been so reduced in value?
My information goes to show that the effect of establishing aerodromes is often quite contrary to that stated in the question, and I regret I can hold out no prospect of special legislation on the subject being introduced.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of any aerodromes that he thinks have improved the character of the locality in which they were established, from a residential point of view?
I think that the land in the vicinity of aerodromes has gone up in value because of the extremely rapid means of transport available and the assurance of large open spaces that will not be built upon.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of any such aerodromes?
I could begin by giving the name of the aerodrome in London—Croydon.
Ground Markings
46.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the scarcity of identification signs throughout the country for the assistance of air navigation; and if he will arrange for towns and railway stations to have their names conspicuously displayed in white letters legible at 1,000 feet?
I think the scarcity of ground markings is rather less serious than my hon. and gallant Friend's question suggests, and that there is no special further action which the Air Ministry could suitably take at the present time. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Air Ministry is sympathetic to the scheme outlined in my reply of 9th December, 1931, to my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley).
Would it not be possible for the Air Ministry to give some special encouragement to railway companies to have the names of the railway stations painted on the roofs as well as on the walls of their buildings?
Railway stations are very often situated in thickly-populated areas, and, if the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion were adopted there might he some danger from low flying.
Is the Minister aware that a large number of gas companies have already painted the names of their towns on the tops of the gasholders, and will he not consider writing a personal letter to gas companies in order to get this practice adopted all over the country?
I will consider that.
Foreign Countries (Special Navigation Agreements)
43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement as to the results to date of the working of the convention regarding air navigation between Great Britain and Austria, which came into force on 14th January, 1933; and with how many other foreign countries similar conventions are in force or in process of negotiation?
As regard the first part of the question, it is known that United Kingdom pilots have taken advantage of the convention referred to, which enables them to make private flights to or over Austrian territory without obtaining prior permission. I have, however, no information as to the actual number of flights made. As regards the second part, two other such special agreements are in operation, and three are in process of negotiation. Occasion for such special agreements only arises, of course, in the case of States which are not parties to the Convention for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation, 1919; some 30 State members have subscribed to that convention.
Pilots
44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if his attention has been drawn to the recent legal decision which laid down the pilot's powers when in charge of an aeroplane; and if he will take steps to have the principle thus legally determined included in Government legislation dealing with air navigation?
I have seen a report of the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend presumably refers. It does not, however, seem to me to give rise to any point on which new legislation would be appropriate.
Royal Air Force (Discharges)
47.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many men during each of the past two years have been discharged from the Royal Air Force before their period of service was long enough to entitle them to a pension; and how many new recruits have been taken on during the same periods?
The number of airmen discharged or transferred to the reserve on the completion of their engagements, and not eligible for pension, was 1,823 during the financial year 1931, and 1,789 during 1932. The numbers recruited during the same years, including boys entered for apprenticeship training, were 2,251 and 1,069 respectively.
Does my right hon. Friend appreciate how undesirable it is that in so many cases employment in the Royal Air Force should turn out to be a blind-alley occupation?
It is obviously essential that there should be a proper flow of recruits coming into the Air Force, and that those who do come in should stay in for the period for which they have engaged.
Scotland
Film Censorship
48.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Scottish magistrates have no power to make any regulations, other than safety rules, for the exhibition of kinematograph films, and cannot prevent children and young per sons from attending films which have been passed by the censor as suitable for adults only: and whether he is prepared to introduce the necessary legislation to enable suitable regulations to be brought into operation?
As my right hon. Friend stated in answer to a question addressed to him on 21st March last, by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl), he is advised that the legal position in Scotland is as stated in the first part of the question, though he is not aware that the matter has been the subject of judicial decision. As regards the latter part of the question, the subject is at present receiving careful consideration, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to give any undertaking as to legislation.
Housing, Aberdeen
49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason why the corporation of Aberdeen has not built any houses under the 1930 Housing Act; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?
My attention was drawn some time ago to the fact that, though the corporation of Aberdeen have completed over 3,000 houses with State assistance Since 1919, none of these has been provided under the Act of 1930. The corporation have, however, erected 280 houses for the replacement of unfit houses with the assistance of the slum clearance grant available under the Act of 1923. The Department of Health have been in correspondence with the corporation on this subject, and I am informed that the corporation are preparing a scheme for the erection of some 500 houses for slum replacement on land already in their possession.
Is it not the case that the corporation of Aberdeen has been very fully occupied with its 1924–25 programme, and that the suggestion that it has —been behindhand is entirely without foundation?
Is it not the case that a number of complaints have been made, not only to the corporation, but also to the Scottish Office, as to the delay in erecting houses under this Act?
My attention was drawn to the matter in March, and a correspondence with the corporation was begun then by the Department of Health. In April certain ratepayers went through the ordinary procedure of Section 37 of the Act of 1930. I have not taken any action with regard to that position, as the matter is already in hand.
Transport
Motor Coaches (Side Lamps)
50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many motor coaches carry side lamps so high that they are useless; and whether he will consider the desirability of issuing a regulation that side lamps should be carried at a uniform height at which theirutility for road purposes is greatest?
I agree that side lamps on motor vehicles should not be carried at too great a height, but my attention had not been drawn to any special difficulty with regard to motor coaches in this respect. Normally these vehicles, owing to their internal lighting, are sufficiently visible at night. I doubt whether a regulation on the subject is necessary, but I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
Canal Bridges
51.
asked the Minister of Transport to what extent he is now prepared to consider schemes for the improvement of canal bridges; whether he has issued any recent circular to local authorities with regard to this matter; and, if not, whether he proposes to do so in order to stimulate such work at an early date?
I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular letter which is now being issued to highway authorities regarding the grants which will be available for approved works of improvement of roads and bridges, etc., during the financial year 1933–34. The third paragraph of the letter deals with the reconstruction of weak bridges which are not vested in highway authorities, and explains the conditions under which the Minister is prepared to consider applications for grants towards the reconstruction of road bridges over railways, canals, etc.
Irish Free State (Coal Imports)
52.
asked the Secretary for Mines the figures of the average monthly imports of coal from the Bristol Channel ports and the United Kingdom, respectively, into the Irish Free State for the six months January to July, 1932, and the six months July to December, 1932, with the average c.i.f. prices in both cases?
I have been asked to reply. I regret that the Trade Accounts of the Irish Free State do not disclose such information, but the average monthly quantity of coal exported to the Irish Free State from Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the first six months of 1932 was 191,176 tons, and during the second six months, 130,458 tons. Of these quantities, 38,592 tons and 28,783 tons respectively, were exported from the Bristol Channel ports. Average c.i.f. figures are not available, but the average declared value, f.o.b., of all coal exported to the Irish Free State, was 18s. 9d. per ton and 17s. 11d. per ton during the two periods respectively. Similar values of exports from the Bristol Channel ports are not readily available.
53.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information as to the tonnage of foreign coal imported into Ireland in the nine months July, 1932, to March, 1933, and the corresponding figures for the corresponding period a year earlier; and the c.i.f. price of coals from Germany, Poland and Belgium?
I have been asked to reply. Official statistics are not available, but, so far as I can ascertain, imports of foreign coal into the Irish Free State in the nine months July, 1932, to March, 1933, amounted to approximately 600,000 statute tons, and no foreign coal was imported in the corresponding period a year earlier. With regard to prices, typical examples of quotations c.i.f. Dublin within the last few days are as follow:
| Per statute ton. | ||
| s. | d. | |
| Polish Upper Silesian Large Steam Coal | 19 | 0 |
| German Westphalian Gas Flame Large | 19 | 9 |
| Westphalian Unscreened Gas | 18 | 3 |
No information is available in regard to Belgian coals.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures reveal a loss of employment to 4,000 or 5,000 men engaged in the mining industry of this country, and a transference of that employment to Germany and Poland?
Perhaps the hon. Member will allow the Secretary for Mines to deal with that point himself.
May I be allowed to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether this silly family squabble cannot be brought to an end?
May I ask whether the hon. Member's policy in connection with coal and Ireland is always one of surrender?
British Army (Troops, China)
55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with regard to the proposal to build new barracks at Hong Kong, whether it is intended to alter the distribution of British troops in China?
Unless there should be any change in the situation in Shanghai, it is not proposed to replace the battalion which is to be withdrawn this winter from Shanghai to Hong Kong in accordance with the normal trooping programme. This does not involve a change of policy as regards our garrisons in China, Since the two battalions at Shanghai are an integral part of the garrison of Hong Kong, having been detached to deal with the situation in Shanghai. The total garrison in China will, therefore, remain the same, and it will always be possible to reinforce Shanghai from Hong Kong quickly, as was done in February, 1932.
India (Maharajah Of Alwar)
56.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the Maharajah of Alwar has agreed to leave his State for two years pending the restoration of its finances by British officials, any guarantee will be obtained from the Maharajah before he is permitted to resume the administration of his State at the expiration of that period?
All questions of this kind will naturally have to be considered by the Paramount Power in deciding, when the time comes, under what conditions it would be advisable for His Highness to return to his State.
Do the Government contemplate restoring this ruler to power, after the affairs of his State have been put into order, without any guarantee?
I (have nothing to add to my answer except this, that we will consider the situation when it arises in two years' time.
Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to who is likely to be the paramount Power at that time?
Certainly; the same Power which holds the paramountcy today.
China And Japan
57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Advisory Committee of the League of Nations which was set up in connection with the Sino-Japanese dispute has yet made any report on the question of an arms embargo; and, if not, whether, in view of Japan's continued aggression in Chinese territory, he will urge the committee to expedite its work?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I think it may be assumed that the committee is pursuing its labours as expeditiously as it can.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have a decision on this matter.
I am afraid I cannot.
Russia (Chinese Eastern Railway)
58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding negotiations between the Governments of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and Manchukuo regarding the sale of Russia's interest in the Chinese Eastern Railway; and whether, seeing that such sale would constitute an infringement of the sovereignty of China, he will take steps to secure the recognition of this sovereignty which is guaranteed under the Nine-Power Treaty of Washington?
I understand that the Soviet Government have offered to sell their rights in the Chinese Eastern Railway to the Manchukuo Government, but it is not apparent to me that this involves any obligation on the part of the signatories of the Nine-Power Treaty.
Is it not the case that the Manchukuo Government have claimed that part of the railway which origiNaily belonged, and presently does belong, to China; and will the right hon. Gentleman not take into consideration the fact that this Government has no power to contract with the Soviet Republic of Russia to sell a railway in which it has no right?
I should be very sorry to assume that the Soviet Government will do anything to infringe the sovereignty of another country.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer my question, which was, not whether the Soviet Republic have any rights to sell, but whether the Manchukuo Government have any rights to buy?
That is an extremely difficult legal question, on which I am not prepared to pronounce an opinion.
Has the right hon. Gentleman received from His Majesty's Minister to the Chinese Republic any dispatch dealing with this subject, and, if so, can it be laid on the Table of the House, or will he state the Source of the information that he has just conveyed to the House?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put a question down. I have answered the question on the Paper.
I will raise it in the discussion to-morrow.
Juvenile Offenders (Birching)
6.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to recent cases where punishments of birching have been inflicted on boys before the expiration of the statutory period during which the decisions might be appealed against; if he is aware that two boys, aged 12 years each, were ordered at the Southport children's court, on 13th April, to receive six strokes of the birch each, and that the same two boys were on 19th April again ordered six strokes of the birch each for an offence committed before the former one; and whether, in view of these and similar cases, he will introduce a Bill to abolish birching as a punishment for young persons on the lines of the original draft of the Children Bill in 1932?
I am not aware of any requirement in law to delay the carrying out of an order of a court of summary jurisdiction for the whipping of a boy, as suggested in the first part of the question. On the contrary, the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, provides that the whipping shall be administered as soon as practicable. My attention has been called to the Southport case and I am informed by the Justices that they only resort to whipping on the rarest occasions and with the utmost reluctance. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. My hon. Friend will remember that only last year a proposal in the Children and Young Persons Bill to deprive Courts of Summary Jurisdiction of the power to order boys to be whipped was not accepted by Parliament.
Exchequer Grants (Wales)
16.
asked the Minister of Health whether the deductions he proposes to make in the Exchequer grants payable to certain authorities have been fixed; and, if so, how the grant revenue of each of the boroughs and counties for South Wales will be affected?
17.
asked the Minister of Health whether the grants to the county councils of North Wales are to be affected by the decision to allocate £500,000 to the distressed areas and, if so, to what extent?
The reference is presumably to the statement which I made on 12th April as to a temporary measure of assistance to the distressed areas.
The matter is at present under discussion with representatives of the London County Council and the County Councils Association and Association of Municipal Corporations, and I am, accordingly, unable to make any statement as to the allocation of any particular sum for the purpose or as to the effect on the finances of particular authorities.Moneylenders Act
27.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons and firms registered under the Moneylenders Act on the 1st March, 1933, or on such other date on which the returns can be made up, giving the nationality of the persons so registered?
The system of registering moneylenders was abolished by the Moneylenders Act, 1927. Instead, moneylenders are, subject to certain exceptions, required to obtain Excise licences annually, and these licences are only granted to persons authorised by the Petty Sessional Justices or other competent authority to hold them. The number of licences issued in the year ended 31st March, 1932 (the latest date up to which the figures are at present available) was 3,519. No information as to the nationality of holders of licences is available.
Are any Hitlerites registered in this country?
Disarmament Conference
59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the position of the Disarmament Conference Since the declaration by Mr. Norman Davis in the general committee?
The discussion of the United Kingdom Draft Convention is still continuing at Geneva. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to make a statement on Foreign Affairs tomorrow, and perhaps the hon. Member will be so good as to await until then a fuller answer to his question.
Business Of The House
May I ask the Lord President of the Council what will be the business for next week, and at the same time, how far he proposes to go with the Finance Bill to-night?
I have looked carefully through the Amendments, and I hope it may be possible to get as far as Clause 38 to-night, but in that event I should propose that Clauses 29 and 30 should not be taken, as I understand it would be more convenient to the Opposition if they were not taken to-night. If we get as far, we will move to postpone their consideration. I hope we can get the Metropolitan Police [Money] Resolution. The first two Orders on the Paper, I think, are non-controversial and will not take any time. After that, we will proceed to consider the Finance Bill. With regard to next week,
On Monday, we shall take the Agricultural Marketing Bill, Report and Third Reading, to be continued on Tuesday until half-past seven, when we propose to resume the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. Wednesday and Thursday: Finance Bill. We hope to conclude the Committee stage on Thursday night. Friday: Motion for the Whitsuntide Recess, and the House will be asked to reassemble on Tuesday, 13th June. On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.I understand that the Police [Money] Resolution must be taken at the end of the Sitting after Eleven o'clock. We must not be taken as consenting to the proposal. The Government give us the choice of taking it late at night in any case and we prefer to take it to-night, but it means that we either have to sit up very late and discuss it at an hour which we think is quite unseemly or allow it to go simply with a Division. We agree under duress.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have no desire in any way to curtail such Debate as he desires. I hope progress may be such as to enable it to come on at a reasonable time. There is no intention of sitting up late to-night.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that we shall not make the Debate to-night long. It will not be us. There are many of his own supporters who will have a very great deal to say on the subjects that are coming up, and the right hon. Gentleman, with the best intentions, may find us all landed about eleven or half-past to take this Police Resolution.
I entirely agree with that, and, of course, the discussion which always arises on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is a matter in the hands of the House. We will do the best we can to make that arrangement, but on the Finance Bill the interests are such that no one can gather that any particular portion of the Bill will come to an end at a particular time.
The right hon. Gentleman misses the point that this year we have been squeezed for time.
indicated dissent.
I think so, anyhow. All this business must be got through in order to release the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We might have had this Vote for the Police taken earlier and had another day, or half-a-day, for the Finance Bill, but I understand—and I appreciate the fact—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must go to the World Economic Conference. Still I think it is a pity that this matter is put down in this rather rushed and hurry-up sort of way.
Ordered,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
Chairmen's Panel
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Cape to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of of the Slaughter of Animals Bill); Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Metropolitan Police Bill); and Sir Ian Macpherson to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.
Message From The Lords
That they have agreed to,—
False Oaths (Scotland) Bill,
Solicitors (Scotland) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Hereford and West Kent Main Sewerage District) Bill,
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Tees Valley Water Board and West Monmouthshire Omnibus Board) Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the boundaries of the borough of Barking; to confer further powers on the Barking Corporation in relation to their electricity and markets undertakings, lands, street trading, and other matters; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the borough: and for other purposes." [Barking Corporation Bill [ Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Bootle with regard to the running of public service vehicles in the borough and neighbourhood and to make provision with regard to the abandonment and discontinuance of the tramways in the borough; and for other purposes."[Bootle Corporation Bill [ Lords.]
Local Government Bill Lords
That they have appointed a Committer consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Local Government Bill [ Lords,] and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.
Barking Corporation Bill Lords
Bootle Corporation Bill Lords
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee B
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Denville, Captain Peter Macdonald, and Sir Kenyon Vaughan Morgan: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Eady, Sir Joseph Lamb, and Mr. Morgan.
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Slaughter of Animals Bill): Lieut. -Colonel Sandeman Allen, Mr. Banfield, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Glossop, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Janner, Viscount Lymington, Major Procter, Mr. Shakespeare, and Sir J. Walker Smith.
Standing Committee C
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Holdsworth, and Sir Joseph Lamb; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Reginald Blaker, Mr. Janner, and Mr. Murray-Phillpson.
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Metropolitan Police Bill): Lieut. -Commander Bower, Mr. Briant, Miss Cazalet, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir John Gilmour, Miss Graves, Mr. Grimston, Mr. Hacking, Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Lees-Jones, Major Llewellin, Captain Lumley, Mr. Lunn, Mr. Meller, Major Mills, Brigadier-General Nation, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Selley, Mr. Shakespeare, and Mr. Solicitor General.
Scottish Standing Committee
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Bill): Colonel Crookshank, Mr. Daggar, Mr. Munro, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Alexander Ramsay, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mr. West Russell, Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart, Mr. Whiteside, and Mr. Charles Williams.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Selection (Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) (Panel)
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had added the following Two Members to the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Commander Cochrane and Colonel Crookshank.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Orders Of The Day
Finance Savings Bank Annuities
Resolution reported,
"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to provide that all savings bank annuities granted on or after the eleventh day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, in accordance with the tables for calculating the amount of such annuities which were approved by the Treasury on that date shall be deemed to have been lawfully granted, and accordingly shall be charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund."
Resolution agreed to.
Finance Post Office Fund
Resolution reported,
"That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient—(a) to authorise the payment from time to time out of the Consolidated Fund, into a fund to be established under the said Act by the name of the Post Office Fund, of sums to be calculated in the manner provided by the said Act; and (b) to provide for the payment from time to time out of the fund so established into the Exchequer of sums to be calculated in manner provided by the said Act, and of sums which it is anticipated may become due from that fund to the Exchequer under the provisions of the said Act."
Resolution agreed to.
Finance Bill
Further considered in Committee. [ Progress, 24th May.]
[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Clause 6—(Amendments As To Duty On Hydrocarbon Oils)
The next Amendment which I propose to call is the second one standing in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean). In accordance with what I said yesterday, it comes in the group of Amendments which has been described as deferment of the date of the duty, and the hon. Member will realise, therefore, that we shall discuss on the Amendment which I am about to call both that Amendment and also the later Amendment in the name of the same lion. Member to leave out Sub-section (2).
3.45 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, to leave out the word "April," and to insert instead thereof the word "November."
The purpose of the Amendment is to delay the operation of the tax until the month of November. The reason for putting down the Amendment is evident from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is to give him an opportunity of putting the particular industries in whose interests the tax is being imposed in some sort of order. In replying to the discussion which took place yesterday afternoon on another group of Amendments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it evident to the House that he had two purposes in view. The first purpose was that which every Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view in imposing a tax, namely, to raise money for the purposes of carrying on the Government. The second purpose which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave yesterday was that it might help the coal industry, and, in elaborating that purpose, he said that he had been informed that by the imposition of the tax, and the fact that a number of oil users might require to go back to the use of coal, there was a possibility of employment for about 12,000 miners. He did not say what might be the number of workers who would be displaced in other industries. He merely referred to the fact that 12,000 miners might be employed if coal of equal fuel value were used instead of oil. I cannot say definitely, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot say with regard to the number of miners who will be given employment, how many workers may be thrown out of employment as a result of the imposition of this tax, but I can say that in the East and in the West of Scotland, as Leith and at Ardrossan, two orders which had been placed for oil-using vessels have been cancelled. The orders were placed before the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the tax, and immediately after the announcement the orders were cancelled, because, in the opinion of the shipping companies who had ordered those vessels, it would have been un- remunerative to build the ships and run them on oil upon which a tax had been imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which would have had to be paid. The cost would have been too high to enable them to run the vessels, or at least to look forward with any hope of running them with any possibility of profits being derived from the carrying of cargoes. We are inclined to the belief that in imposing the tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made too sudden a leap upon the users of oil fuel. He might at least have given them some longer period, so that they might have had an opportunity of developing other methods of using alternative fuels, which would have enabled them to meet the tax. He has given them no such opportunity. During the operation of the tax the users of oil fuel will have to consider the making of arrangements to change into some other method, it may be the method of using coal, thereby employing a certain number of additional workers in that industry; but in the meantime those individuals or companies will have to pay the tax. We wish to put this point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is either doing this for the purpose of assisting the coal industry, as he said, or for the purpose of deriving revenue. In either case, he is not facing up to the difficulties that those who use oil fuel are likely to meet. Has he considered, or have the Government considered, any scheme for transforming, by the processes already known, coal into oil fuel? If that was the purpose of the tax, then practically every Member of the House would agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and the mine owners and mine workers would agree with him, but the Government have come forward with no scheme whereby oil fuel can be taken from coal. They are putting it forward merely as a tax, and leading the House to believe that one purpose is the increased employment of miners. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer really had the interests of the miners at heart, if he was desirous of employing the 12,000 miners to whom he referred, then both he and the Government would have gone carefully into the methods of producing oil from coal in this country. They would have had a scheme prepared and would have had that scheme put into working operation in time for the imposition of this tax, so that those industries now using oil fuel could have turned over to the using of oil fuel manufactured from coal produced by the miners of this country. That would have helped not only the miners but the Government in deriving revenue from the tax. If it is a protective tax—I do not think it is, Since it has no relation, I understand, to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and cannot be referred to them—then it is a protective tariff to keep out foreign goods, and it is a revenue tariff to raise revenue for the Government, and the information that the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to the House yesterday afternoon as to the assistance that it was likely to give to the mining industry was beside the point. If it were possible by the end of next week for the users of oil fuel so to transform their plants into coal-using boilers and furnaces, he would lose revenue, but the 12,000 additional miners might be employed. If the Government interested themselves in the development of the methods for producing oil from coal in this country there would be much wider use of that oil than is the case in regard to oil imported from abroad. In that way the right hon. Gentleman would develop an industry in this country, which is a new industry, and at the same time he would be giving greater assistance to the coal mining industry by providing employment for a very much larger additional number than 12.000. The right hon. Gentleman ought to delay the imposition of the tax, so that the Government might have an opportunity of considering the various schemes for producing oil from coal that are in existence, so that they might select that which is considered by the experts to be the best and most economical, and then they ought to put the schemes into operation, if possible, by November of this year. The tax could then become operative against any oil that might be brought into the country. That would give home-produced fuel an opportunity of facing up to the foreign imported oils, and it would also give employment to a large number or mine workers.3.57 p.m.
I rise to support the Amendment because I believe its accept- ance would give time for the examination of the problem in such a way that a great many of the difficulties which at present are not apparent to the Committee might be made clear. Throughout the discussion on this tax there has never been any real evidence that the coal industry is going to benefit to the extent to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped it would benefit. Yesterday I listened for an indication from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had worked out with any appreciable degree of detail how the coal miners were going to be put into work. As one who represents a constituency which is largely a coal mining district, I should be very pleased if I could see that this tax would really mean a considerable reduction in unemployment amongst the coal miners; but after listening to the right hon. Gentleman there were still in my mind many doubts which I have been trying to dissipate by research amongst the various channels open to me to find out how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer could prove his contention to be right. If the operation of this tax were put off until November all those industries that are affected by it would have a chance of showing how far they would be able to give employment to the people engaged in their particular trade. The argument has been put forward that certain trades will be affected adversely. In examining these matters one discounts a certain amount as exaggeration, which is quite natural when a trade is putting forward a case against a proposed tax on its fuel.
I would ask the Chancellor another question. If he is going to say, in reply to this Amendment, that he must have this revenue, it can be pointed out to him that the revenue could be obtained by a different method. If between now and November the amount of revenue which he would stand to lose would be too much, I would suggest that he should put the tax on in a different manner. I would suggest that he should tax lubricating oil to a much greater extent, and that he should leave the tax on kerosene. I could give figures to show that he would obtain by that means a much greater amount of tax in the year than by the present tax. Between now and November he could, by such method of taxation, at least obtain his revenue, and he could find out from a very careful inquiry among the trades concerned whether employment was going to be improved or worsened. On the other score, not of revenue but of helping the gas industry, I maintain that the agitation which has been aroused as a result of the imposition of this tax has so far benefited the gas industry that it has already obtained a great deal of advantage without the tax actually coming effectively into operation. It has seemed to me, on careful examination, that the main cause why the coal industry and its derivatives have been losing in the fight with oil has been very largely because the coal salesman has not been as good as the oil salesman.The hon. Member's speech is developing into an argument on the general question. He must confine his remarks strictly to the question of the date at which the tax is to come into operation.
I quite appreciate your Ruling, and submit to it, but I am trying to point out that there is good and sufficient reason why the tax should be deferred until November. I am trying to point out that gas and the other derivatives of coal have already obtained sufficient advantage by the agitation of the last few weeks to enable the Chancellor to say that it will not suffer if the tax is deferred until November, that it will not necessarily lose ground in the intervening months. I would suggest that the gas industry itself might not object to the tax being deferred until November. I think, perhaps, that all the industries concerned in gas, coke and so on, would admit that they would not lose ground, because their salesmen would have the definite advantage which has been given to them by the general agitation of the last few weeks. If, therefore, the Chancellor says that on the ground of revenue he cannot accept this Amendment, I can suggest ways by which he might get his revenue without damaging the heavy oil users. If he puts it on the score of not being able to help coal and its derivatives sufficiently, I would suggest that the derivatives have already obtained sufficient advantage by the fillip given to the industry by the discussion of the tax. Therefore, I hope that the Chancellor, while still maintaining, perhaps, the principle of attempting to help the coal industry and coal derivatives, will consider this Amendment as a reasonable one, because it gives him and those concerned sufficient time to consider the implications of the matter in all its aspects and that will be in the interests of all concerned.
4.5 p.m.
It would be a very great pleasure to support this Amendment if the proposed postponement would result in action by the Government in the direction indicated by the Mover and supporter of the Amendment. If this Amendment would permit of it, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to their lackadaisical method in dealing with the difficulties of the coal trade. As far as the proposed tax is concerned, I am afraid that it will not give to the mining industry the necessary help that this Government ought to give and which this House ought to have begun some months ago. I think it is time that steps should be taken to re-establish prosperity in the mining industry, and not only that, but to take note of the fact that this industry, on which the whole Empire has built its prosperity, is not being given the attention of the Government that it warrants. I would suggest that if postponement would result in the Government and Parliament dealing with the position of the mining industry in a proper way by reorganisation, and giving full consideration to the tremendous possibilities there are, it would be a Godsend not only to the mining industry but to the nation as a whole. I think it is a colossal crime the way the Government have sat Since taking office 18 months ago and not made the slightest attempt to bring back prosperity to the most important industry in the British isles.
The hon. Member, I think, is getting rather away from the Amendment. This is not the occasion for a discussion of Government policy in regard to the coal industry.
The Government did undertake to do something real for the mining industry, and I suggest that if this industry is allowed to go on much longer in the way it has been going for the last few years, you are giving away the greatest asset of this nation, and there is nothing to replace it. There are vast possibilities both in the production of oil fuel and in the use of pulverised coal if the Government would take action. But I could not support this Amendment, because I have no faith in the Government. If they had made any provision to do anything, it would be a delight to support this Amendment giving them time to do it, but this tax will not bring back the prosperity that is desired in the mining industry and I hope it will not be long before they give way to somebody who has an interest in the industry, and is desirous of bringing it back to prosperity.
4.9 p.m.
I want to support the Amendment, which has my name against it. I am really astonished that the Committee should have been sidetracked in the way it has been by putting the coal industry up against oil, and engineering and shipbuilding. That has been a deliberate plot put on foot in this House. There is no denying that. They have also brought in the gas industry, which is a very powerful combination in this House, and all the interests have been used with a view to crush what is one of our new industries at its very Inception, when we are geting our feet as far as the Diesel engine is concerned, and when we are being able to compete in this field of engineering in a way that we have never been able to do before. We have just got ourselves set going, and now we find the whole power in this House being turned against it in the most scientific manner possible. And it was done by my own fellow-countryman, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) yesterday, the whole of this Debate having been sidetracked by the contention that the most modern method was gas, and not oil. We are here to-day to try to save those who have put their all into this business. That is why we wish to insert "November" instead of "April." It is to give us a breathing space. That is all we are asking. We are not asking very much of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there is no doubt that the light hon. Gentleman himself was not very sure of his ground, so much so that at the start of this Debate on oil he himself said that he would wait before he gave his decision; he would hear the discussion of the different points of view on the Floor of the House. But they have turned it round now as if the action of the Chancellor is in defence of the coal industry. It is all so much nonsense, and I am sorry to see that all my colleagues who represent colliery divisions have fallen into the trap.
Not all of us.
The hon. Member may not, but it was evident yesterday when we came to a vote that it was done in such an artful manner that a number of my colleagues fell into the trap. I hope they are not going to do it to-day. I hope the Committee will see that we are trying to do what we can to save the situation for some time, that is, the difference betwixt April and November. There are many instances which could be given to justify what we are doing. I know several cases where new factories have been established in which the Diesel engine has been installed. It is impossible for them to instal gas. Gas, as understood by those who were putting forward the proposition yesterday, presupposes that you are either near a big still or near a large industrial centre. There are many new industries being established in this country that are not adjacent to either of those, and they have installed the Diesel engine. It will spell ruin to them, unless the Chancellor is going to give some concession in cases such as these. Then, again, it is going to cripple our coastal trade.
That will come on a later Amendment.
I agree. I will not transgress on that, but I would appeal to every section of the Committee, because if ever there were something that was not a party question, this is it. Hon. Members in this House who do big business know perfectly well that this is no party matter, but they have taken advantage of the inexperience of some hon. Members to sidetrack them into voting in a manner which they were led to believe was for the benefit of the working classes. They were not doing anything of the kind; they were voting against the working classes.
4.15 p.m.
The last thing I desire to do is to put any impediment in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer doing something to revive the mining industry. We do not accept the stories which were told yesterday by hon. Members representing small industries. There is a justifiable reason for delaying the imposition of this tax. In the first place, it should be ascertained whether it will have any serious effect on the manufacture of the Diesel engine in this country. If that manufacture was impaired it would have a detrimental effect on the mining industry. If it would prevent- the absorption of steel which goes into the manufacture of the Diesel engine, in that way the mining industry would be affected. There is, also, a case for making further inquiries as to whether the imposition of the tax would mean that more miners would be engaged by the prevention of the importation of oil into this country. That is the only way by which miners can be employed in larger numbers, by producing coal which would be consumed in those factories which are now consuming oil. That, I believe, is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind. On the other hand, there is the point as to whether the manufacture of the Diesel engine, or any kind of technique which now gives employment to steel workers and persons in the ancillary trades, would mean that more miners would be employed in the production of pig-iron. This point should be considered, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have further time to reflect on all these matters which ultimately affect the employment or non-employment of miners.
Figures which were given last week from the Ministry of Labour indicated that 40,000 more miners were unemployed during the last 12 months than in the year previous. The Government have made no attempt to tackle the mining problem. If they did they would at once institute a National Board and eliminate all the petty competition which now takes place. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts up the argument that it may mean that 12,000 more miners will be at work, he is really making an apology for the ineffectiveness of Government action during the last 18 months. We are not pressing the Amendment because we desire to put any impediment in the way of the engagement of more miners. We are anxious that the industry should be properly re- organised, unified and treated as a national concern, and that all the petty squabbling which is taking place in the production of steel and coal should be eliminated. We have to be convInced that this tax will fulfil what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in mind. Will it engage 12,000 extra miners? Will it mean that oil will come into this country in smaller quantities? Will it tend to affect the production of the Diesel engine, with a detrimental effect on the mining industry? We hope the Government will accept the Amendment as one coming from the mining industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have arrived at certain deductions from certain figures, but it may be that the figures upon which those deductions have been made may not be thoroughly sound.4.21 p.m.
I want to ask the Financial Secretary whether he-will answer a question which I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, which no doubt he ovErieoked in the course of the many speeches he had to make, and that is, what is the policy of the Government as regards the matter of oil duties? I entirely agree that we ought to take a broad view of this matter, not a sectional view, as to whether it assists particular industries with which we are connected or which thrive or not in our own constituencies. In this proposal we are taxing one of the great primary commodities used in this country for manufactures, used as a fuel and in other ways. You cannot play fast and loose with these great commodities, change the tax upon them, without any declared policy, unless you are going to do a great deal of harm to industry. I ask whether this tax is to be regarded as a first step in the taxation of fuel oil, or as a final tax?
I do not think that I can allow the Financial Secretary to answer that question on this particular Amendment. It might come up on the question of the Clause standing part. The hon. and learned Member is dealing with the tax as a whole rather than with the date at which the tax shall come into operation.
But the policy behind the tax is a vital matter in regard to the date upon which it shall operate. Unless the Government have some policy I am asking that they shall delay its operation until they have found a policy. Before we give authority for the tax to come into operation at once I want to know whether there is a policy, and I want to be able to judge whether that policy has been sufficiently developed to make it wise for the Committee to authorise the tax immediately or whether, in view of their statement, the Government should not have more time to think out their policy. That is why we do not think that the tax should come into operation until November next. I have spoken of the uncertainty which this leaves in the minds of those concerned with the great industries which use this material as a fuel. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) spoke of various alternative forms of fuel. I should like to ask whether the Government have any policy as regards the development of gas; or whether they will have a policy by November next?
I am afraid that I really cannot allow a repetition of yesterday's Debate. The Amendment before the Committee is simply a question as to the date; whether the tax should be imposed at this particular date or some other date.
Am I not in order in pointing out that until industrialists in this country know the purpose of the Government this tax should not be imposed? And that they should be given time, after knowing the policy of the Government—if the Government have one—to decide what they are going to do with their plant; whether they will reconvert it or continue to use oil in spite of the extra taxation? Am I not entitled to ask the Government whether they have any policy so that industrialists may know?
I think that is in order, but with a strict limitation to questions of policy arising out of this tax. To discuss policy generally is not in order.
I will confine myself strictly to policy arising out of the fuel tax. The industrialist has to consider at once, if the incidence of this tax is not delayed, whether he is to convert his plant. Is that what the Government want him to do? If he is to convert it, to what form are the Government anxious that he should convert it? Is it, necessarily, to some coal burning form of plant? If the object of the Government is to prevent people burning oil and make them burn coal then, presumably, the Government have worked out some plan as to the future use of power, and power creating instruments in this country. We want the Financial Secretary to tell us, so that we can make up our mind as to whether the tax should be postponed or not, whether this is merely an isolated revenue raising protective tax or whether it is part of a considered fuel policy of the Government. If it is I hope the hon. Member will tell us what the policy is. Is it to encourage the pulverisation of fuel, the hydrogenation of coal, to get our own home oil supplies; is it low temperature carbonisation; or whatever the process may be. It is only in the light of these considerations that the Committee can properly make up its mind as to whether the tax should be imposed now or postponed for six months, to allow manufacturers to adjust themselves to the incidence of the tax and determine what they are going to do, and how they are to do it in order to assist in carrying out the Government's policy.
4.29 p.m.
I find it somewhat difficult to follow the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) because he wants to turn every possible argument he can to the disadvantage of the National Government. I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment. I suggest that this tax has been introduced without sufficient consideration for the varied interests involved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have received in the course of the last few weeks a multitude of representations, not merely from small industries but from large industries as to the incidence of this taxation. Representing an industrial community I consider that it would have been desirable if the Treasury, in preparing the financial statement for the year, had examined more carefully the extent to which employment in the industries now using fuel oil would be affected by the tax. I think it would be useful, indeed it would be very much appre- ciated by a large number of struggling industrialists, if the introduction of this duty could be postponed for a period until more exhaustive inquiry were made as to the extent to which industry would be affected and the extent to which employment in industry would be affected.
I hope I shall not be regarded as saying anything very violent if I express the hope that more consideration might be given by the Treasury, in many instances where taxation is proposed without adequate regard to the interests immediately involved. It would be very helpful if we were not merely told that this duty would employ 12,000 men in the mining industry, with the resuscitation of which everyone has sympathy, but also if we were told the extent to which that would react on the employment in industries to which the tax would apply. I am told on good authority that many of our industries in the Black Country and Midlands, and above all the glass industry, are dependent for their continued efficiency on fuel oil and cannot carry on without fuel oil. They will suffer immediate loss and will have to put on the roadside large numbers of men who are now employed. That is a very serious consideration. I respectfully submit to my right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be helpful if he could see his way, in order more fully to examine all the considerations involved, to postpone the time when this duty is to come into operation.4.33 p.m.
I find it somewhat embarrassing to reply upon this Amendment, because the whole question of policy has been raised by various speakers, and you, Mr. Chairman, have ruled that out of order.
On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman entitled to give an answer to a question which you said that I was entitled to ask, as to the Government policy?
Up to a certain point that is so. The hon. and learned Member will quite understand that, although an alternative policy is a matter which may be referred to as an argument against a particular Amendment, yet the wide discussion of alternative policies is not a matter which would be in order on an Amendment of this kind. I allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman and some other speakers to go rather far, because I am always unwilling to curb an Opposition unnecessarily in matters of that kind, but the discussion must be kept within certain limits, and I shall have to watch and see that the hon. Gentleman who is replying does not go beyond those limits.
I merely asked what the policy was, and not what any alternative policy was.
It was because I was so anxious not to disappoint my hon. Friends who have raised this matter that I called attention to the fact that the Ruling of the Chair would necessarily limit me, and that I could not extend over the whole field. The Amendment under discussion and the one which follows are narrow Amendments. One Seeks to postpone the operation of the Customs Duty until November, and the other seeks to cancel the Excise Duty altogether. Of course, the effect of the first Amendment would be that we should get only four months' tax in the course of the financial year, and the effect of the second Amendment would be that all the stock in the country would escape payment of Excise Duty. That is the narrow and immediate effect of the Amendments. It has to be borne in mind that the duty is already in force, and that when a duty of this kind is imposed it is advisable, in the interests of the revenue, that it should operate the moment it is announced. That is, of course, what happened in this particular case. Otherwise, and if the spirit of these Amendments were to be accepted, you would be giving notice to all the importers of oil that they had a certain period in which to accumulate stocks and to escape the tax altogether. It would be quite impracticable in cases of this kind to give a long period of notice.
Surely it would be quite possible to avoid that by making it quite clear that in November all the stocks would similarly be taxed?
No, and in this matter we have followed the precedent of previous cases. In order to prevent evasion it is clearly desirable that a duty of this kind should have effect from the moment it is announced. So much for the purely technical effect of the Amendment. Those who have spoken have asked that the tax should be delayed for two purposes. The Mover of the Amendment said in effect: "Delay this tax for four months until you have made sure that there is a satisfactory and profitable method of extracting oil from coal." I am sure he appreciates, from the previous discussions, that the policy of the Government is far wider than that. It is not merely for the purpose of extracting oil from coal, but it is for the purpose of encouraging the direct use of coal and its derivatives, coke, electricity, and so forth. It is not for giving a breathing-space or time in which a lucrative method of extracting oil from coal can be devised.
The other grounds on which the Amendment has been advanced are, first, that notice should be given to British industrialists in order that they may have time to convert their plants from one type of fuel to another. What about those people who have already, under this tax, planned to change back from oil to coal? There have been letters in the newspapers from hotels and other enterprises, in which statements have been made that schemes are already in existence—I do not know on how large a scale—to take advantage of this duty and to return to a form of heating or power which is derived from coal. It would be a gross deception to those who under the aegis of this tax have made these preparations were we now to betray them by taking the tax off altogether. An hon. Member said that if it were merely a question of revenue he would suggest alternative means of getting the revenue. He wanted a higher tax on lubricating oil. Lubricating oil is an essential in all industries, and there is no particular justification for putting the whole of the financial burden of this tax upon one kind of oil. Besides it would infringe the general policy which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced, of encouraging the use of coal and its derivatives. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked some very wide questions, which I do not propose to answer in detail because they exceed the scope of the Amendment. He asked whether it was our policy that industrialists should convert their plants. Undoubtedly, wherever that can suitably be done, it is. He asked what they were to do. In each particular case it is a matter of the technical considerations of the industry concerned, but the Goal Utilisation Council and the Gas Council are ready to advise any industrialist or any private person as to the best uses of the fuel over which they have control. In any event I do not think that any industrialist will now be in any doubt. It is our purpose, and we have succeeded in effecting it, to show that oil is not going to be put in a favoured position, and is not going to become a vested interest free of all tax, and we have given a plain indication of what the general lines of our policy are.4.55 p.m.
I rather agree with the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) in deprecating the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the Government should produce a plan. It was an unkind suggestion. Of course the Government have not got a plan. It would be most exceptional if they had. In this particular case it is even more ridiculous to suppose that there is a plan, for the whole thing is obvious. The Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted revenue, and he saw that if he imposed this particular tax he could call in aid the almost unanimous opinion of this House in favour of protecting something or everything. But this particular Amendment has nothing to do with Protection at all. It is solely a question of a tax, and nothing else. The extra 12,000 miners whom we are to see at work owing to the beneficent action of this tax, will not be affected in the least by postponing the imposition of the tax until November. Notice has been given, the tax is coming on in November, and the effects, so far as the coal trade is concerned, will be exactly the same as if the tax was imposed now. All that the Amendment does is to leave in being the enormous advantage that these trades are to get from this tax, but at the same time to reduce the revenue side of the tax.
If the Amendment were carried the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose this year about £1,500,000 of revenue. That is all there is in it. I would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, who is the yoke-fellow of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer in this enterprise, not to put forward again the argument that if this tax was postponed the country would be flooded with untaxed fuel oil and that the manufacturers and Shell-Mex would get away with it. It would not have that effect in the least. When this tax was imposed three weeks ago it was imposed on all oil in the country, as well as on all oil coming into the country. If it is put off until November, in the same way it will go upon all the oil in the country. The only effect will be to exempt from tax the oil actually used between now and November. As far as this Bill or this Government is concerned, it will be a loss of revenue of £1,500,000 but the protective value of the tax, if it has any protective value, will remain as at present. All we are considering is the revenue question, whether we want to take £1,500,000 from the industries which have gone in for the use of fuel oil or whether it would not be more generous on the part of the Government to give them a breathing space and time in which to change over if they wish to do so. The Financial Secretary was almost pathetic in his desire not to do anything now which would injure those who, according to letters in the Press—which I have not seen—are arranging to change over from oil fuel to coal. The letters which I have seen were all from suppliers of oil who said that tome people were going to change over, but I have not seen any letters from people who said they were going to make the change themselves. The Financial Secretary made a pathetic but no doubt thoroughly justifiable appeal that we ought to stand by the proprietors of blocks of flats and hotels—half a dozen perhaps at the outside—who have decided in view of the tax to make the change. They cannot have incurred very great expense. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary think rather of all those thousands of people who, relying on general theories of what constitutes fair taxation, have put their Capttal into oil fuel methods of firing. In the case of the transport trade, when the Government are dealing with motor cars and lorries they give a breathing space to the people who have put their Capttal into solid-tyred vehicles before saying, "You must convert to pneumatic tyres." I forget how many years have been allowed in that case but I think it is a matter of years. All we are asking in this case is that the people who have put their money into a particular form of firing should be given not years but eight months' breathing space—only eight months in which to write off all the Capttal cost which will be incurred if they have to convert to other forms of firing, and in which to adjust forward contracts for the supply of goods at prices based upon a fuel 40 per cent. cheaper than that which they will actually have to use in the production of those goods. There are forward contracts for thousands of pounds which will be affected by this proposal. There are large sums invested in plants which may have to be scrapped. The Government might give those concerned eight months in which to write off that expense and get rid of their contracts in order that they may not be completely ruined by Government action. The Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday made it clear that he had three objects in this proposal. The first was protection, which we need not deal with here. The second object was to safeguard the revenue from the Petrol Tax. The right hon. Gentleman apparently was afraid that if this heavy oil was not taxed, science and invention would devise methods of using heavy oils where light oils are used at present. That question is not affected in the least by this Amendment. The knowledge that the tax is going to be imposed in November is quite enough to prevent people experimenting any further with the use of heavy oil to take the place of a light oil. The third object was revenue and that is the only object with which we are concerned here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Coal!"] Coal is not affected by this Amendment. The knowledge that the tax is going to be put on in November will have exactly the same protective effect on the coal trade, by checking people who were about to adopt oil burning. It is the revenue question with which we are concerned here and, as regards revenue, I think we might all with clear consciences whether we are Protectionists or Free Traders, ask for the Amendment. The Chancellor said yesterday that progress might lie in various directions. Progress can be forward or backward. Progress hitherto has been the result of invention inspired by the desire to reduce costs. It has been the result of every individual thinking out for himself what was best for his own business. Now, for the first time the Government—not the Labour party—have devised a method of the State direction of progress. It is no longer to be left to the individual managing his own business to decide in what way industry is to progress. The Government have taken it in hand. This is State Socialism of the most drastic character and, of course, I welcome it—I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not now going to improve on the example of earlier speakers in going outside the scope of the Amendments to try and discuss State socialism.
I was getting on to the same ground and if I may say so, Sir Dennis, you were quite right to intervene. State Socialism, from whatever side it comes, is, of course, desirable but that is all the more reason why we should require the State Socialists to have some plan and some idea of the direction in which they are going. The eight months for which we ask would give them a breathing space and an opportunity to produce their plan. In addition to the arguments which can be advanced from the point of view of the victims of this new tax, I urge that the Government themselves ought to have a breathing space in order to decide the direction in which they intend to force the manufacturers of this country to go.
I Sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not succumb to the enticing and persuasive appeal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). The right hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded his remarks by asking the Government whether they had a plan. As I understand it, the plan of His Majesty's Government is to give some direct encouragement to the use of coal as against the use of oil. It is obvious that the main consideration in the minds of the Treasury is not so much one of revenue—
On a point of Order. Is not the question at issue on this Amendment solely one of revenue?
I do not think that is so. At the same time I think the hon. and gallant Member is getting beyond the scope of the Amendment. There are two Amendments to be discussed and two only, one deferring the date on which the Customs Tax comes into operation, and the other getting rid of the Excise Tax on existing stocks.
I was endeavouring to address myself to the first Amendment dealing with the postponement from April to November. If we did that the coal industry would lose a great opportunity which presents itself now for demonstrating the advantages of coal as at present used in great industries throughout the country and of showing that the methods in use are far superior to the methods which were employed even a few months ago.
The hon. and gallant Member represents a division of Cardiff and Cardiff mainly depends on the export trade in coal. How will the release of all this oil for the export market affect the export coal trade?
I see the point which the hon. Member has in mind but I feel that the proposals of the Government go
Division No. 194.]
| AYES.
| [4 58 p.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Browne, Captain A. C. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) |
| Adams. Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Davison, Sir William Henry |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) | Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) | Burnett, John George | Denville, Alfred |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Dickie, John P. |
| Apsley, Lord | Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) | Donner, P. W. |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Campbell.Johnston, Malcolm | Doran, Edward |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Castlereagh, Viscount | Dower, Captain A. V. G. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Drewe, Cedric |
| Balniel, Lord | Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Duggan, Hubert John |
| Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell | Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th. S.) | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) |
| Barglay-Harvey, C. M. | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Dunglass, Lord |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Eady, George H. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J. A.(Birm.W) | Eastwood, John Francis |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.) | Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric | Elliston, Captain George Sampson |
| Beit, Sir Alfred L. | Clarke, Frank | Elmley, Viscount |
| Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley | Clayton, Dr. George C. | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. |
| Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Emrye- Evans, p. V. |
| Birchall, Ma)or Sir John Dearman | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Entwistie, Cyril Fullard |
| Blindell, James | Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Bossom, A. C. | Conant, R. J. E. | Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Cook, Thomas A. | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Cooke, Douglas | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E W. | Cooper, A. Duff | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Falle, Sir Bertram G. |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) | Fermoy, Lord |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Fielden, Edward Brockiehuret |
| Brockiebank, C. E. R. | Crossley, A. C. | Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y) | Culverwell, Cyril Tom | Fox, Sir Gilford |
a long way towards encouraging those experiments which we know have been carried out with such vigilance and care in order to see how far it is practicable to extract oil from coal on a commercial basis instead of using imported oil. With all respect to the hon. Member that is a question which is causing grave anxiety to the coal interests in Cardiff. As I have said, it is obvious that the Government are, in this instance, having regard to more than the question of revenue. I do not desire to go outside the Rulings which have been given on the scope of this discussion but it is obvious that the Government have in mind the fact that by imposing a tax of this kind at this time they are giving the best possible encouragement to the consumption of coal as against oil. Various arguments have been introduced to show that oil is more practicable and is cleaner in use than coal—
That was the subject of a Debate yesterday.
In view of the fact that I am approximately 24 hours late I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, and I do not propose to deal further with that question.
Question put, "That the word 'April' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 54.
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Lindsay, Noel Ker | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) |
| Fuller, Captain A. G. | Llewellin, Major John J. | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Lloyd, Geoffrey | Salt, Edward W. |
| Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n) | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Glossop, C. W. H. | Loder, Captain J, de Vere | Scone, Lord |
| Gluckstein, Louie Halle | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Glyn, Major Raiph G. C. | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Goff, Sir Park | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Shute, Colonel J. J. |
| Goldie, Noel B. | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Stater, John |
| Goodman, Colonel Albert W. | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Graham, Sir F. Fergut (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | McKie, John Hamilton | Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nichulas | McLean, Major Sir Alan | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Grimston, R. v. | Macmillan, Maurice Harold | Smithers, Waldron |
| Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. | Maitland, Adam | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Soper, Richard |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Hales, Harold K. | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonal John | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Hartland, George A. | Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Stevenson, James |
| Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.) |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes; | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres | Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.) |
| Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Morgan, Robert H. | Stones, James |
| Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Storey, Samuel |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Morrison, William Shepherd | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Moss, Captain H, J. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd) | Munro, Patrick | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Hepworth, Joseph | Nation, Brigadier-General 1. J. H. | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) | Newton, Sir Douglas George C. | Summersby, Charles H. |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Sutcliffe, Harold |
| Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | North, Edward T, | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A. | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Hornby, Frank | Palmer, Francis Noel | Thompson, Luke |
| Horsbrugh, Florence | Penny, Sir George | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport) | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Vaughan-Morgan. Sir Kenyon |
| Hurd, Sir Percy | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston) | Wallace, Captain O. E. (Hornsey) |
| Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada | Wallace, John (DunferMilne) |
| Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Pike, Cecil F. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Iveagh, Countess of | Potter, John | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | PowNail, sir Assheton | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Watt, Captain Gecrge Steven H. |
| Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Ramsden, Sir Eugene | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Rankin, Robert | Wedderburn, Henry James Serymgeour- |
| Ker, J. Campbell | Ray, Sir William | Whiteslds, Borras Noel H. |
| Kerr, Hamilton W. | Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham* | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Kimball, Lawrence | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Knight, Hollord | Reid, William Allan (Derby) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Renwick, Major Gustay A. | Wilson, Clyde T. (west Toxteth) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Robinson, John Roland | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Law, Sir Alfred | Ropner, Colonel L | Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Ross Taylor. Walter (Woodbridge) | Wragg, Herbert |
| Lees-Jones, John | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Young, Rt. Hon.Sir Hilton (S'V'noaks) |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) | |
| Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.- |
| Lewis, Oswald | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) | Sir Victor Warrender and Captain |
| Austin Hudson. | ||
NOES.
| ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke | Grundy, Thomas W. | Milner, Major James |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Banfield, John William | Harris, Sir Percy | Price, Gabriel |
| Batey, Joseph | Hirst, George Henry | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Holdsworth, Herbert | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Briant, Frank | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) |
| Cove, William G. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smith, Tom (Normanton) |
| Cowan, D. M. | Kirkwood, David | Thome, William James |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Lawson, John James | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Daggar, Gecrge | Leckie, J. A. | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Liddall, Walter S. | White, Henry Graham |
| Edwards, Charles | Logan, David Gilbert | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Evans, Capt, Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Lunn, William | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | McEntee, Valentine L. | Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKezie (Banff) |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesoro'.W.) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Maxton, James | Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald. |
I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, after the word "shall," to insert the words:
"except where the oils are not for use as fuel."
I move this formally.
Amendment negatived.
The next Amendment on the Paper—in page 5, line 10, to leave out the words "seven pence" and to insert instead thereof the words "seven pence halfpenny"—deals with the rate of duty, and with it could be discussed an Amendment two pages later on, also in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) and two other hon. Members—in page 5, line 21, to leave out the word "penny" and to insert instead thereof the word "halfpenny." The subject of the discussion, therefore, will be the rate of the Customs duty or the rate of the Excise duty on existing stocks.
5.8 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, to leave out the words "seven pence," and to insert instead thereof the words "seven pence halfpenny."
The idea of this Amendment is simply to hinder this tax. We have to use every artifice left to us by the Rules of the House, and we are simply using this as
Division No. 195.]
| AYES.
| [5.12 p.m.
|
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel. | Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Culverwell, Cyril Tom |
| Adamt, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Brown,Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks., Newb'y) | Davison, Sir William Henry |
| Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colanel Charles | Browne, Captain A. C. | Denville, Alfred |
| Albery, Irving James | Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.) | Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile | Dickie, John p. |
| Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) | Burnett, John George | Donner, P. W. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Butt, Sir Alfred | Doran, Edward |
| Anstruther-Gray, W, J. | Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Drewe, Cedric |
| Apsley, Lord | Calne, G. R. Hall- | Duggan, Hubert John |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe | Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Dunglass, Lord |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Castlereagh, viscount | Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey |
| Balniel, Lord | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Elliston, Captain George Sampson |
| Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell | Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Elmley, Viscount |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cayzer, Ma). Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Entwistle, Cyril Fullard |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W) | Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) |
| Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare |
| Belt, Sir Alfred L. | Clarke, Frank | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) |
| Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. | Clayton Dr. George C. | Falle, sir Bertram G. |
| Birchall, Major sir John Dearman | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Fermoy, Lord |
| Blatter, Sir Reginald | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst |
| Blindell, James | Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin |
| Boothby, Robert John Graham | Conant, R. J. E. | Fox, Sir Gifford |
| Bossom, A. C. | Cook, Thomas A. | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Boulton, W. W. | Cooke, Douglas | Fremantle, Sir Francis |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Cooper, A. Duff | Fuller, Captain A. G. |
| Bawyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Galbraith, James Francis Wallace |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle) | Ganzoni, Sir John |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) | Gillett, Sir George Masterman |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Glossop, C. W. H. |
a means of protesting against this tax. We think we have a distinct grievance against the Government for putting this tax on oil. The case against the tax has been stated very ably from all sides of the Committee; but our party has made certain arrangements which we desire to keep, otherwise we could keep the Committee going all night on Amendments which we have put down purposely. It is quite legitimate for us to hold up business, but we have no desire to do so to-day. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to giving us this small concession, we would not divide the Committee; otherwise, we shall have to do so.
5.10 p.m.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has been so very candid in his explanation of the purpose of the Amendment that I do not think it necessary for me to say very much in reply, except that I accept his description of the Amendment as a wrecking Amendment, designed purely to hinder the tax, and in these circumstances he will hardly expect me to accept it.
Question put, "That the words 'seven pence' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 46.
| Gluckstein, Louis Halle | MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick | Salt, Edward W. |
| Glyn. Major Raiph G. C. | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) | Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham) |
| Goff, Sir Park | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart |
| Goldie, Noel B. | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. | Scone, Lord |
| Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas | McKie, John Hamilton | Selley, Harry R. |
| Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter | McLean, Major Sir Alan | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Grimston, R. V. | Macquisten, Frederick Alexander | Shute, Colonel J. J. |
| Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. | Maitland, Adam | Slater, John |
| Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Gunston, Captain D. W. | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Hales, Harold K. | Marsden, Commander Arthur | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Smithers, Waldron |
| Hanley, Dennis A. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Hartington, Marquess of | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Harvey, George (Lambeth'.Kenn'gt'n) | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale | Soper, Richard |
| Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) | Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) |
| Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Morrison, William Shepherd | Stevenson, James |
| Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Moss, Captain H. J. | Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.) |
| Hepworth, Joseph | Munro, Patrick | Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.) |
| Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) | Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald | Stones, James |
| Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H. | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) | Newton, Sir Douglas George C. | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- |
| Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F. |
| Hore-Belisha, Leslie | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| Hornby, Frank | North, Edward T. | Tate, Mavis Constance |
| Horsbrugh, Florence | O'Connor, Terence James | Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hacknsy, N.) | Ormsby-Gore, Rt Hon. William G.A. | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| Hudson, Robert spear (Southport) | Palmer, Francis Noel | Thompson, Luke |
| Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) | Peto, Sir E.(Devon, Barnstaple) | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Hurd, Sir Percy | Peto, Geoffrey K.('w'verh'pt'n.Blist'n) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyoa |
| Hurst, Sir Gerald S. | Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada | Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Pike, Cecil F. | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Jesson, Major Thomas E. | Potter, John | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | PowNail, Sir Assheton | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Kimball, Lawrence | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Watt, Captain George Steven H. |
| Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Ramsden, Sir Eugene | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour. |
| Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Rankin, Robert | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Law, Sir Alfred | Ray, Sir William | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Whyte, Jardine Bell |
| Lees-Jones, John | Held. Capt. A. Cunningham- | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Reid, William Allan (Derby) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Lewis, Oswald | Renter, John R. | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Lindsay, Noel Ker | Renwick. Major Gustay A. | Wise, Alfred R. |
| Llewellin, Major John J. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Lloyd, Geoffrey | Robinson, John Roland | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n) | Ropner, Colonel L. | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Ross, Ronald D. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Loder, Captain J. de Vera | Hots Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'noaks) |
| Lovat-Fraser, Jamee Alexander | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) | |
| Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Ruesell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lymington, Viscount | Rutherford, John (Edmonton) | Sir George Penny and MajorGeorge |
| Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l) | Davies. |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & zetl'nd) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Bailey, Erie Alfred George | Harris, Sir Percy | Milner, Major James |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Hirst, George Henry | Parkinson, John Allen |
| Briant, Frank | Holdsworth, Herbert | Pickering, Ernest H. |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Janner, Barnett | Rea, Walter Russell |
| Cove, William G. | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Daggar, George | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Kirkwood, David | Thorne, William James |
| Edwards, Charles | Liddall, Walter S. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Wish Univ.) | Logan, David Gilbert | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) | White, Henry Graham |
| Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | McEntee, Valentine L. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) | |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Mr. John and Mr. Groves. | ||
I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
"other than oil used for power production."
Amendment negatived.
The next Amendment which I propose to call deals with the question of ships. It is the new Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), and the discussion on it can cover all the other Amendments dealing with ships, whether overseas or coastwise vessels.
5.25 p.m.
I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
I want to put such a ease before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I trust he will be able to withdraw all shipping entirely from the purview of this duty. Yesterday, in dealing with the general question of oils, excluding shipping, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for reasons which he fully explained, was not prepared to give any concessions, but he intimated that on the Report stage, if any cases of hardship came up, he would be prepared to consider them. On Second Reading he also said that he would give careful consideration to any point which might arise. Whether he will give favourable consideration is another matter. In any case, I know that before he gives any answer he will want a full and fair statement of the case. I therefore desire on behalf of those interests that are covered by the Amendment to state the case as briefly and as precisely as I can. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that the first thing to do was to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the Oil Duty, and that is what I propose to do. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give this matter his close attention, because I need hardly remind him or the Committee that in touching the shipping of this country he is touching one of the most vital interests with which the country is concerned. I doubt whether many people realise, even those who have all their lives had to do with shipping, how far something that seems to be apparently harmless on one side of the matter is, when searched out. found to have a deep and serious effect on the whole industry. Therefore, when we begin to consider what is to be done with shipping, we have to take very serious thought in the general interests of one of the greatest and most important industries of the country. There is no doubt that the decision arrived at yesterday to consider shipping separately from the other questions was a sound and proper decision. I can appreciate that there is a kind of family resemblance between this question and the other questions, but when we begin to study it all the arguments that were made yesterday go into the distance, because there are much more vital and direct arguments dealing exclusively with our national shipping. It is, therefore, important that we should not confuse the issue by treating shipping as if it were part of the ordinary industries of the country. It is nothing of the kind. It is totally different in its origin, its methods and everything concerned in it. Therefore, although the arguments with regard to other industries may appear at first sight to apply to shipping, they must fail when put to the test that must be made when we are dealing with such a worldwide and national question, and we have to realise that special conditions and special matters have to be considered in connection with this subject. In his brief and lucid speech yesterday, the Chancellor pointed out that he had two objects in mind when putting forward this duty. One was naturally to obtain revenue, but there is no doubt from what he said that he had behind it a deliberate and very proper idea of doing everything he could to develop the coal industry which, with shipping— though not so much as shipping—has made the country what it is. Therefore, it is a very sound and statesmanlike proposal of the Chancellor to encourage and develop that industry upon which much depends. It is to be regretted, however, that he should have brought in a proposal which, to a certain extent, will be injurious to the other great industry of this country. I think that I am safe in saying that the total amount of revenue that this proposed tax on shipping will involve is somewhere about £150,000, and it is a very expensive £150,000. The revenue question is one of which the Chancellor knows more than I do, but I think the Committee will agree that the amount of revenue in question does not provide a sufficiently strong argument for disturbing the shipping methods of this country. The importance of developing the coal trade of this country has been referred to, but I would like to know how we can hope to develop the use of coal by this tax on that portion of the shipping plying round our coasts which uses oil fuel? Those who know the facts, and I am sure they cannot be unknown to the Chancellor and to the Treasury, know that a very large number of coastal vessels are laid up at the present moment because they are not suitable to carry on their trade economically in these difficult times. The coastal trade is holding on only by the skin of its teeth, in face of the modern methods of transport which have replaced the old carrying methods which were followed for centuries. In the past 50 years we have seen no increase in the trade done by coastal vessels, and, indeed, there has been the greatest difficulty in maintaining the amount of trade which is done at the present time. It is impossible to compare the position of coastwise shipping with the position of transport by road and rail. I would point out, further, that the oil-burning vessels in the coastal trade cannot be expected to go back to coal. They are the vessels which have survived in the trade by the process of natural selection. Without them the coasting trade would not have survived to the extent that it has done. In recent years many of us have been doing the best we can to develop it in the interests of shipping and in the interests of the ports of this country. It will be noted that this Amendment covers not only coastal shipping but overseas shipping. People wonder why it covers overseas shipping. The effect of this tax is bound to hit overseas shipping. In the last year or two there has been a great development in the direction of short cruises in ocean-going steamers. That development has just enabled a large number of ocean-going steamers to carry on and pay their way. What would happen unless overseas shipping were included in this Amendment? Vessels not "going foreign" would be in the same category as coastal shipping, and would have to pay this enormous extra burden on their fuel bills. Then there is the case of the overseas ship which completes her voyage at one port here and, after discharging her cargo, proceeds to another port in this country, in ballast maybe, to pick up another cargo, or it may be to lie up or to undergo repairs. She can only clear coastwise for that. If she has to pay this enormous extra cost on her fuel it will be a direct encouragement, though an unintentional one, I admit, for ships to be sent abroad for repairs. I am afraid it has not been fully realised how this new duty will hit shipping at every turn. There are the vessels which go out to the lighthouses round the coast, there are the pilot boats, and the boats of harbour commissioners, all of which are busy looking after a vital trade in this country. If we look at the position carefully, we must realise that it is impossible for us to start penalising a great industry in this way. It is a matter calling for very grave consideration, and I have great confidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has promised that he will give consideration wherever a real case can be made out, will consider the position of shipping. Then there is the case of ships which are launched from yards in this country and which make their trial trips. It makes no difference whether they are to be engaged in coastwise traffic or otherwise; whether they are cargo-carrying boats or men of war, the trial trips will obviously be dearer coatswise unless they "clear foreign."[may be wrong, and I know that I have two of the most acute Members in the House listening to what I am saying— and I am glad to think that they are listening in a friendly spirit—but on the face of it it seems clear that everything that is not going foreign is going to be taxed under this proposal. Another point to which I should like to turn is the question why the coastal trade should have been picked out. What has it done to be singled out in this way? It is a vital branch of our shipping, it is the nursery of our mercantile marine and of our Navy. The only answer to that question that I can see is provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself when he indicated that in his opinion all forms of transport in this country should be taxed. But I cannot help feeling that when he said that he ovErieoked the fact that there are two totally different aspects of that question. Carriage by road and rail, which has developed a hundredfold in the last few years, is one thing, and coastal shipping, which is just where it was, is a totally different thing. It has a four or five times longer haul to make in taking goods to their destination, and it is only available for certain purposes; and it is also of the greatest help to overseas shipping by providing for the transhipment of goods and carrying on transport from the larger docks to the minor ports of this country. An important consideration which must not be ovErieoked is that road and rail transport in this country have no foreign competition to face, whereas coastal shipping has, though here there is a danger of misunderstanding, and I do "not want to mislead this House in the way that I myself might have been misled about it. It may be asked why no provision has been made to demand from the foreigner who deliberately engages in the coastal trade that he should pay the same tax as British coastal shipping. If that is the only idea of protecting us from foreign competition, I venture to suggest that those who have put that suggestion forward have not appreciated the position of affairs. I do not blame them for that failure. I do not set up as an authority on this matter, but I have been working in this particular trade with the object of developing it for the past 12 months, and therefore, possibly, I am in a better position than most people to put the matter before the Committee. It is true that a foreign vessel engaged on a British coastal voyage, and clEarlng from one British port to another British port, would have to pay on all the oil that is used, but I understand that they get a rebate as soon as they "clear foreign." But what happens in practice? It is very often the case that vessels come with a cargo from the Continent—free oil—and then proceed to load a part cargo for the Continent and a part cargo for a British coastwise port, but of course they "clear foreign," and so they would be able to get their fuel free of tax, and that is a clear case of unfair competition with British vessels. Further, some of these foreign coasters are specially built and modern vessels; they are really a new type of vessel competing in our home coastwise trade. It may be said that only 1 per cent. of our coastal trade is done by foreign vessels, but that is a general statement covering the whole of the coastal work, and that argument does not in the least help those for whom I am speaking. Directly we come to the question of tramp steamers or bulk-cargo steamers, the picture is a different one, because in the smaller ports the foreigner has been getting into the trade to an increasing extent. Our shipowners have taken special steps to try to stop this competition, and they have been so successful that the foreigner was beginning to consider selling his ships to our people. There are some ports which cannot afford to dredge their channels, but they can take light oil-burning ships and these foreign vessels have been trading with those places. As I have said, our people have been meeting that competition, but we cannot hope to be successful if there is to be an addition of 40 or 50 per cent. to the cost of oil fuel. Another point is that the foreign coaster spends, perhaps, half the year trading on his own coasts. He has free oil, and the cost of running his ship is to that extent lower. Afterwards he makes one or two voyages to this country, and naturally he is then in a better position to compete for trade here than our shipowners, who have been trading all the year round on our coasts and running at a much higher cost for fuel. The foreigner can "scoop" some good freights and go off again. An important point which I wish to bring out is that here we are dealing with a development of our shipping which is in its initial stages, and we cannot make comparisons with other transport which is concerned merely with home trade and operates on terra firma. I come to my next point—what is the coastal trade? The term "coastal trade," as I understand it to be applied in this connection, refers to all voyages made by vessels from one port in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland to another port in the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland. That embraces all the island services, all the services to outlying districts which are difficult to serve and which often can be served only by steamers. Is it proposed to put a special burden on all these outlying districts? They certainly will feel the burden if this tax is imposed, and even if it does not materially cripple the resources, as it will, of many of the shipping companies, it will involve higher expenditure or a reduced service. I do not want anybody to imagine that in what I am saying I am doing more than explaining what must be clear to anybody who has studied the question, but what, I feel, cannot have been in the minds of the Treasury when this tax was imposed. I am responding to the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and trying to put before him a case where there will be undoubted hardship and a real unfairness if this tax is imposed. Here is another important point. It has already been refered to, but I must mention it again, and my hon. Friends from Ulster will certainly appreciate the importance of it. A vessel clears for Dublin and a vessel clears for Belfast. The one has to pay some 40 to 50 per cent. more for its fuel oil than the other. This is a pure and simple case because it works out that we are subsidising the Irish Free State's interests against our own. I cannot see how that can ever have been intended, and I am sure that it was not. I feel confident that that kind of point will be reconsidered and remedied by the Chancellor, who has always taken a very sound and fair view. I cannot always agree with him, but I can say that. This is one of those cases about which I am convInced there is great grievance, and, owing to the vital importance of this question, I consider that it is a national issue, and ought to be faced as such. I want to point out the effect that this is going to have upon the processes to which I have referred, those of development and elimination, in order to give the best service that this country can give to aid British shipping and to make it paramount to any other shipping in the world. The shipping industry has given the best possible service to all trades otherwise, how should we have to-day such an infinitely greater proportion of the carrying trade in the world? British shipping has always proved itself of immense value. Merely by the natural development of things, and in the course of trade, we have provided this service. Coastal shipping is inextricably linked up with the rest of shipping, and it is sheer folly—I can use no other word—to attempt to distinguish between coastal shipping and overseas or any other kind of snipping. The shipping industry is a complete whole, and it is vital to the interests of this country that we should not disturb it in the way that appears likely from the operation of this duty. I feel strongly, and I am sure that the Committee see that I am speaking with firm conviction. I do not believe that this duty is to be proceeded with, because it would be an act of sheer folly. The Chancellor is so wise and so capable of seeing the points that hon. Member's submit that I have every confidence we shall receive from him a recognition of the serious nature of those that I have submitted in, I trust, not too long a speech."except in respect of oils used as fuel in any vessel whether trading overseas or coastwise."
5.49 p.m.
I have much pleasure in supporting the Amendment which asks the Chancellor to exempt coastwise shipping as well as deep-sea shipping from the duty. It gives me all the more pleasure to support the Amendment because I have the authority of the Chamber of Commerce to say that they are whole-heartedly in favour of it. The Amendment consequently has the support of the deep-sea lines as well as the coastwise ones; in other words, it represents the view of the shipping industry. The deep-sea lines feel, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer sees his way to accept the Amendment, that will be just and equitable to the coastwise lines. As hon. Members know, the lines trading with foreign countries and overseas are exempt from this duty, and therefore this Amendment is primarily a coastwise Amendment, although it affects ships engaged in overseas trade to a less degree.
I cannot understand why this burden should be placed on coastwise shipping. Surely the shipping trade has heavy enough burders to carry already. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think, recognises this, because he has seen fit to exempt ships engaged in overseas trade. Why should coastwise shipping bear this burden alone? The cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very trifling. The total oil consumed would probably be not more than 100,000 tons. The original estimate was 150,000 tons, but I understand that that included river traffic as well as coastwise. The yield in taxation would be, roughly, £100,000, and of that probably more than half would be obtained from the trade with Northern Ireland and other island traffic. The imposition of this duty will bring about many anomalies, and it will bristle with difficulties. A great many misconceptions have already arisen in the shipping industry. It is an anomaly that vessels going to the North of Ireland should be taxed on the fuel that they use, whereas those going to Southern Ireland get off without paying the tax. The country which has always remained loyal to this country and to the Empire is to be penalised, as against the South of Ireland, which will get the benefit. There is the question of repairs. I have a case before me which shows how the imposition of the duty will hit, not only ships trading overseas, but ships trading coastwise. Take the case of a ship which arrives from a foreign port at Southampton. She goes up to Newcastle for repairs, and she has to pay the full tax on the oil fuel that she burns in going there. The amount is probably anything from 100 to 150 tons on a large ship, which means that the oil consumed will cost up to £150 or more. If, instead of that ship going to Newcastle, she went to the Continent for her repairs, she would pay no duty for her fuel, and that factor might be just the turning point in the decision of some shipowners as to having their repairs done on the Continent, where they would escape the tax, rather than having them done in this country. That is a case which favours the foreigner. Take the case of the foreign shipping companies that come over here and do coastal voyages, for instance, the Belgian and Dutch shallow coasters. They do a sort of triangular voyage. They come to London from the Continent, load up to one port on the coast and load out again to the Continent. They will probably escape the tax altogether, or, at the worst, they will only pay it on one of the three voyages. On the other hand, British coastal shipping generally runs from one port to another port on the coast. They often go one way in ballast, returning with cargo, or vice versa. It will be taxed on both of those runs, whether in ballast or in cargo. That shows a decided leaning in favour of the foreigner. Then there is the effect of the duty on British merchants and manufacturers, who are faced with keen competition from the Continent. A great many of the goods manufactured only show a very small margin of profit. They are goods such as wireless sets and pianos, which are made in London, and are sent coastwise to the Northern ports. The boats taking them will have to pay the Heavy Oils Duty; similarly, goods made in the North or the Midlands, such as machinery, manufactured iron, ale, paints, newsprint and rubber goods, are sent coastwise to London and to ports in the South of England. If the Heavy Oils Duty has to be paid, there is no question but that it will cause an increase in the coastwise freight change of 2s. or 3s. per ton. Probably that will make all the difference between the manufacturers retaining the trade in this country, or Continental manufacturers capturing that trade, the Continental manufacturer having to pay no tax from Continental ports to British coast ports. There is the question of storage of goods. London is a great store centre, where large quantities of goods are sold and stored. On the other hand on the Continent there are large warehouses for storing in places like Amsterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg, etc. At the present moment, and for a long time, those places have been making tremendous efforts to secure this traffic from this country. If this duty is to be enforced, goods that go by the coastwise lines which pay the duty will have to be charged at a higher rate but goods coming from the Continent will be taken by the foreign lines to the coast ports in this country free of tax, and they will get in at a cheaper rate. Then there is the question of engine trials; oil used for these will be taxed. It may cost a very big sum for large boats that will have to pay the heavy oils duty on the fuel oil which they use, and I do not believe that that will make for efficiency. It will cost a good deal of money, according to the size of the boat. Again, if a boat is laid up —it is very unprofitable for the shipowner to have to lay his ships up at all— a boat deteriorates very quickly when laid up. Now it will be still more costly because while the ship is laid up she will now have to pay for the oil that she uses in light and fire. I have a letter here from a well-known shipping firm in the Atlantic Trade. They write to say that they are going to be hit very heavily in certain directions by this duty. They say that very often a boat comes back from New York to Glasgow and they send her on a short coastal pleasure cruise of three to four days' duration from Glasgow without touching at any intermediate coastal port. Then the ship returns to Glasgow for another voyage across the Atlantic. That vessel will be liable to pay tax on the fuel she uses on that coastal voyage. Hon. Members may ask why does she clear coastwise, and not clear foreign? The answer is that it would cost nearly three times as much. It costs £.316 to clear foreign, and only £118 15s. to clear coastwise. If the additional duty on oil fuel is included, I am told that the addition will probably mean the cancellation of the pleasure cruises, with consequent unemployment of the crews. A fact which many people do not seem to realise is that boats engaged in foreign overseas trade, in a great many cases, do not load outward from the port to which they come home. Boats from Calcutta, Africa, Australia and America, coming to London, may go round to Glasgow, Liverpool or Hull to load outwards. Here there is an anomaly. By rights, if such a vessel clears coastwise, she has to pay this duty on the oil that she consumes in going round to her outward loading port, but I believe that the Customs authorities, who have a good deal to do with the regulation of this matter, say that, if she takes a cask of whisky, or some other exciseable cargo, she will escape the tax on the oil fuel which she uses in going round. That is an absurd anomaly. On the other hand, a boat coming to London and going round to the Clyde to lay up because of the depression in the trade of the world, has to pay for the oil fuel that she uses in going round. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that he thought that in some of the speeches which had been made there was a certain amount of exaggeration, and that if he had listened to all the demands of the various industries for help by way of exemption from taxation, there would be no taxation at all. There is no doubt that he had to consider that aspect of the matter, but I claim that shipping, whether coastwise or engaged in overseas trade, is in a quite exceptional position. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that it is the most depressed industry, not only in this country, but in the world. It receives absolutely no protection; it has never received any help from the Government; and yet it has to meet the fiercest foreign competition that any industry has to meet.Subsidised competition.
Yes. Nearly all the great Governments are subsidising their shipping in one form or another to the tune of millions of pounds—in some countries hundreds of millions of pounds. It can almost be said that British shipping is competing with a great many of the most important Governments in the world to-day. It has to compete with international conditions on a very unfair basis, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the World Economic Conference will remember the position as regards British shipping, and will be able to get some alleviation from the subsidised foreign competition that we have to meet to-day. It may be said that coastwise shipping is not international shipping, and that is true, but it has to compete with foreign shipping, and this tax is going to make that competition harder, because ships engaged in this trade, on all their voyages round the coast, will have to pay the tax, whereas in most cases the foreign shipping will be able entirely to avoid it. The margin between profit and loss in shipping to-day is so narrow that the smallest item has to be looked into. Indeed, in many cases it is not a question of profit or loss, but a question of a great loss or a lesser loss— whether it is cheaper to lay up a boat or trade at a loss. I have not tried to exaggerate, but have put plain facts, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer really to consider that it is not the time now to put an extra burden upon shipping, whether coastwise or oversea. I hope that he will be able to see his way to give favourable consideration to this Amendment.
6.5 p.m.
I rise to support the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that every Member was inclined to speak for the trade interests of the constituency which he represented in the House, but, in speaking for the shipping industry, we are speaking for an industry which is in the truest sense a great national industry. The Chancellor, it is true, represents a city in the very middle of England, but he, with his historic sense, and as a protagonist of the Imperial idea in politics, will be one of the first to agree that our great shipping lines are the arteries through which we draw the very lifeblood of the nation, the food of our people and the raw materials of our industries by means of which we have built up our great Empire. There is no country in the world where so great a proportion of the population lives around the coasts and ports as is the case here. In time of war we exist by our sea power. Hon. Members will have read the striking and eloquent testimony which was borne, in a letter to the "Times" by Lord Beatty on the 6th of this month, to the importance of our coastal shipping in connection with our national defence, and I hope that any hon. Member who feels inclined to support this tax will look up that letter before he goes into the Lobby in support of an impost of so serious a character. Our shipping is in a condition of lamentable and unprecedented depression at the present time, and our shipbuilding industry too, which will also be affected by this tax. Coastal shipping shares in this depression to the full. The Chancellor, in arguing this point about coastal shipping at an earlier stage, said that it was merely a form of competition with inland transport, but it is a form of competition which in its turn, as has been pointed out by the hon. Members who have preceded me, has to face the keenest competition from foreign countries, whereas our inland transport is a sheltered industry which has not to meet any competition of that character.
I should like to address to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question to which I attach the greatest importance, and I shall be grateful for an answer when he comes to reply. It is as to how the fishermen will be affected by this tax. They do, of course, get a rebate from the tax upon light oils, but it is not clear to me, and I would beg the Chancellor to be good enough to give me an answer on this point, that they will receive a rebate from this new tax on heavy oils. The prospects of the fishing industry are bleak indeed at the present moment. The Russian embargo is taking away their great Russian market; the trebled duty on herrings in Germany makes it doubtful whether they will be able to sell in the German market; and I would implore the Chancellor to give to the Committee and to the fishermen themselves the assurance that they will not have to bear this additional impost. Many fishermen, of course, have the lighter kinds of engines, but a great many of the most up-to-date boats are fitted with Diesel engines burning heavy oil. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing yesterday with the general arguments urged against the tax said that there were three main considerations weighing in his mind in favour of the tax. One was that, in the case of foreign competition, some of our competitors abroad had to bear at any rate some measure of tax upon this oil, and in the case of Germany the tax upon oil is, he said, 10 times as heavy as anything that we have in this country. But one of my hon. Friends pointed out that Germany has, in a great and growing industry, the Diesel engine industry, been put out of the world market by that tax, and we have been enabled to take the place of Germany in that market. That shows how serious the effects of such a tax may be. His second consideration was that we must not leave out of account the fact that we have changed our fiscal system, and have given to the great bulk of our industries an amount of protection which they have not had before, and which may be set against the difficulty which they say they will now have to encounter because of the increased tax on their oil. But no protection is afforded, or can be afforded, to the shipping industry, so let us at least refrain from adding a burden to it by means of this impost. The third reason which the Chancellor gave was that of competition with other industries in the home market. There are many parts of the country where, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Sandeman Allen), coastal shipping is the main, and sometimes the only, means of transport. One such part, and perhaps the largest part, is the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where only a few years ago the Government of which the Lord President of the Council was the head, and in which the present Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Scotland, negotiated a contract with Messrs. MacBrayne, under which they have provided an ample service to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I am glad to have the opportunity of paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for the part which he played in carrying through that scheme. Messrs. MacBrayne have played their part splendidly. They have provided six magnificent new ships, and, when I went round the islands a year ago, I found them pulsing with new life through this improvement.Are they fitted with Diesel engines?
They are oil-burning vessels—
And Diesel, too.
It was a condition of the contract, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) reminds me, that four of the vessels should be completed, according to plans and specifications approved by the Minister, within a period of two years from the signature of the contract, and it is, to say the least, unfortunate that, the Government of this country—a different Government from the present, it is true—having signed that contract and having prevailed upon Messrs. MacBrayne to build these ships, should put upon them an impost which really has the effect, unintentioNaily no doubt, of varying the terms of the contract to the advantage of the Government as against the company. There are several other firms all over the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, smaller firms than Messrs. MacBrayne, who carry on vital services of this kind—also ferry services between the islands of Orkney and Shetland and in the Western Isles—with boats fitted with Diesel engines, and they will be seriously hit by this tax. I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he cannot at any rate give some consideration to the special case of these services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
There is no question here of competition with any other form of transport. In large parts of the Highlands the people live scattered along the coast, in many cases 45 miles from a railway, and they are dependent almost entirely on the coastal shipping. It may be said that these places are very small, but they have played a very important part in the life of the country. There is one that I hope to be visiting next week, a tiny village 40 miles from a railway, from which there went out a boy who was a member of the last Cabinet in Canada. In every village there are members of different families serving in most responsible positions all over this country and in all parts of the Empire. I have no hesitation in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the needs of these communities into his very serious consideration. I would ask him what he expects these shipping companies to do in the face of the depression, and what he hopes they will be able to do when trade revives and they will be faced with even keener foreign competition? Surely to cut their costs. What costs can they cut? None of us want them to cut wages. I am informed that this impost will add anything up to 75 per cent. to the cost of their fuel, which is their greatest cost next to wages. The 75 per cent. may be an exaggeration. I am not speaking with the great personal authority of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. But take it as 50 per cent. At a time when we want to see these shipping companies cutting their costs, we are surely not going to add 50 per cent. to their fuel costs. There is, indeed, little that we can do to help the industry. Let us, at any rate, refrain —the responsibility rests primarily upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also upon every Member of the Committee— from adding new burdens.6.18 p.m.
I rise to support the Amendment in general, and in particular to emphasise the serious effect that the tax will have on shipping between Great Britain and Ireland. Take, for instance, the shipping trade between Liverpool and Belfast, which may perhaps be designated the greatest coastal trade within these islands. Take, again, the trade between Liverpool and Dublin. Oil fuel steamers going to Dublin will get there free of tax while oil fuel steamers going to Belfast will be charged 45 per cent. tax on the fuel that they consume. We are satisfied that this was never the intention of the Government. I do not believe the Government intend to kill the fatted calf in Ireland at the expense of the Northern Government. This is a matter that is vital to Northern Ireland. It is the only means of transport that we have between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter serious consideration because it is the life blood of our transport.
6.20 p.m.