asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he hopes to be in a position to make a statement about the situation in the Far East?

At present I have nothing to add to the statement on the general situation in China which I made on 17th June, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) and to the various answers which I have given lately in the House in reply to question on recent events in North China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, with a view to the safeguarding of British interests in North China, he will request One Governments of China and Japan to inform him of any agreement that may be reached between them as the result of recent events?

The Governments concerned have kept His Majesty's representatives informed of the developments in North China. While, therefore, I have constantly in mind the question of the safeguarding of British interests in that region, I do not consider that it is necessary for me to make a request of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the interests of British bondholders in Chinese railways, the Japanese Government are required to make payment for the transport of Japanese troops on Chinese railways?

I have no detailed information on this subject. Payment, however, is normally made for the transport of foreign troops on Chinese railways, and I have no reason to suppose that in this respect the Japanese Government adopt a procedure different from that of other Powers who maintain troops in China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make an estimate of the amount of capital interests owned by British subjects and British corporations in China north of the Yellow River?

It is difficult to make any estimate, but according to the most recent and reliable authority the amount involved represents but a small proportion of the total British investment in China.

asked the Postmaster-General whether be can state what is the present remaining stock of pedestal telephones; and by what date he anticipates it will be possible, when new telephones are installed, for up-to-date hand-microphone instruments to be supplied without extra charge?

The number of pedestal telephones in stock is over 200,000; and in addition there are about 1,000,000 of these instruments now in use by subscribers. I cannot say at present when it will be possible to arrange for the hand-microphone instrument to be supplied to subscribers without extra charge.

asked the Postmaster-General whether arrangements have been made to increase the facilities available to the public for obtaining stamps on Sundays; and whether, in view of the considerable volume of private correspondence which is despatched on this day of the week, he will endeavour to arrange for an early improvement of the position in this respect?

Inquiry made recently throughout the country indicated that complaints of difficulty in obtaining stamps on Sunday are few, and that it is usually possible to meet them by providing a stamp selling machine or issuing a stamp licence. I am not convinced that any general increase in facilities is warranted.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take note, on the other hand, of the fact that there is strong feeling against the growing tendency to do business on Sunday and that shop keepers and shop assistants are opposed to the idea of working seven days a week?

I realise the point of the hon. Gentleman, and it would be an advantage if the public bought their stamps on Saturday instead of Sunday.

May I ask how many assistants are employed inside stamp machines?

Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the possibility of increasing the supply of stamps in these machines, as my own experience is that towards the evening the stamps run out?

There are 8,000 stamp machines in use, but they suffer from the difficulty that sometimes the stamps get damaged and sometimes the kind of coins put by the public into the machines disagrees with them.

asked the Postmaster-General the approximate increase in the number of telegrams despatched daily since the reduction of the charge from 1s. to 6d.; to what the increase will have to amount before the telegraph service is on a self-supporting basis; and whether the engagement of increased staff has been necessary?

From the information at present available it appears that the average increase in the number of inland telegrams despatched daily since the recent reduction in charges is rather more than 20 per cent. As my predecessor stated on the 29th April last, in reply to a question by the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), the reduction in charges is likely, at any rate for some further period, to increase the loss which has been sustained on the telegraph account for many years, but it was felt that it would be in the best interests of the community that telegraph charges should be reduced to a level comparable with those of other Post Office services. The increase in telegraph traffic has necessitated the engagement of some additional staff; but detailed information is not yet available.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a Weymouth firm is indiscriminately sending out by halfpenny postage circulars describing and illustrating goods of an intimate nature to the annoyance and disgust of many parents; and will he take steps to make the circulation of this type of literature through the post illegal?

I am aware that circulars of the nature described are being sent; but I am advised that, unless the language used is indecent or obscene, I have no power to prohibit the transmission of such circulars by post.

Does my right hon. and gallant Friend know that every time notices of birth appear in newspapers parents are subject to a deluge of disgusting correspondence of this kind?

asked the Secretary for Mines how many visits the mines inspectors have made on the afternoon and night shifts during the last three months; and what percentage they represent of the total number of visits made?

During the three months ending on 22nd June the inspectors of mines made 568 such inspections underground, 189 on the afternoon shift and 379 on the night shift, these representing over 14 per cent. of the total number of underground inspections made during that period.

While appreciating that reply, which I think is a very good one, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to keep on with these inspections and also ask his inspectors to make a separate report of what they find on the afternoon and night shifts?

I will consider the latter part of the hon. Member's question. As to the first part, he may take it for granted that we shall do everything we can to see that there is adequate inspection.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Miners' Federation are making an application for an increase of wages for all their members; and what steps his Department are taking to get the Mining Association to meet the Miners' Federation to discuss the position?

The answer to the first part of the question is, Yes. With regard to the second part, there is no change in the Mining Association's attitude, since they are specifically precluded by their conditions of association from dealing with wage matters. In these circumstances I regret that I cannot see what further steps my Department can take in the direction the hon. Member suggests.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware of the great agitation in the mining world on the question of an advance of wages, and that we do not want things to go on without the Government being fully aware of what has happened? I hope the Government will not allow time to pass without making some further effort to arrange a meeting.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the concessions asked for by the mine workers, unless conceded for the Federation as a whole, would create hardships for those coal owners who granted an increase?

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement in regard to the visit of the Minister for League of Nations Affairs to Rome and Paris?

I have been asked to reply. The object of the visit which, on the instructions of His Majesty's Government, I recently made to Paris was two-fold. His Majesty's Government wished, in the first place, to take the earliest opportunity of giving the French Government a full and frank explanation on the subject of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. They also wished to consider, in consultation with the French Government, the ways and means of making progress as quickly as possible with the negotiation of all the matters enumerated in the London Communiqué of the 3rd February.

As regards the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, I gave the French Prime Minister an account of the contents of the Agreement itself, and described to him the circumstances in which it was negotiated and the reasons which had led His Majesty's Government to conclude it.

Monsieur Laval explained with equal frankness the view which the French Government took of this Agreement. He also explained his view of its bearing upon the various European problems in the solution of which the two Governments are engaged.

It was recognised in the course of this conversation that for the settlement of these questions, such, for example, as the Air Pact and Air limitation, the Eastern Pact, the Central European Pact, and agreement on land armaments, close collaboration between France and Great Britain was necessary. These are, however, questions which do not interest France and Great Britain alone. We are, therefore, at present seeking, in conjunction with the French Government, the form of collaboration best designed to secure the fulfilment as quickly and completely as possible by all countries of the programme of the London Communiqué of the 3rd February.

At the close of the discussions upon these same subjects which I held subsequently with Signor Mussolini in Rome, we were happy to be able to record agreement as to the possibility of continuing to work for European appeasement in accordance with the guiding principles laid down in the London Communiqué of the 3rd February and the Stresa Resolution.

There is now, therefore, reason to hope that the best line of negotiation may shortly be found. Moreover, I cannot doubt that, although the three Governments may not attach the same importance or ascribe the same urgency to all the various items of the programme, it should be possible to agree upon a method whereby, in free and equal negotiation with other Governments, they may unite to contribute to the solution of these problems.

I now turn to the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, in regard to which I had conversations with Signor Mussolini on the 24th and 25th June.

I expressed to Signor Mussolini the grave concern of His Majesty's Government at the turn which events were taking between Italy and Abyssinia. Our motives were neither egoistic nor dictated by our interests in Africa, but by our membership of the League of Nations. I said that British foreign policy was founded upon the League. His Majesty's Government could not, therefore, remain indifferent to events which might profoundly affect the League's future. Upon this issue public opinion in this country felt very strongly. It was only through collective security that in our judgment peace could be preserved, and only through the League that Great Britain could play her full part in Europe. It was for this reason that His Majesty's Government had been anxiously studying whether there was any constructive contribution which they could make in order to promote a solution.

I then described to Signor Mussolini the kind of contribution which His Majesty's Government had in mind and which I was authorised to make to him as a tentative suggestion. This suggestion was broadly speaking as follows:

To obtain a final settlement of the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to offer to Abyssinia a strip of territory in British Somaliland giving Abyssinia access to the sea. This proposal was intended to facilitate such territorial and economic concessions by Abyssinia to Italy as might have been involved in an agreed settlement. His Majesty's Government would ask for no concession in return for this arrangement save grazing rights for their tribes in such territory as might be ceded to Italy.

This suggestion was not lightly made, and only the gravity of the situation could justify the cession of British territory without equivalent return.

I much regret that this suggestion did not commend itself to Signor Mussolini, who was unable to accept it as the basis for a solution of the dispute.

On my return to Paris, I gave M. Laval an account of what had passed with Signor Mussolini.

Obviously, it is impossible for myself or the House, until we have read the right hon. Gentleman's statement, thoroughly to comprehend all that is involved in it, but I should like to ask either the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister when we shall be in a position to discuss those matters which were discussed with M. Laval; and also I should like to ask whichever Minister can answer the question when it is likely that we may know from the Government what other steps they propose to take in order to bring such pressure as public opinion in Europe may be able to bring upon the Italian Government in respect of the dispute with Abyssinia. My reason for asking that question is that most of us in the House—I should think all in the House—have in mind the long period of drift which ended, in the Far East, in the present partial conquest of China by Japan in defiance both of Europe and of her own signature to the Nine Power Pact and the other pacts against aggression.

I fully realise the extreme urgency of these questions. At the same time I regret that to-day I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any specific answer as to when we shall be able to give the House fuller details. As soon as we are at liberty to give the House fuller details, we will give the House fuller details. If the right hon. Gentleman would leave it at that to-day, I would undertake to keep him informed as to when we shall be in a position to give the House fuller information. In the meanwhile, I imagine that he will be asking for the Foreign Office Vote some time at an early date in the future. While I cannot give a pledge, I should hope that I shall be able to give some further information than we have been able to give to-day, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we regard the issues at stake as very urgent, and they are under our special and constant consideration. It is not that I wish to withhold any information from the House to-day, but L feel that if I were to go further I might be prejudicing the course we should all like to see pursued.

I think I ought to say this with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement—it is a mere repetition of something that, on behalf of my friends, I said two years or more ago, when the Japanese situation was acute. The Government must take responsibility, and we must leave to a very large extent the responsibility with them for the moment. But ultimately the British Parliament is responsible, and what we are anxious to safeguard ourselves against is another accomplished fact in regard to Abyssinia without this House or the League of Nations or anyone else being heard. With regard to a future date, we should like very much fuller particulars and details of these conversations to be embodied in a White Paper whenever we have the opportunity to discuss them. But I press very strongly for an early date for the discussion of the European situation, and especially for the discussion of the Abyssinia-Italian situation.

May I ask the Minister without Portfolio whether Signor Mussolini said what his terms were and what he wanted; or is the time not opportune to disclose that to the House?

I have given the House a full statement so far as I can of a conversation which was essentially confidential. I feel sure the House will appreciate that at this stage I could not go further than I have gone to-day.

The Leader of the Opposition has referred to something in the nature of a fait accompli. I should like to ask the Foreign Minister whether there is not another fait accompli, and whether the House cannot have an assurance that, before any British territory is ceded to Abyssinia, or any Power, the House of Commons will be consulted?

The House must trust the Executive Government in these matters. If they are not prepared to trust the Government, the whole basis of government is destroyed.

Is it not a fact that, when the Minister without Portfolio was in Geneva some little time ago, a Committee was set up for the purpose of dealing with the Abyssinian trouble; and is that Committee operating now?

The conciliation procedure is certainly continuing. These conversations, however, dealt with something other than the conciliation procedure.

Can some intimation be given to the House as to when the Foreign Office Vote will be put down for discussion?

Surely, in a matter of vital principle such as this, the last word in regard to the cession of British territory and the handing over of British subjects to an alien Government must rest with the House of Commons?

My hon. Friend has not followed the answer given by my right hon. Friend. The proposal was described as a tentative one, as part of a general effort to arrive at a settlement of a very critical situation which might have disastrous reactions all round if not properly handled. There is no question whatever of going behind the back of the House, but there was the urgent necessity for the Government to take what steps they thought fit to arrive at a satisfactory settlement of a very dangerous situation.

I am quite prepared to trust the Government in this matter. All that I ask for is something to which I think the House is entitled, namely, an assurance that, before anything definite in this matter is done, the House will be consulted.

May I ask whether the offer mentioned in the statement is still open, and whether it will still be discussed; or whether the matter has been turned down and is regarded as closed?

The tentative suggestion that was made was not acceptable, and I assume, therefore, that the suggestion is at an end.

If Signor Mussolini had accepted that offer, what would have been our position then?

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause arises out of a Bill which is at present passing through the Northern Irish Parliament. It amends the summary jurisdiction law of Northern Ireland and provides that one resident magistrate, sitting alone, shall constitute a court of summary jurisdiction. The Bill has obtained its Third Reading in the Senate of Northern Ireland and is now being referred back to the Commons for consideration of some minor Amendments. When it has become law, it will be possible to apply to Northern Ireland a principle which has been applied in England since 1879 and in Scotland since 1908, namely, that the general summary jurisdiction code shall apply to revenue offences, and the purpose of this Clause is to enable that to be done. The first Subsection makes that provision. I should say that the Clause has been put forward in consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland. It will be seen that the sixth Sub-section provides that it is not to come into operation until such date as may be appointed by order of the Treasury, the purpose of that being that it shall not come into operation until this Bill actually has been through the Northern Ireland Parliament and has become law. When it has been passed we shall have similar legislation in this country and in Northern Ireland, and I think that the result will be beneficial to both sides.

The first Sub-section gives the power which brings the summary jurisdiction code into operation in dealing with revenue offences. There is a proviso to it which is considered necessary to make it quite plain that Section 257 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, will override another Section of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, which provides that proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts (Northern Ireland) have to be brought within six months. Section 257 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, provides that proceedings for offences can be brought at any time within three years, so that the proviso is in order to keep that in force now.

The second Sub-section is not really consequential upon the first. It deals with a somewhat different matter, but, under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts of Northern Ireland, a magistrate has no general power of mitigating the size of penalties as he has under English and Scottish Acts. The Excise Acts confer a power of mitigating Excise penalties, but there is no similar provision in respect of Customs, and so the purpose of this provision is to do the same with regard to Customs as is already the law with regard to Excise. As a matter of fact, at the present time, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise here have the power to mitigate the penalty, and they have been frequently called upon to exercise that power in Northern Ireland, but it is thought that it would be very much better that the responsibility should rest in Northern Ireland primarily with the magistrate who tries the case, and so we have taken the opportunity while bringing in this Clause to include that Sub-section.

The third Sub-section again is not really consequential upon the main purpose of the Clause. A doubt has been raised as to whether magistrates in Northern Ireland have power to remand offenders in certain classes of Customs case. It is thought desirable to remove doubt on the subject, and accordingly it is proposed to confer this power upon not only a resident magistrate but also a justice of the peace sitting out of petty sessions, and the reason for that is that it might be that there would be some difficulty in obtaining the services of the resident magistrate without a considerable period of delay. But there is no abnormality in conferring this power of remand on justices of the peace, since they will, in some cases, have this power under the Bill which is now before the Northern Ireland Parliament.

The fourth Sub-section defines the expression "Summary Jurisdiction Acts (Northern Ireland)" so that it will include the Bill which I have already mentioned which is now before the Irish Parliament, and finally Sub-section (5) repeals certain enactments relating to revenue proceedings in Northern Ireland which would conflict with the provisions of the Clause or else would become redundant after the Clause becomes law.

We on these benches offer no objection at all to this Clause. It obviously seems to be desirable that the procedure in Scotland and England should be the same as that in Northern Ireland, and this Clause merely approximates that procedure to our own, and we therefore think it wise that it should be passed.

I wish to raise one rather curious point as a result of an experience which I had 18 months ago, when I spent the whole of Christmas Eve trying to get a man out of prison who had been remanded in custody by the magistrates for a week. The period happened to include Christmas Eve and was in respect of an offence which, though regrettable, was not a grave criminal offence, and my experience, after spending the Sunday evening before the Vacation Judge, was that there was no power to grant bail if a man had been remanded in custody by the magistrates. I am only raising this question of the freedom of the subject because of this curious experience. The result was that after consultation with the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Sankey, the matter was cleared up, and there was no doubt that, under our procedure, any judge in fact had power to grant bail even though the magistrates had refused it. I want to be sure, though this only happens to affect Northern Ireland, that we are not, by the words in Sub-section (3), giving away something which, in fact, though in some doubt 18 months ago, has been our legal protection for many years past.

I am not quite sure that the matter is exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) put it. I understand that there is always power to go to a judge on a plaint concerning bail. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I understand that there would be a right of appeal in the ordinary case against an order of this kind, but my hon. Friend has raised this point, and no doubt note will be taken of it, but the House can be assured that, as far as this matter is concerned, it is really applying to Ireland the procedure which at present exists in England and Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon has raised a point which ought to be looked into as far as England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are concerned, but as far as the House is concerned at present we are applying the procedure which exists here.

On that particular occasion when we appeared before the Vacation Judge on the Sunday evening, he said that as far as he knew he had not the power of granting the application. Therefore, there was some doubt at the time, and that is why I raise the point now.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is a rather long Clause, the purpose of which I will explain to the House. Under the Import Duties Act there is a general scheme of duties to provide for a revenue tariff of 10 per cent., and it is also provided that the Import Duties Advisory Committee can recommend additions to this 10 per cent. The Treasury are empowered to make an Order carrying out those recommendations, but there has never been any power to reduce the duty of 10 per cent. to something less than 10 per cent. Goods can be put on the free list or they can be subject to a duty of 10 per cent. and to additions to the 10 per cent., but they cannot be subject to 8 per cent. or anything between nothing and 10 per cent. Until quite recently there has been no difficulty arising in respect of that omission, and perhaps there would not have been had not certain circumstances arisen connected with one of the subjects which formed part of our discussions at Ottawa. At Ottawa we had a discussion about the importation of lead and zinc into this country. The producers of lead and zinc in the Empire were anxious to have the preference, and in order to give that preference, of course it would be necessary to put a duty on the foreign imports of these two metals, but we were anxious lest in doing that we might hamper the users of these metals, which are the raw material for a number of industries in this country. Then the producers offered to give us an undertaking that they would not, in consequence of the duty, raise the price of these two metals above the world price.

After a long discussion how an undertaking of that kind was to be put into words, a formula was ultimately discovered and formed part of the Ottawa Agreement. The formula in practice has given rise to a great number of difficulties and complaints. It may be remembered that the President of the Board of Trade accordingly invited the Import Duties Advisory Committee to go into the whole question and see what was the best thing to be done. They have been considering what was the cause of the difficulties and how they might be overcome and have been in discussion with the various interests concerned. Although they have not yet presented their final report, they have intimated to us that in all probability they will be able to find a solution on the basis of a duty of less than 10 per cent., in which case it will be no longer necessary to limit the prices of Empire supplies to the world prices, as there is great difficulty in determining what the world price is. In considering a solution of this kind, the Committee have come up against the difficulty that there is no statutory power which would enable them to make recommendations to that effect. They have, therefore, drawn our attention to the difficulty in which they find themselves, and this new Clause has been drafted in order to overcome it. If the Committee's inquiry had been concluded a little earlier we should no doubt have had the Clause at an earlier stage.

Although I have spoken of lead and zinc, those two metals are not mentioned in the Clause. The Clause is drawn in general terms. Having come up against the difficulty in the case of these two metals it was thought better not to put them in specifically but to employ general terms as we do not want to come again to the House if a case should arise in regard to other goods. Accordingly, it is provided that where it appears to the Committee that having regard to any exceptional circumstances—those words are put in to indicate that the power will be used sparingly—the duty ought to be reduced, the Committee will be able to recommend that instead of being charged with the said duty the goods shall be charged otherwise. There are two alternatives. The first alternative is a percentage less than 10 per cent. on the value of the goods and the second alternative is a duty chargeable by reference to weight or other measure of quantity at such rate as may be specified in the recommendation, or a duty equal to such percentage not exceeding 10 per cent. of the value of the goods as may be so specified. That will enable the Committee, for example, to recommend that there shall be either a duty of 5 per cent. ad valorem or a duty of 10s. per ton whichever is the lower of the two.

Sub-section (2) recites the ordinary procedure under which the Treasury is entitled to make an order on the recommendation of the Committee and provides that references in any enactment to the general ad valorem duty or to duty chargeable under the Import Duties Act, 1932, shall be deemed to relate to goods under this Clause. Sub-section (3) provides that Section 19 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, shall apply to any Order made under this Section. A recommendation for reducing a duty does not require approval by a resolution of the House of Commons and here the procedure will be the same. But, of course, where prior to the application of the provisions of this Clause, in order that goods may be removed from the Free List, a resolution will still be required in accordance with Section 7 (3) of the Finance Act, 1932.

We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but I gather that the explanation does not justify the optimism that I had entertained. I had hoped that this new Clause indicated that at long last and in good time before the Election some sort of conscience had overtaken the Government and that they were going to take some steps to reduce the prices of commodities rather than keep on increasing them. That apparently is not the case. My understanding of the position as it was before this new Clause was drafted was that if a commodity were removed from the Free List to the non-Free List it became immediately subject to 10 per cent. duty.

indicated assent.

It could not be subject to anything less than 10 per cent. The effect of the new Clause will be that if a commodity were so removed it would not necessarily come under the 10 per cent. provision, but it could be subject to 5 per cent. or some other figure.

indicated assent.

That is all to the good as far as it goes. I take it that as the Clause is drawn in general terms it can apply to any single commodity. Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically mentioned lead and zinc, I take it that it can be applied to a whole series of commodities in the list. There is a phrase in the Clause of which I should like an explanation. It is the phrase:

"having regard to any exceptional circumstances."

We do not know what circumstances were in the mind of the Exchequer that would in their view be deemed to be exceptional. I have another difficulty, and that is in respect of the phrase:

"which it is apprehended will shortly become chargeable."

Does that mean that the Import Duties Advisory Committee might impose the duty of 5 per cent. or whatever it might be simply on the ground that they apprehended that it would shortly become chargeable, and that simply on that belief they could automatically apply 5 per cent. or any other duty, or am I to understand that before anything of that kind could happen there must be a resolution passed by this House?

It is intended to cover goods which are now on the free list; where it is desired to remove them from that list and apply a duty lower than 10 per cent. The first thing to do is to remove them from the free list, and that is a thing which the Committee have power to do now. It is that to which reference is made when it is said that there may be articles which it is apprehended may shortly be chargeable. That is the first process. After that they make a recommendation for a lower duty than 10 per cent.

I understand now the intention of the paragraph. The Import Duties Advisory Committee has been operating since 1932, and it is rather astonishing that, while we have been in the process of putting on duties of 10 per cent. on this, that and other goods, we have suddenly come up against the realisation that the Committee have no power to reduce a duty. In the last few years we have been so busy adding duties that we have never had to contemplate the possibility of commodities being overtaxed or being over subjected to duty. Therefore, in this sudden realisation, they ask us at this stage to pass this new Clause. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection. The more you reduce the duties, the better it will be for the consumers, and the better it is for the consumers the better I, myself, am pleased. Therefore I have no intention to divide against the Clause.

Those of us who have been anxious that help should be given to industries in this country, and have tried to fight that question for a number of years, are apprehensive of the procedure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described. Of course, a duty of 10 per cent., in the majority of cases, would have no protective effect. I am not objecting to the special reasons for this Clause. Because of the difficulties which have arisen in the case of lead and zinc, it is desirable that the duty should be reduced below 10 per cent. in order to facilitate the Ottawa Agreement. I do not suppose anyone in the House will raise any objection to that, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone further in proposing a general power, and it is that which raises some doubt in the minds of some of us. I do not want to be meticulous or over-critical, but my right hon. Friend has not given any example of a revenue duty which is desirable at less than 10 per cent. involving the setting aside of a general enactment. Parliament may not be informed. It is done by bureaucratic action, that is to say, official action which will not come before this House. There, I think, there is a strong objection.

In so far as the Clause deals with the two commodities, I raise no objection whatever; it is perfectly right. But the general application that in future duties are to be set up by the action of the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, of something less than 10 per cent., and that those duties may be imposed without the knowledge or confirmation of Parliament. It is opening a wide door to set aside the general provision which has been made by this House, and which vast numbers of people in this country value as being a substantial measure of protection to the industries of this country.

So far as I understand it, the procedure in putting commodities on the Free List is not being altered. We have had at times a number of orders, made in the light of experience, when this procedure has been followed. A number of articles have been put on the Free List from time to time, and, needless to say, I have never offered any objection. In fact, a very strong case has to be made out under our present regime for any article to be put on the Free List. I take it that when an article is to be recommended to be taxed at any rate below 10 per cent., the procedure to be followed will be that the order has to be confirmed by this House after the statutory lapse of period; in other words, there is no change in the procedure to be followed. I see no objection to the same procedure being followed in taxing an article less than 10 per cent. as to taxing it at 10 per cent. or over, and, therefore, I see no objection to this proposal.

The point raised by the hon. Baronet seems of some interest, because the first Sub-section says, "the said duty ought to be reduced." It seems to me that if an article is now on the Free List, and a case is made out for imposing a duty of 5 per cent. An order will be made, and that order will call for an affirmative resolution by this House. When that order has been made, there will be subsequently a further order reducing it from 10 to 5 per cent. That, according to my reading of the new Clause, is how it will work out. While I have a considerable measure of sympathy with the apprehension of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), nevertheless, on the whole, I am glad that the Chancellor is proposing this change. He has given us specific reasons, namely, the difficulties which have arisen with regard to lead and zinc. I remember hearing a good deal about them at the time of the Ottawa Agreements Bill when many people were perturbed about these articles. Up to that time the world prices meant the prices on the London Metal Exchange, but that ceased to have any meaning once that Exchange came inside the tariff wall. In the case of copper, however, the duties on which have never come into operation at all—at least I do not recollect their having done so—I. wonder if the Chancellor will tell us whether it is intended now to give effect to the copper agreement on a reduced basis. When I saw the announcement in the Press of what was proposed at Ottawa with regard to copper, I thought it was an extraordinary proposal, because it then worked out at 40 per cent. ad valorem, which I thought was much too high, and I was not surprised that difficulties arose. It may be that under this Clause it will be possible to give some effect to that arrangement.

With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) as to the meaning of the words "it is apprehended," I imagine that when next year the key industry duties lapse, as they will under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1926, it will then be open for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make an order—in fact the duties will automatically come under the Import Duties Act. It may be necessary to re-arrange some of those duties, because some were on a specific basis, and that seems to be one of the cases where the Committee may apprehend that something is going to happen, because an existing Statute is lapsing. With regard to "exceptional circumstances," that safeguards the position to which the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton referred, because only in exceptional circumstances can this be done. But the words "exceptional circumstances" are a two-edged weapon, because there may be cases where it is desirable, on general economic grounds, to make this change, but where no ex-ceptional circumstances of the kind are contemplated, because there is an aspect of this Clause which so far has not been discussed. Sub-section (1, b) says that the duty at its reduced rate may be either specific or ad valorem.

I remember that on both the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Import Duties Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and I pleaded, to the best of our ability, that there should be complete freedom to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in respect of the conversion of duties from an ad valorem to a specific basis, but I always thought that the position was unsatisfactory so far as the ad valorem duty was concerned, and I am a little disturbed about the basis on which it is being adopted here, whether if the duty, is only specific in these cases where its incidence would be lower than if ad valorem, it would place a check on what is called dumping. We are not worrying about the precise definition now—many things are sometimes called dumping. The best check is very often a, specific duty, but in this case, where we have a low rate of duty, nevertheless where it is made specific the person who dumps ought not to be able to avoid this specific duty owing to the fact that when he quotes sufficiently low prices he automatically comes under the ad valorem duty. I should have been very glad indeed if Sub-section (1, b) had provided that when a specific duty was fixed it should be generally equivalent to the ad valorem duty, and then, having been fixed, instead of the word "lower" being inserted, we had inserted the word "higher." Until we alter many of our duties from their present ad valorem basis, and put them on a specific or mixed ad valorem and specific basis, we shall not deal with the most undesirable forms of competition which occur from time to time. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will once again consider this problem of giving greater elasticity for the conversion of duties from an ad valorem basis to a specific basis.

As a matter of machinery, apart altogether from the merits of the case, is it necessary to make a provision, as I understand Sub-section (1) does, to require two orders in respect of anything removed from the Free List which it is desired to tax at less than 10 per cent.? As I read it, if it is apprehended that you are taking something off the Free List, or it is going auomatically on the ad valorem list, if:

"it appears to the Import Duties Advisory Committee that, having regard to any exceptional circumstances, the said duty ought to be reduced."

that can only apply where there is already a 10 per cent. duty. Would it not have been better if it had provided that where it appears to the Committee that a duty lower than 10 per cent. ought to be imposed, or that the ad valorem duty ought to be reduced, then they could go straight to the 5 per cent. or reduce from the 10 per cent. ad valorem? It is essential that these things should, for a certain period of time, be subject to ad valorem duty, or else the question of reduction could not arise. I suggest that where these exceptional circumstances, which have got to be inquired into, arise, you have got to have an ad valorem duty, because the exceptional circumstances have to show that the duty ought to be reduced. Until you have got the 10 per cent. you cannot have the exceptional circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary to have some period during which the goods are subject to an ad valorem duty in order to arrive at the conclusion that it is too high, and ought to be lower. I am not attempting to make any difficulty, but it seems that you have here an unnecessarily complicated machine, and simply by inserting the words "duty lower than 10 per cent." you can have a single order made, and go straight on to the 5 per cent.

The House will have gathered from the explanation which has followed the moving of this new Clause that we find ourselves in this position. The Import Duties Act, 1932, and the Finance Act, 1932, gave the Import Duties Advisory Committee power to make recommendations, a free list power in certain circumstances, power to recommend removal from the free list, a general duty of 10 per cent. and a power to recommend an increase of duty, making 10 per cent. plus. In reply to the point put by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), there have been tremendous fluctuations in prices, and there is a class of case—it is very small—in which the difficulty of arranging something that is satisfactory to producer and importer and also give Empire preference may be overcome, not by dealing with the matter on the Free List or on the 10 per cent. basis, but by finding something between 0 and 10 per cent. The new Clause provides that there shall be power to fix an ad valorem duty of any rate between 0 and 10 per cent. or, as experience has shown, a specific duty, which is often easier to calculate and is preferred by consumers. If it is a specific duty, then that specific duty, in order that the consumer may be protected, must as its upper limit have 10 per cent.; it must not be above that amount. The legislation provides that you may have an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. or a specific duty, whichever is the lower. That is the object of the new Clause.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) asked what are "exceptional circumstances." The intention is that the new Clause shall be used sparingly. The only two instances at the present time in contemplation are lead and zinc, two special raw materials where difficulty has arisen in implementing in practice the Ottawa provisions. These are the only two cases which are at present in contemplation. They are the exceptional circumstances, and I give the House an assurance that the Clause is intended to be used sparingly. In regard to the point made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), that the 10 per cent. is necessarily a revenue duty and that anything coming below that would obviously not be protected, we must remember that in all the operations of the new Clause the Treasury will be guided by the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and that recommendation will only be made after a case has been submitted by the industry. In the particular industry to which the Clause will apply the industry and the consumers will have agreed. I hope that the House now appreciates that this machinery involves the approval of the Import Duties Advisory Committee and that this safeguard gives protection to the industry concerned. As to the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps), I think that under Section 7 of the Finance Act of 1932 it is necessary to go through the procedure of these double orders—

Yes.

Is not that the answer, therefore, to his practical point to there being possibly some interval of time. It is to provide for the administrative task of the Treasury in dealing with a recommendation only when the other arrangements have been safeguarded. That is the answer to his particular point. It is the way in which in practice it can best be done.

What about copper?

I do not think that copper arises at the moment.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Finance Act of 1933 excluded from the duty on heavy hydrocarbon oils certain vessels engaged in the coastwise trade and certain vessels travelling through the Manchester ship canal. That concession was given to these vessels, because they are engaged in a trade which is subject to foreign competition, and I think that when it was given it was worth about £100,000 a year to the particular companies concerned. We on this side of the House do not oppose such a concession; we think it is necessary. But when this relief from the duty was given it was made perfectly clear that it did not extend to canals and other forms of inland water transport. Last year we had a discussion on this question. I am pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present to-day, because when I moved a similar proposal 12 months ago it was supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House. There was evidently a desire to accept the new Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present and the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury was in something of a dilemma.

Canal transport is one of the oldest and cheapest forms of transport in the country and for a long period has been suffering from severe competition, first from the railways and secondly from the development of road transport. That competition has hit many canal carriers, who, however, have been trying to meet it as best they can. They recognise that they must improve the speed of their barges and have taken away from the canal banks the old horse which we used to see and have put in motor power. The motor power which they find best is a type of engine which uses heavy hydrocarbon oil and, therefore, they are a little concerned with regard to the cost and the way in which it is limiting their activities. The new Clause would only cost about £5,000 a year. I am not arguing it, however, merely on the small cost it would entail, but mainly because of the encouragement it would give to canal carriers still further to improve their barges and inland water transport. At the present time there is a tremendous amount of merchandise going by road which used to be carried by canal boats. In my view, there is still scope for stimulating activity in our canal systems.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows as much about inland Water transport as anybody. He was the chairman of the departmental committee which dealt with this kind of transport and made a number of excellent suggestions. He is not ignorant of the difficulties in the way of canal transport, and I hope he will see his way to accept the new Clause. If he cannot, perhaps he will tell us what reply he gave to the letter sent to him by the National Association of Canal Carriers. Last year I quoted a letter sent by them to the right hon. Gentleman, but we failed to elicit from the Financial Secretary what had transpired or the reply that had been made. This year the National Association sent a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 25th March in which they made out a most excellent case. They pointed out their difficulties and what they were trying to do; how they were organised and speaking as a national association. They pointed out also that they had an understanding with the railway companies and that they would be able to make still further progress. They asked whether they could submit their views to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for consideration. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept the new Clause, I hope he will tell us the objections against it. Last year we were told that those engaged in coastwise traffic were in competition with foreign-owned boats and that canal transport was not in competition with foreign-owned boats, but, in fact, was competing against the other two forms of transport in this country, namely, the roads and the railways. Still, I think some differentiation can be made in the case of the canals; they are in an exceptional position, and if the new Clause were accepted it would encourage them to make still further improvements in their particular form of transport.

I beg to second the Motion.

I cannot allow the new Clause to be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer without saying a word in its support. I recognise the difficulty of the Treasury in making arrangements for a readjustment of the duty, but nobody knows better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer the difficulties with which canal transport in this country is confronted, and he realises the extent to which the State itself is now interested in canal transport. There is a very great scheme of improvement now in progress on the Grand Union Canal to which the State has given a substantial financial guarantee. I have the privilege of travelling over the canal each year in a tour of inspection of the works which are being carried out, and during the last five or six years there has been a complete transformation in the developments which have taken place. I hope that my right hon. Friend, therefore, in the interests of the State itself and industry generally, will consider whether he cannot do something to promote the improvement of canal transport, perhaps in more generous measure than has been the case up to the present. The carrying capacity of the Grand Union Canal will be increased by more than 50 per cent. in the course of the next year or two, and it is a great pity that such a concession as is contemplated by the new Clause is not available for the benefit of this rapid development. While it is not a matter for the Treasury itself, I think there should be some arrangement to provide for a distribution of the traffic of the country between the three systems which are now in operation. Of course it would help considerably if some concession on this line were accepted by the Chancellor. I know my right hon. Friend's difficulties and his sympathies in this matter, and I feel that the House must leave it to him to take such action as he sees fit.

I think the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of this new Clause stated the position correctly with regard to the reasons why a similar proposal brought forward two years ago was rejected. He said that the reason was that canal carriers were not subject to foreign competition in the same way as coastwise trading vessels were. Upon reflection, I think he will probably agree that, important as was the reason for the refusal then, it is if anything rather stronger now. These vessels make use of heavy oil. As the House is aware, the duty on heavy oil for road transport this year has been increased from a penny to 8d. In so far as road vehicles are the principal competitors with the inland trading vessels, a great advantage has been given to those vessels this year by the additional duty that has been imposed upon one of their principal competitors.

The hon. Member who seconded the new Clause, seconded an Amendment some days ago on the Estate Duties and then, after hearing my argument said that so far from the duty in question being reduced it ought to be increased in order to teach hon. Members not to introduce Amendments of this character. A similar plea might be put forward here. I am not at all sure that such a fear was entirely absent from the canal interests. When they learned that the duty was being put up on road transport were they not afraid that it might be put up on water transport also? In fact, their fears have not been realised. They are really beneficiaries under this Finance Bill in so far as any duty has been laid upon one of their principal competitors.

Nor can it be contended that this traffic is under any undue weight of taxation at the present time. The National Association of Canal Carriers a year ago estimated the expense of the heavy Oil Duty on their whole membership at £5,000 a year, and they admitted that it was not a crushing burden. So short a time ago as last March the Chairman of the Grand Union Canal Company stated that the tonnage carried by their canals in 1934 increased by 52,000 tons over 1933, and he added:

"With regard to the future I cannot feel anything but very optimistic. We have really been deluged with inquiries from all directions, but owing to a shortage of canal boats for long-distance traffic we have had to turn down trade."

It was stated that the company had placed orders for nearly 100 new boats, and proposed to order immediately another 50. No one can contend that this branch of industry is suffering from high duties. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) argued that when industries begin to prosper it is a good time to give them a pat on the back and to help them forward; but if the Treasury are to be asked to support all those industries which are not doing well, and at the same time to support all the other industries that are doing well in order to encourage them to do better, there would be no end to the expenditure that the country would incur.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause arises out of the Labour party's dislike of food taxation and what we call yes or no legislation. Recommendations under the Import Duties Act of 1932 are literally showered on us at all times, and in all cases the supporters of the Government become an aggregation of votes equal to one rubber stamp, for there is no discussion. When the taxation of human food is proposed it should be subject to the freest discussion and should not depend only on a recommendation from the Import Duties Advisory Committee. There are many things we can do without, but we cannot do without food. The great objection to food taxation is that the burden falls on and hurts the poorest. Men on unemployment benefit and those who receive public assistance have to pay when food is taxed, and in their cases, unlike the case of Income Tax, there can be no evasion of payment. In every case of food taxation there should be the fullest and freest discussion on the Floor of the House.

I beg to second the Motion.

Though this may appear to be an unimportant Clause and there are not many Members in the House, the underlying principle of the Clause is a very big one. On the Labour benches we are always arguing against the imposition of taxation on food. That is our chief complaint. If taxation has to be imposed according to the view of the Government we want the whole matter to be discussed on the Floor of the House. I trust that the House will give the fullest attention to the new Clause. We do not expect at this stage that the Government will accept it, but for all that we raise the point, and we shall raise it every time that we get an opportunity, in order to show that we do not believe in the imposition of taxes on foodstuffs, and that if taxes are to be put on the fullest inquiry ought to be made by the House before the imposition of the taxes.

The hon. Member who moved this new Clause explained that he did so rather as a gesture than with the hope of acceptance of his proposal. He and his friends are opposed on general principle, to all import duties, and particularly to duties on food, and, therefore, they think it right on every occasion to emphasise their opinion in case the House should forget it. I have no objection. I apprehend that they will have no great disappointment if the Clause is not added to the Bill. If it were added, it would not produce exactly the effect that they desire. It would apply only to such duties as are recommended by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Those duties are never imposed without opportunities being given to the House to discuss them. Full discussion is available on every occasion when new duties are introduced.

The new Clause would not apply to many articles of food. For instance, tea, sugar, cocoa, coffee and alcoholic beverages are subject to revenue duties and have been subject to those duties as long as most of us can remember. They would not be affected by the change that is suggested. Other foods are dutiable under the Ottawa Agreements, and they equally would not be affected—wheat, butter, cheese, eggs in shell, milk, rice and many other forms of food. If the Clause were carried, the principal classes of food stuffs affected would be merely cereal products, poultry, eggs not in shell, most vegetables and certain fruits. These duties are imposed to protect British producers who are still in real need of that form of protection.

No one can live without food. Equally man cannot live by food alone, and so far as the standard of living of the poorer classes is concerned food is not one of the items that has increased or that now stands too high. The reverse is the case. At the end of March the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index showed a rise of 39 per cent. over July, 1914, and in comparison with that 39 per cent. the increase in the price of food was only 19 per cent. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the price of food to-day is too high, from the point of view of the standard of living in general, and I do not think that this new Clause would do anything materially to reduce it.

If some of us do not keep the House long on this new Clause it must not be thought that there is any weakening in our support of the principle contained in it. On the contrary, most of us are quite unrepentant for in the interest of the State we think it is most inadvisable to tax food. It is the very last thing from which revenue should be sought, and the last thing on which any kind of experiment in protection should be initiated. But we know that the policy of the Government has been fixed and that a decision of the House has been taken, and it is no use going over and over the same ground seeing that we are not likely to affect the policy of the Government. But I am sure that the principle of the new Clause is right and that it expresses the feeling of the nation as a whole. One thing that people are very sensitive about, one thing which they resent, is any attempt either to get revenue or to give protection to essential foodstuffs. For these reasons I support the Clause, and if there are not more speeches on it it is because we feel that the policy has now been fixed, at any rate for this Parliament, though we hope that the new Parliament will change it.

The last speaker has invited the Financial Secretary not to take it that because he is pleased to call my hon. Friend's speech a sort of gesture, therefore it is not an important gesture on our part. In fact it expresses the great resentment which is felt all over the country, not perhaps against the increase of the price of any particular item of food, but that the area of taxable commodities is extending under these Import Duties. While it is possible for the hon. Gentleman to argue that the percentage increase in the cost of food, compared with pre-War, is only 19 per cent., it is also true that were it not for the Import Duties food would be cheaper than it is now. That proposition is not arguable. It is in the interest of the nation at large that food should be as cheap as possible. The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that this Clause would not cover the whole area of food taxation and that a large number of commodities are covered by the Ottawa Agreement. But even taking those which, he says, are covered by this Clause we find that he has cited such articles as cereal products, vegetables and fruit. If we examine his list of commodities we notice that it covers an increasingly important element in the diet of the people of this country. In recent years fruit has become an increasingly substantial item in the dietary of the average working-class family. That is all to the good. Medical men tell us that there are vitamins in fruit which are not present to the same extent in other articles of diet.

Plainly, we ought not to continue to acquiesce in the imposition of duties on articles of diet which are becoming increasingly important in the working-class home. In regard to vegetables alone, there are, as we know, in this country people who regard with disfavour the consumption of meat, and who are vegetarians in their diet. They have as good a claim to be considered in connection with these matters as any other subjects of the King. The list of commodities which the hon. Gentleman has given to us, indicates by its very nature that vegetarians have to bear a proportionately heavier burden of taxation than other people who follow other courses of diet. I have tried in previous discussions on the Finance Bill to express the objection which we entertain to the increasing amount of indirect as compared with direct taxation. That objection we feel more strongly than ever. We feel that indirect taxation has become a favourite method of putting taxation burdens on people which they do not perhaps notice or which they do not regard as taxation in that sense. We consider that it is a method of securing a maladjustment of taxation as between one class of the community and another, and in order to emphasise our views on the subject we propose to carry the Motion to a Division.

We make no apology for submitting a Clause of this kind, and I think the Financial Secretary expressed our views aright when he said that we intended to take every opportunity of protesting against the taxation of certain essential foodstuffs. I was interested to hear him say that these Import Duties Orders or recommendations were fully discussed before they became operative. Surely he does not expect us to agree that the present method of doing that kind of business is satisfactory. These Orders are usually taken after eleven o'clock at night. We are not allowed to amend the terms of an Order; we have to take it or leave it, and in a House composed as this House is, there is no earthly chance of a recommendation by the Committee being defeated.

With regard to the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman showing that, as far as food is concerned, the cost of living is only 19 per cent. above the 1914 level, I agree with him, to this extent, that those are the official figures. But for the life of me I have never been able to understand how the responsible Department arrives at those figures. I have examined the White Paper issued by the Ministry of Labour showing how the index figure is compiled, but I challenge the hon. Gentleman to convince the ordinary housewife in this country that food alone is at present only 19 per cent. above the pre-War figure. As to the cost of living in other respects, I would only mention the case of clothing. Will anybody tell me that the cost of a suit of clothes to-day is only 42 per cent. or 43 per cent. higher than the pre-War price? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman never had to buy the quality of clothing that we had to buy in pre-War days when we were earning, on the average, about £2 a week. Then, it was possible to get a decent suit for 37s. 6d. but it is impossible to get a suit of the same quality to-day for less than four guineas. In reference to what the hon. Gentleman said about food taxation, I would remind him that in 1931 certain candidates pleaded for votes for the National Government and said quite definitely—some of them in their election addresses—that under no consideration would they agree to taxation upon essential foodstuffs. They will probably hear about it later, when another Election occurs.

Apparently the Conservative party are interested in the political education of the people. If they want to educate the ordinary electors, let them issue posters showing exactly how each household commodity is taxed to-day. I have heard hon. Members opposite argue in favour of all kinds of devices to distinguish foreign from home-grown produce. I have heard them even suggest that the legs of foreign turkeys should be chopped off so that the purchaser should be able readily to distinguish the foreign turkey from the British turkey. We have also heard a great deal about the application of the Merchandise Marks Act. But would it not be good propaganda also to make it illegal to expose commodities for sale without cards or tabs showing what is being paid in taxation on each article? The brewers did that when they wanted a penny or 2d. taken off the pint of beer. They displayed cards in clubs and public-houses showing the amount of taxation on beer and whisky. Why should not the ordinary housewife be told, for instance, what she is paying in taxation on each pound of tea or on each packet of rice? What an outcry there would be? There would be disturbance, even at some of the garden parties which right hon. Gentlemen opposite attend at week-ends, but they would be doing something practical towards the political education of the people. We do not apologise for submitting this new Clause, and I sincerely hope that it will be pressed to a Division.

Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will offer some observations in reply to the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friends. I know that the Financial Secretary has already made a reply, but I am informed that his reply was based on excuses and not upon reasons, though I cannot either justify or deny that statement. I am told that he informed the House that the Import Duties Advisory Committee had only power to deal with certain foodstuffs, including vegetables, fruit, and things of that kind. He may, possibly, remember that certain questions were put to the Minister of Agriculture to-day in regard to potatoes. Potatoes have been dealt with by the Advisory Committee on more than one occasion, and we were informed to-day that whereas Jersey potatoes were being sold in June, 1933, for about £13 a ton and in June, 1934, for slightly over £14 a ton, in June, 1935, they were being sold for £25 per ton. The right hon. Gentleman, if he replies, may tell us that the Advisory Committee are not responsible for such precipitate increases or decreases in commodity prices, but that committee has determined in the past the rate of duty to be imposed on potatoes for certain period of the year. The actual sum varies month by month, according to the date of imports and that sort of thing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) as to the manner in which these Orders are brought before the House. They usually come on after 11 o'clock, when no Member has much desire to debate a question of this kind, particularly when he knows that 550 Members out of 615 are willing to support duties upon anything.

As regards other articles which have been mentioned it may be argued that oats do not constitute a human foodstuff but oats are, I understand, very important in Scotland, and are regarded as important also in certain parts of England at certain periods of the year. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have dealt with oats, and whether we take potatoes or oats or vegetables we find that, leaving out of consideration for the moment luxury articles about which we are not greatly concerned, this Committee have power to deal with articles of every day household consumption. In such cases, it is the plain duty of the Government to come to the House of Commons in the ordinary Parliamentary fashion and ask that duties shall be placed on those commodities, if they can show that the facts justify such a demand.

During the past few years the Minister of Agriculture has from time to time appealed for subsidies for this commodity and that, in order to support agriculture. These subsidies now amount to a considerable sum. If any Socialist Government had dared to concede to one industry what has been conceded to agriculture, I wonder what support it would have received when it went to the electors to ask for a renewal of their confidence. It is bad enough that these constant appeals should be made to us for subsidies without any accompanying information as to the efficiency of the particular branches of the industry concerned, but it is infinitely worse and it is bad Parliamentary practice, that an Advisory Committee with no responsibility to this House, should be permitted to deal with foodstuffs for human consumption in this way without adequate discussion in the House. When these Orders are submitted we know in advance that the discussion must necessarily be inadequate. If they were submitted to the House at 3.45 instead of 11 o'clock; if the Government gave ample time for discussion, then, although in this Parliament the result would be a foregone conclusion there would be an opportunity of discussion. As it is the country and the housewife have no knowledge of what they are actually paying—

There has been no increase in prices.

If there has been no increase in price, it only goes to prove that the Government have failed in their efforts for the past four years. In 1932 when they returned from Ottawa I remember the Chancellor oo the Exchequer quoting the figures of the imports of meat and other commodities and the prices for different periods, and arguing, quite logically from his point of view, that it was the duty of the Government so to direct their measures that there would be an upward tendency in the prices of agricultural commodities.

Not to the housewife.

The hon. Gentleman must not behave like that. This is the House of Commons, not Hyde Park. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government set out, probably because they felt that that was the only way to restore industrial prosperity, not only in this country, but in the Dominions and in foreign countries as well, to increase the price of food and other commodities. How can the hon. Gentleman say there has not been any increase—I do not deny the statement—and that they have not failed in their policy? If the cost of living as expressed in terms of food prices is lower to-day than it was in 1932, it only goes to prove that it is not because of any virtue on the part of the Government or the hon. Member; it merely indicates that all their policies have failed. If prices have not increased, it is not because the Government have not tried to increase them.

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it was the declared intention of the Government to try to increase the wholesale prices of commodities and to make up some of the gap between wholesale and retail prices thereby, and to-day he will find that wholesale prices have been raised but that retail prices remain the same. Therefore, the Government have succeeded in the very object with which they started out.

If the hon. Gentleman could explain to us what machinery they set up to see that the retailer never took advantage of any action on the part of the Government, and that the Government followed the price fixing from the producer, through the wholesaler, down to the retailer, and ultimately to the consumer, there would be something to be said for the hon. Gentleman's argument, but can be point to any machinery that was established to control retail prices?

Yes, I can, and—

If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to make his own speech, we shall gladly listen to him, just as the House is courteous enough from time to time to listen to those of us who venture to speak from this side of the House. If the hon. Gentleman has a really good point, I hope he will give the House the benefit of it, and I am sure the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will welcome pearls of wisdom even from their own back benches. It is so rare that they have them, that one here or there may help them. Our point is a very substantial one. If the Government can make out a case for imposing a duty upon any article of daily consumption in ordinary homes, particularly food-stuffs, then they ought to come to this House in the ordinary way and ask for power to impose a duty, not to leave the Import Duties Advisory Committee to recommend orders, which are always brought on in the most inconvenient part of the day, when they rarely get that consideration to which they are entitled.

It is not a question of arguing that either this commodity or that commodity has been abused in price or that duties have been wholly excessive. It may happen that as a result of the imposition of some of the duties recommended by the Advisory Committee, the producer will get 100 per cent. advantage of the efforts of the Government, but as is the case at this moment with potatoes, wholesalers or merchants exact the last farthing from the producer and concede nothing to the consumer. It is not so much a question of singling out a single commodity as it is a question of the principle of the thing. Food duties are peculiar. They ought to be regarded as such, and when the Government feel that they are entitled to ask, for power to impose a duty, either upon potatoes or upon other foodstuffs, I think it is their duty to come and seek that power in the ordinary way. They have the numbers, and they know they can always succeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to justify his opposition to this very reasonable Clause, which we think ought to form part of the Bill.

I do not wish to be controversial, but I think I might be allowed to remove one or two misconceptions which have arisen. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is always complaining that these import duty orders come on at an inconvenient time. I have never found any time inconvenient. It is only inconvenient