I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 1 to 5.

I propose this Amendment, partly by way of protest against the indecent haste with which this annual Army and Air Force Bill is passed through the House. When the Prime Minister, on Thursday of last week, told us he was going to tack on the Order for Second Reading of the Army and Air Force Bill to a number of other Orders to be taken on Monday night, I felt that something ought to be done by way of protest against the haste with which this Measure is passed through the House. The same thing happened this time last year. I remember, too well, being called upon at half-past one o'clock in the morning to take part in the Debate upon the Bill when everybody was tired. I hope that in future the Government will allow the House to take a little more leisure in considering this Bill. It is a very important Measure, and one that ought not to be taken in the small hours of the morning.

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better keep to the Amendment.

That is all I wanted to say on that matter. The Amendment proposes to omit the proviso at the end of Sub-Section (1), and I shall explain how it arises. The idea of this Clause, as far as I can see, is the protection of the moneylenders in India rather than anything which is advantageous to the officers in the Indian Army. How does the necessity for this Clause arise? I think the moneylenders have had well over 40 years of an innings as against the officers. It is an extraordinary thing that this money-lending business is confined to the British officers in India. Nowhere else in the world do we find that it is possible for the pay of an officer to be attached, and it is time that the Government took some notice of what has been going on in India in this respect.

In present circumstances an officer whose pay is considered inadequate to enable him to carry on in India, has to borrow money and the moneylender or the tradesman can go to the civil court and get an attachment order against the officer's pay up to half the amount of that pay. That attachment order goes to the paymaster, who sends it on to the commanding officer of the officer who has borrowed the money. It is almost invariably a black mark against that officer. It is to the credit of the Government that, as last, they have realised the position which' British officers in India are in as compared with officers anywhere else in the world. It is only British officers in India who have this grievance. Native Indian officers have not this grievance. Their pay is not attached. This state of things came about as a result of the code of civil proceedings which applies throughout British India. Section 60 of the code provides that the salary or allowances of any public officer, when it exceeds so many rupees per annum, can be attached to the extent of half. The War Office authorities have previously shut their eyes to the effect of the interpretation which the civil authorities in India put upon the words "public officers."

I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that if he goes into these matters in the discussion upon his Amendment, he cannot raise the same points again on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

What I am saying now has reference to the Amendment. I must explain how it comes about that such an Amendment is necessary at all, and how it comes about that the Government are now taking action in the matter. This action has been made necessary because of the declaration of the meaning of these words "public officer." Those words ought not to have included officers in the British Army but the civil authorities said they did, and that is why it has been possible for the past 40 years to have attachment orders made against the pay of British officers. As I say, it was time the Government took some action in the matter. I now wish to know why they should give the moneylenders the option of another nine months. My purpose in excluding these lines is to bring the Clause into operation at once. If these lines are retained, it will be possible for the moneylenders to continue as at present until the end of 1938. Any officer who borrows money or owes money to a tradesman, can have an attachment order made against his pay up to the end of 1938.

Why should the Government differentiate between officers who are in the Indian Army up to the end of 1938 and officers who may be in the Indian Army from 1st January, 1939. The officers who will be in the Indian Army from 1st January, 1939, will not be subject to these attachment orders, but officers up to the end of 1938 will be subject to them. We have had no explanation of this Bill on Second Reading. Here is an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to explain why there should be this differentiation between officers of this year and officers of next year and future years. It is very important that the officers in India shall understand their position. It can be carried on for 5, 10, or 20 years, according to the arrangement between the officer who is there this year and the moneylender or the tradesman. I imagine that when this Bill passes, if there are any officers in India who have borrowed money, there will be quite a race in order to get these attachments, which, as I say, may last for 5, 10, or 20 years. I do not think the Government are treating the officers in India quite rightly; in fact, I am inclined to think that this Clause is in favour of the moneylenders, and I want this to cease now. I would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to look carefully into the matter before coming to any hasty decision. The Memorandum to the Bill itself says directly that there is a proviso which

"contains a saving for the rights of creditors whose debts were incurred before the end of this year."

I think the officers ought to be considered after 43 years of the operations of moneylenders in India, because many an officer has been broken as a result of these operations. We want to put a stop to it now, and I therefore hope the Government will carefully look into the question and try to meet us in some way.

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) did not get out of bed on the wrong side this morning. He complains of a system under which a British officer's pay in India may be made attachable for a civil debt, and he described with great feeling the unfairness to officers of being subjected to the present procedure. But the object of this Clause is to change the procedure, and to that extent I should expect my hon. and gallant Friend to be overwhelming the Government with gratitude.

I want to change it at once; that is the difference.

My hon. and gallant Friend also complains that this Bill is being rushed through the House with what he describes as undue haste—

Indecent haste.

—with undue, if not indecent, haste, and therefore it is incumbent upon him, even when the Government bring gifts, to suspect them. My hon. and gallant Friend's point is a very small one, and I think the Committee will agree that he ought to be expressing his gratitude for the Clause itself, even if he thinks it ought to come into operation at an earlier date. It is customary, in accordance with the canons of justice, that if you do change a law, particularly a long-standing Jaw, you should give some notice of it, and in accordance with that principle we advertise that at the end of 1938 an officer's pay will no longer be attachable.

And you make a difference between the two.

If we did not put that Amendment in, of course, the law would be changed immediately. It is desirable to change the law. It is also desirable to retain respect for our methods of legislation in this country and to give proper and adequate notice; and, after all, my hon. and gallant Friend will not be in a position next year to say that the law has not been changed. In the meantime we think it only appropriate that we should inform, not only the officers, but the tradesmen and moneylenders of India, that by the end of this year the present practice will no longer prevail. Personally, I should have liked to have done it at once, but if I had, my hon. and gallant Friend might then have accused me of indecent haste, and in order to avoid that charge on a second count I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment, particularly as our hearts on this matter are at one.

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

The purpose of the Clause is to prevent the enlistment of youths under 18, which is the statutory minimum age for the enlistment of Regular soldiers. No doubt the Committee is aware that it sometimes happens that youths misstate their age and, therefore, get into the Army under the regulation age of 18. We want to prevent this by asking the War Office to take the elementary precaution of asking a youth to produce a birth certificate showing that he has attained the age of 18 before his enlistment takes place. This Clause would not apply to special categories, which may be enlisted as buglers, drummers and tradesmen, or youths of 17 who enlist in the Supplementary Infantry Reserve with the parents' consent, but it would apply to the ordinary Regular enlistments.

This is a comparatively minor reform for which we are asking. No doubt there are people about, particularly in other countries, who would say that to press for a reform of this kind in these days, when we have so many grave problems confronting us, is to show a lack of proper perspective, but I think that is a wrong view to take of this matter. It is one of the many merits of our democratic system that even when we are con- fronted with grave anxieties, we can find time in this House of Commons—a little time—to deal with minor cases of injustice, and I think we are entitled even to-day, on that ground, to press for this particular reform. I am very well aware that if I was in any of the dictatorship countries, I could not stand up and plead against the recruitment of youths under 18, but fortunately in this free and democratic Britain of ours I am able to make this plea, and I would like to take this opportunity of saying that I rejoice in the possession of that liberty.

When we move this Clause, we are not to be understood as having any kind of bias against the profession of a soldier. I think all of us recognise that, as things are, the man who joins the Army is rendering a great service to his country, and we owe those people who are undertaking service, in these days particularly, a real debt of gratitude. No one, I think, on this side of the House would dispute that. I have been in the Army. I am an ex-soldier and I would never think of disparaging or belittling the service which soldiers render to our country. In spite of that, I think we are entitled to contend that even to-day there is no necessity for this country to recruit youths into the Army under the age of 18. The change for which we are asking would not imperil the safety of the country. We are in difficult times, no doubt, but they are not so difficult that we need recruit lads under 18.

In the debates last year it was pointed out that there is no special virtue in the age of 18. I am not suggesting there is. It might be a lower age or a higher age, but the fact is that the War Office itself has drawn the line at 18. It says that 18 is the proper minimum age at which recruits should be taken into the Regular Army. All that we want to do is to ensure the proper observance of that statutory age. I do not think anyone will contend that 18 is too high an age for people to be taken into our Regular Army under contract of service. In accordance with our belief as to what is just and proper, we made a law in this country that, so far as civil contract is concerned, a man must have attained the age of 21 before such a contract could be binding. I suggest that the military contract, because of the nature of the obligations it entails, obligations to sacrifice, if necessary, life and limb, is a much graver contract than any civil contract can possibly be.

Therefore, there is a very strong case for saying that we should not expect youths under the age of 18 to enter into such a contract. The War Office concedes this in principle because it says that the statutory age should be 18, and time after time in Debates in the House on this issue the spokesman of the Department has admitted that there is a strong case for this change. As recently as last year the then Secretary of State admitted that he would like to bring this reform into operation, and the only reason he gave for not doing so last year was that recruitment was unsatisfactory. If that excuse were valid then, it is not valid now because happily a great change has taken place in recruiting. Two days ago I saw this message on the tape:

"Record Number of Recruits.—Regular Army recruits, states the War Office to-day, continue to enrol in record-breaking numbers compared with previous corresponding periods."

If that were the only reason the Department could give us last year for withholding this reform, the present Secretary of State ought to be able to say this morning that in this happy change of circumstances he is prepared to redeem the many half-promises that have already been made that it should be conceded.

There has been only one really serious argument urged against this change in the past, and that is the argument that, if the production of a birth certificate were insisted upon, it would in some cases—it is not suggested that it is a large number—involve the revelation by the recruit of the fact that his birth was illegitimate, and it is suggested that shy and diffident would-be recruits would be reluctant to have this fact brought into public knowledge and that, therefore, the Army would lose what would otherwise be very good recruits. I do not want to go into the detail of that argument now because I think I have been able in the past to demonstrate to the House, and even to the Secretary of State, that there was very little substance in it. I will confine my reply to it to-day not to any detailed rebuttal, but on the practice which obtains in both the Navy and the Air Force. In both those Services the production of a certificate is insisted upon. If the argument is sound that because of this possible illegitimacy the production of a birth certificate will have an adverse effect on recruiting for the Army, it should have equal validity for the Navy and Air Force. As a matter of fact, so far as these two services are concerned, the argument is completely ignored. Therefore, I cannot see how the argument can hold water for the Army unless the Secretary of State is going to suggest seriously that recruits to the Army are more shy and sensitive than recruits for the Navy and Air Force. I do not think he will do that.

There is one aspect of this matter upon which I am reluctant to enter, but since we appear to be confronted with an obdurate War Office on this matter I feel entitled to refer to it. That is the class aspect. It is a fact that almost all the youths who are affected by this proposal come from poor families. They come from working-class parents, and if hardship is inflicted upon them or upon their parents, it is hardship inflicted almost entirely upon the working-class. Any representative of an industrial constituency, if he has been a representative for any length of time, will realise the truth of that. Time after time we get most distressing cases of lads under 18 who join the Army without the knowledge or consent of their parents, and without really knowing what they were doing. The number of these lads is not large. Their parents have very little influence in the right quarters, and consequently we have had to plead year after year, and plead in vain, for this very small reform. I ventture to suggest with some confidence that if it became a general practice for youths in the middle and upper classes to join the Army under 18 without the knowledge and consent of their parents, we should very soon see a change. The parents of those boys would have sufficient power and influence in the right quarters to see brought about a change which we have so far been unable to bring about because only working-class parents are concerned.

I did not want to have to stress that argument, but I have been driven to do it by the fact that year after year we have established our case, and yet the War Office has not been prepared to concede it. I will leave the matter there. We have now a new Secretary of State, but it is not our fault that that change has been made. By dint of arguments in the past we had succeeded, I think, in convincing the former Secretary of State that this change was a just one and ought to be conceded, and it would be a little hard on us if we had now to start all over again to try to convince the new occupant of that high office. I hope that will not be necessary. We have a little optimism these days, and I hope that we shall have a pleasant surprise from the right hon. Gentleman.

It is the 1st April.

I hope that he will realise that this is a very just and reasonable measure of reform. Although he is a young man himself and has given us evidence of his belief in youth being in power in high places in the Army, I hope that he is not going to press his belief in the virtue of youth to the extent of telling us this morning that the well-being of the British Army is dependent upon the recruitment of a certain number of youths under 18 years of age.

I want to support the new Clause. To adopt a military metaphor, the mover of the Clause has advanced from the heights behind me and gone forward to the trenches of the second bench. He is making steady progress, and is ready now for the final onslaught, and so the Secretary of State had better beware if it is not proposed to give way. I do not know what will happen next time; perhaps, he will be found on the other side of the trenches. The last time we discussed this subject it was late at night, but what we have to say to-day will certainly gain the notice of the newspapers, and the outcome will not redound to the credit of the War Office if they do not give way. It may not be generally known that boys under 18 can get into the Army by subterfuge, but this Debate will make it clear. We have a system of attestation, of going before a justice of the peace, and all that kind of thing, but the point about ascertaining the real age of the boy seems to have been put on one side. If the Army is to be an honourable profession, which I claim that it is, well worthy of the recruits who join, everything ought to be clear and above board. The boy ought to be of the age specified on the attestation form, that is 18.

I cannot understand why they have not, in the past, made certain of the boy's age, unless it is that on account of the lack of recruits every means had to be adopted to get youths to join the Army. It takes my mind back to the press-gang days, when certain things had to be done owing to lack of recruits. The present system seems almost to be a continuation of that old system. For several years successive Secretaries of State for War have admitted that point, but they have said that if recruiting should improve they would consider the request we have been putting forward. Last year the then Secretary of State was on the point of giving way. He almost pleaded with us on these Benches not to press the matter to a division, and his assurances seemed to indicate that this year would possibly see him giving way. He did stress the point that if recruiting should improve he could see his way to granting the concessions. When introducing his Estimates this year the present Secretary of State was very pleased with himself as a result of the boom in recruiting. He told us there had been a wonderful response to the appeals made. He also said the Army only wanted men who really believed in the Army as a profession which was well worth following. Therefore, we claim that all the objections have been met: recruiting is improving, and conditions in the Army have been so improved that anybody can join it without any doubts at all. Therefore, I trust that the present Secretary of State will assure us this morning that there is no need now to adopt any subterfuge to get people into the Army. In every other phase of life a birth certificate has to be produced. In the mines when a boy gets to the age at which he can claim the minimum wage for men he has to produce a birth certificate to prove his age; and so it is in other occupations; and why should not a birth certificate be produced if he wants to join the Army?

As to the case of illegitimate children, it has been argued that it would be a shameful thing for a boy to learn that he was illegitimate, but there are very few children now who may have that blot on their birth who do not know about it before they grow up. It cannot be hid from them. Further, illegitimacy is not regarded now as it used to be in the olden days. After all, it is no fault of the child if the parents have done wrong. No one in his senses would ever blame a child for being illegitimate, and I hope that point will not be advanced again. If the Secretary of State should say plainly to-day, "This is one way of getting recruits, and as we require them I am not going to impose this obligation," I would accept a frank statement of that kind much more readily than any excuse, but the improvement in recruiting and the improvement in Army conditions I cannot see that there is any reason why he cannot grant us this concession.

I do not know what the reply will be; it may be that he will put the matter off for another 12 months, but I hope that he will recognise the earnestness of our plea that we want to help the Army. The men put up from this side to move and support this new Clause have both been in the Army, and so it cannot be said that we on this side have any dislike of the Army. We recognise its needs and we want it to be an efficient Army, and we think those who join ought to be well aware of what they are doing, so that in future we shall not have parents coming to us to ask us to try to get their children out of the Army because they have joined when under 18. If a birth certificate has to be produced, we shall get rid of all that kind of thing.

I wish to support the appeal made by my hon. Friends. I am sure that the Secretary of State will realise that he would save himself a certain amount of trouble by accepting this Clause. I have had to bring to the notice of his predecessors, and I think to the notice of himself, appeals for the Army to release boys who had joined before they were 18. In industrial districts boys round about 17 or 17½ sometimes find life irksome and hard. The last case I brought to the notice of the War Office was that of a boy working in the mines who was on the afternoon turn, which meant that he started work at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and came out of the pit at 10 o'clock. That boy felt himself deprived of every kind of pleasure which he desired. He could not meet his pals in the evening He tried hard to get on to other shifts, but failed, and finally, against his advice of his parents, he joined the Army. A request was afterwards made to me to try to persuade the Army to release him. I must say this for the present Secretary of State for War, that he sends me the most illuminating letters I have ever received from a Minister. He takes great pains. He sends me the longest letters that I have ever had, but they are very welcome and they help me to deal with the parents of these boys. He explains the position fully, and I am sometimes able to satisfy parents that they ought not to press the matter further.

Is it fair that the Army Council and the War Office should lay down that 18 is the minimum age for enlistment, and then should be prepared to accept boys under 18 by a subterfuge? We ought to compel a boy to bring proof of his age. He may say he is 18 for some private reason. He may know that if he spoke to his parents they would not let him enlist. I want the Secretary of State to face the difficulties of hon. Members as well as of himself in dealing with this matter. He can easily say that 18 is the age under which no boy shall be allowed to join the Army and that such boy must produce his birth certificate to show that he is 18. If the right hon. Gentleman finds himself unable to go so far as that to-day, whatever his reason may be—and I cannot imagine what the reason can be—and if that reason satisfies him, would he consider the suggestion that when a boy under 18 has enlisted and the parents take objection and bring a birth certificate to prove his age, the right hon. Gentleman should grant a release in such cases? There may be cases of the opposite kind, where parents feel that a course in the Army will do a boy good because they have failed to exercise discipline upon him at home. They would raise no objection in that case. I have one case of that kind in my own constituency where the parents think it will be in the interest of the boy that he should be in the Army. I should prefer that the right hon. Gentleman accepted the proposed new Clause, but if he cannot do so, I hope he will accept the suggestion I have made.

The practice of deeming a youngster to be 18 when he is not 18 sometimes gives rise to grievances. A case was brought to my notice, which I laid before the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, of a lad who enlisted in 1915 when he was only in his 16th year. It was a pious fraud and I am sure that we all excuse it. That youngster gave long service. After the War, in 1919 he re-enlisted, and then he gave his proper age. As the Minister is aware, age is sometimes a factor in allowing noncommissioned people to go on for promotion. This lad wanted to go forward for promotion, but he was not allowed to do so because the War Office would not accept as accurate his proper age, but insisted that his age was that which he had given in 1915. In consequence, the lad was not allowed to go forward for promotion. He could get no redress. I took the matter as far as raising it on the Floor of the House during the Army Estimates, but the lad still got no redress, and he still labours under that grievance. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to that side of the question.

Hon. Members on the other side are not alone on complaining of this kind of thing. We on this side find the same trouble in our own constituencies. I support the idea that a birth certificate should be produced. There is only one point of criticism that occurs to me. At the recruiting office a boy may decide suddenly to enlist. The recruiting officer may say: "Where is your birth certificate?" and between the time the boy has spoken to the recruiting officer and the time he gets his birth certificate it is possible that he may change his mind. A number of recruits might thus be lost to the Army. If the boy will come to the recruiting office with his birth certificate in his pocket, no harm will be done. It would be a good thing if the present position could be done away with by the right hon. Gentlemen accepting the Amendment.

My own experience was rather different. When I wanted to join the Army I was long over age, and I knew that they would not accept me. I happened to be in a recruiting office when a very likely chap came in to the recruiting officer. "What age are you, my lad?" asked the recruiting officer." I am 42 "answered the man." Well, that is no good "said the recruiting officer but he added, as he looked at the man, who was a very likely looking recruit, "You had better go home and find out your exact age." Not long afterwards, the man came back and said to the recruiting officer: "I am sorry. You were right, Sir. I am only 32. Its my mother who was 42." That gave me a fine idea, and in a few days I was duly accepted on attestation, which of course contained a lie, but I was able to serve right through the War. That is not the experience with which we want to deal now. We want to deal with the young fellows who are coming in and who do not realise what they are trying to do. They do not know what they are getting. If they had just time to consider and get their birth certificates their parents would not have so much anxiety on their behalf.

We have all experienced cases in which young men are bringing into the family money which is suddenly cut off by their sudden desire to join the Army—which is a very laudable desire, and all the rest of it, but it gets things into difficulties. The parents get into difficulty. I am waiting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say against this proposed new Clause.

He is probably going to agree to it.

If I knew that, I would not continue my speech, but from his appearance I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is going to accept it. I hope that we shall bring this matter up in the House again, because after repeated efforts it will some day be accepted.

I should like to add my plea to the Minister to accept the proposed new Clause. From watching him I cannot say that he is in a very forthcoming mood, and I am reminded of certain words of the dramatist Sheridan:

"a damned disinheriting countenance."

I should be glad to know some reason why this very reasonable suggestion should not be accepted. If there is a real difficulty, would it not be far more straightforward of the Ministry to go forward boldly and alter the age? Then we should know where we were. There is something quite repulsive to me in the idea that any of His Majesty's Forces should be assisted by a kind of fraud in which the War Office itself takes part. The War Office encourages it while perpetuating this system. I hope that the Minister will either accept this Clause or indicate that some further consideration will be given to the matter. At any rate, if it is not accepted, I think that some much more solid reason ought to be given against it than any that we have heard hitherto.

I am sure that all my colleagues are pleased to see that up to the present there has been no opposition to this proposed new Clause. That shows that the House is unanimous on the proposal. I have never been a recruit, so I do not know what happens, but I did a good deal of recruiting during the War, and I hope I shall never be called upon to do any more in any future war if one should come. I should like it to be understood that we on this side of the House are not against recruiting, though it sometimes seems to be thought by hon. Members opposite that we are absolutely opposed to recruiting of any kind. If I had any sons who were of military age and felt inclined to join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, I should put no obstacle in their way.

It is, however, a regrettable fact that sometimes boys are, I will not say forced into the Army or the Air Force, but, as a result perhaps of a quarrel with their parents, or a little tiff with their sweetheart, led on the spur of the moment to run away to the recruiting office and tell the recruiting officer that they are 18 years of age. I understand that, if any youth who is under 18 does that, he is liable to be prosecuted. I do not know whether that is true, but I am led to understand that it is. Some very regrettable cases have been brought to my notice where youths under 18 have been accepted as recruits. There is such a case before the court at the Old Bailey at the present time. I am not sure whether I am entitled to mention it, but the Secretary of State will be aware of it. It is that of a youth who, at his trial for an offence, which is not yet concluded, declared that he was only 16 years of age last May. How he was able to get into the Army at the age of 16 I am not in a position to say.

Another thing that I and my colleagues object to is that sometimes youths are forced into the Army. There was a case not long ago, I think at Sutton Coldfield, where a boy was before the local police court, and the magistrates told him that he could either join the Army or go to prison. I think that that is a wrong thing for anyone to say in a police court. I hope and trust that the Minister for War will agree to this very reasonable proposal. I do not know whether my hon. Friends are going to divide on it, but, if they are, it will be open to hon. Members opposite who agree with us, if they do not care to vote with us, to walk out of the House and thereby at any rate assist us to some extent to carry the Clause. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) said he hoped that the Minister for War was going to look into the proposal, but I was watching the right hon. Gentleman very keenly, and saw him shake his head. That means that he is not going to accept it. In any case, if it is not agreed to today, we shall have another go next year.

I have not been present in the House during the whole of the time that the proposed new Clause has been discussed, but I have taken an interest in this question for many years. It seems to me that one of the reasons why a birth certificate should be insisted upon is that there is a provision that if, within the first three months after a recruit has joined up, for some reason or other his discharge is required, it can be purchased. In the majority of cases that come to our notice where youths have been accepted under age, that happens, as my hon. Friend who moved the Clause suggested, in a family where it is impossible to find the money to purchase the discharge, because, as far as my experience goes, in 99 cases out of 100 the desire for the release of the recruit is on financial grounds.

I was interested to hear the Minister speak, when he was introducing the Army Estimates, of his desire for men of good character as recruits to the Army. I was not only interested, but pleased, to hear him say that, because, in our villages at any rate, the idea has grown up in times past that the one way out of trouble was through the Army. In many instances where boys have entered the Army while under age it has been because of trouble, either at their work or at home—probably something which might easily have been got over in a few days' time, but which has loomed large in the mind of the boy when he sought this way out, very often at great disadvantage to his parents for economic reasons. It seems to me, that, if the argument suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) is put forward in the reply, namely, that boys might change their minds if they are sent away to get a birth certificate, that could be easily overcome by signing on the recruit and getting the birth certificate afterwards. We are lending ourselves to subterfuge if we continue the present system, and it seems to me that, if all the arguments that have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of the Army can be sustained, the objections to this Clause ought not to be of such a character that he cannot accept it.

I should like to support the appeal that has been made to the Minister with regard to this Clause. I have in mind a case which happened in my constituency, where a boy, having had a difference with his father at home, ran away, stayed out the whole night, and in the early hours of the morning met the recruiting sergeant, who took him to the office and he joined the Army. His parents were working-class people; his father was just an ordinary labourer. He came to see me about the matter, which caused him much concern; the boy was the only son in the family. After having a talk with him, I said I would take the matter up with the Minister for War, and that, in the circumstances and in view of the age of the boy, I thought he would be prepared to release him. I was amazed when I received the reply from the War Office, for it suggested that they had been put to considerable expense in training this lad. As a matter of fact, the lad had been in the Army only about 10 days or a fortnight. The expense involved was comparatively trivial. If the parents had been asked to pay the commission of the recruiting sergeant I could have appreciated that; and probably it could have been done. The extraordinary thing is that a sum is demanded which it is beyond the ability of the parent to pay.

If the Army has no greater appeal to the youth of the country than appears to be the case from these occurrences, we are in a very poor position for obtaining recruits. If a young man joins the Army, the Navy or the Air Force he should join it knowing exactly what it implies, and should be able to go into it in a wholehearted way. We should not be prepared to take advantage of a position such as I have illustrated. The circumstances ought to be such that a boy or a youth goes into the Army through sheer desire. In this case, had that lad been sent home for his birth certificate, there would have been an understanding arrived at, and he would not have gone into the Army. Having had a fortnight's experience of the Army, he was desirous of getting home again. I appeal to the Minister to look at the human aspect of this and accept the Clause.

I wish to add my appeal to the Minister. I have had many cases such as that of which the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) has spoken. I am in correspondence with the Minister now about one. It concerns a lad who joined up, was sent home directly he had been attested, and told his parents what had happened. The father immediately wrote for the release of the lad, who had been enlisted without consent, and was just over 17. He received a reply that, if the parents were prepared to pay £20, the boy's release would be considered; but that if he did not rejoin when sent for, the matter would be put into the hands of the civil police, for him to be fetched back. This is a system of kidnapping. I have listened, in many of these Debates, to some of the excuses made by the Minister for not requiring a birth certificate. They have said that on some occasions there are circumstances in connection with the birth of the boy which would make him rather sensitive about producing a certificate. That is a mean and paltry excuse. There is no other case where a lad is taken into the Services without a birth certificate being required. But I have reason, more particularly, to deal with the treatment accorded to these lads. In one case, I was applying, on behalf of the parents of a lad, for his release. At Christmas, he was allowed to go home for his holidays. He was taken ill and went into hospital, and died of cerebro-spinal meningitis. This lad, without consultation with his parents, had been inoculated for diphtheria and vaccinated on the same day.

The hon. Member cannot raise questions of administration on this Bill. They ought to be raised on the Army Estimates.

I was raising it in connection with the treatment given to these lads, who are enlisted under age without their parents' consent and operated on without their parents' consent.

That is exactly the point the hon. Member cannot raise now.

I am very sorry, because in this case I consider that the lad was done to death by dirty doctors. That is the wickedness of it, that such a thing can happen. As I cannot refer to it now, I will defer it to another time; but it shows the advantage they take of lads who, in other circumstances, would be under their parents' control. It is mean to demand from a poor working-class man, on hourly wages, which he loses at holiday times, and with children at school, £20 as a condition for the release of a boy. It means that if he is not able to beg, borrow or steal that £20, he is not able to give his boy a better chance in life. They had done nothing to train the lad, and to demand £20 from that parent is blackmail. If the parent could have found £20, he would have incurred debts as a result which would have impoverished him for years; and to make that an alternative, which does, I admit, give a lower middle-class parent a chance of getting his son out, is discriminating against the poorer people, whose boys are enticed into the Army in this way.

If the conditions in the Army are not sufficiently good to attract lads of 18 to 20, or young men older than that, the Minister ought to be ashamed of this system of inducing these boys to go in unbeknown to their parents. This is a system which has been going on for years, and I believe it is creating a great deal of resentment. These parents do not keep their mouths shut. So much resentment is being created that what the Army gains on the boys it is losing more and more on the older men. I hope that the Minister will at last put an end to this scandalous proceeding and say that for the future, unless the parents' consent is obtained, a lad under 18 shall not be recruited unless he produces his birth certificate, and that if the lad is enlisted and it is found that he is under 18, then, at the request of his parents, he shall be discharged from the Service in the ordinary way. In any other class of the community no parents would allow the whole future of their boys to be affected by this means. If they incur debts, if they gamble, as so many of their class do, then the law is a protection, whether there is a birth certificate or not; but in these cases there is no protection for the lad if, having been told that he can join at 18 only, he says, "I am 18" and the recruiting officer is satisfied. In view of the large number of cases brought to him by parents I hope that the Minister will at last do the straight and proper thing and say that in future no lad under 18 shall be recruited without his parents' consent, and that if such a lad is inadvertently taken into the Army he shall be discharged on production of his birth certificate.

I always rather dislike to hear hon. Members opposite talking about recruiting, even on a specific Amendment like this, because one should always feel that the Army is a fine career for a young man. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not been here!"] It is quite true that I have not been here all the time to-day, but on the last three speeches, which I have heard, I am entitled to make that comment. Anyway, I have one suggestion to make to the Minister or the Financial Secretary. I have had three cases sent to me during the last year. In two of them I felt that the decision of the Ministry was fundamentally right in turning down applications for release. A very considerable amount of money had been spent on the two boys, who had been in the Army for a period of months. In one of the three cases the lad was under age, and two of them were of military age. In the third case I did feel that there were genuine compassionate grounds, but because it could not be proved that the material conditions of the parents had altered since the enlistment, although the father was a very poor man and the enlistment had taken place a very short time previously, nothing could be done and nothing was done. I cannot help feeling that there is a concession which my right hon. Friend could give in such cases. It is a concession which would be of immense value. It is that he should reduce the sum required to be paid by parents for the release of their under-age sons in cases where the under-age sons have been enlisted for less than a month. That would give time for second thoughts in a case where a boy has deceived the authorities and enlisted when under age.

I have listened with very great interest to the speeches which have been made from both sides on this question, and while I agree that there does exist an evil which has to be dealt with, it seems to me that in this matter, as in so many others before the House, while there is general agreement that an evil exists there is a difference of opinion as to whether the remedy proposed is the one best likely to deal with it. I imagine that as this is not the first time that the subject has been dealt with in the House, it is an evil which must have existed at the time when there was a member of the Labour party at the War Office. I wonder why, if there was such a very strong feeling on that side of the House when the Labour party were in office, they did not deal with the evil. I imagine that if this New Clause is carried every recruit to the Army will have to produce a birth certificate, and it seems to me that as the number of those under 18 who apply for enlistment must be a very small proportion of those wishing to enlist in the Army, it is inadvisable to compel every recruit to bring a birth certificate in order to meet an evil that concerns only a few. It is a fact that a great many people do not possess a birth certificate and it would require a certain amount of trouble for them to procure one if they wished to enlist.

The evil to which attention has been quite properly drawn could be dealt with much more effectively by making it easier for those under 18 who have enlisted to obtain their discharge. I do not know how many it is suggested do enlist quite improperly when under age, and how many of these, perhaps in their own interests, ought not to be in the Army. It may be that in some instances the parents do not wish their boys to be in the Army, but the circumstances of a home may be such that parents are not having the best regard for the interests of their sons, and it may be in the interests of the youths themselves that they should be in the Army. So I feel that if you allow for the fact that the number under 18 who have entered the Army must be comparatively small, and if you deduct from that number those who in their own interests might very well remain in the Army, the evil really concerns comparatively few people. Therefore, it is not wise to bring in a regulation of this kind which will deal with a very much larger number, and I feel that it is possible to obtain the effect desired in a much simpler way.

The hon. Member who has just spoken failed to touch the real point at issue. If this arrangement is necessary in the case of the Navy and the Air Force, why should it not be necessary in the case of the Army? He said that some people have a difficulty in producing birth certificates. They have to produce a certificate when they want the old age pension, and if they happen to be in a trade or occupation in which trade boards operate they have to produce their birth certificates. It has been suggested that the amount to be paid should be reduced if the recruit had been in the Army for a month, but I know that it takes over a month to get a reply from the War Office. In my own constituency there is a case of poor parents who have been penalised in this way. If a lad joins the Army when he is under 18, surely to goodness it is only fair that the parents should not be penalised by being forced to produce £20. I hope that the Minister will agree that the same rule should apply to the Army as to the Navy and the Air Force.

A number of hon. Members who have spoken have been good enough to say that I am both humane and reasonable, and I hope that that is true. The Committee know well that if arguments were addressed to me that convinced my judgment, I should be the first to yield. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) said the other day that he was as pleased with me as a schoolmaster would be with a pupil, that I had done almost everything he asked. It is in that spirit that I approach this proposal. Quotations have been made from previous Debates which I did not hear and for which I share no responsibility. I look at this matter in a new light; I look at it in the light of this Debate. I came prepared to listen to the case which was advanced, and I will state to the Committee my conclusions. Let me preface that by informing the Committee that I should have expected quite a different type of case to be advanced in favour of a Clause such as that which is upon the Paper.

What is the situation with which we are dealing? The ages between which a man may join the Army are roughly 18 and 28, although, as the Committee know, numbers of boys are enlisted at an earlier age to be given a training in some trade, or to act as bandsmen. But, apart from these categories, the ages are 18 to 28. One hon. Member spoke of our inducing people below that age to enter the Army, and I think he used the phrase "kidnapping." Such a statements bears no relation to the facts. Recruiting officers are specifically instructed by regulation that, where there is the slightest suspicion that a man is under the age of 18, they are not to enlist him without making full inquiries. Further, the medical officer is required to give an opinion of what the age of the man in fact is, judging by his physical condition as disclosed. The boy, or, if you so call him, the man under 18, is given a notice pointing out to him that he is liable to go to prison if he has wrongly stated his age. He makes a solemn attestation, with all the panoply of an oath, that he is telling the truth about his age. Further, he must produce referees who will aver that, in their judgment, he is the right age for recruitment.

In these circumstances, to speak of inducing young men to go into the Army is far from the fact. If subsequently, the man having survived all these tests, it is shown that he is under 17 years of age, he is discharged forthwith and unconditionally. If he is between 17 and 18 years of age, he is discharged at once if compassionate grounds exist, provided it can be shown that his parents would receive more help from him if he went back again into civilian life than they could receive by his remaining in the Army. In every case put to me, the matter is looked at from that point of view. Would he be in a better position to assist his parents? Would he be following a career of greater use to him if he were outside? If there are no compassionate grounds, and it cannot be shown that it is either in the interests of the parents or his own interests that he should be discharged, he can acquire, like every other soldier, his discharge by purchase. He has entered into a contract, which, presumably, is in his own interests. He has received a military training. If it is neither in his own interests nor the interests of his parents that he should be freely discharged, he can be discharged within three months on the payment of £20, or, if the period of his training is longer, a greater sum. There are in proportion to the whole an infinitesimal number of men under the age of 18 in the Army. We hope to get this year something like 35,000 recruits. A very small number of them will get in, despite all the precautions, under the age of 18, yet we are invited by this Clause to put every applicant who wishes to join the Army to the expense, inconvenience and delay of producing a birth certificate in order to avoid a few odd boys or men under 18 joining the Army.

I am asked to be humane, and I wish to be humane. I, therefore, ask myself, Why do boys come to a recruiting office, when they know that they cannot be enlisted under 18, and say that they are 18? Why do they perform that deliberate act? Why, when they are told that, if they have wrongly stated their age, they may go to prison, do they use every device, including the production of references, to show that they are entitled to join the Army? Anybody who has a knowledge of life can give the answer. The first and most obvious reason is that they want to become soldiers. There is another reason which operates in the minds of some men. It is not every home in this country that is as happy as the Army.

That is not their fault.

They feel that they will obtain in the Army perhaps—and it is sorrowful to reflect upon it—better companionship than they get in their homes, and they have deliberately left their own homes, or what, in some cases, are called their own homes, and have enlisted. We are told that because a parent should come and say, "Do give me back my boy," without any further inquiry we should hand the boy back to the condition of affairs from which he has escaped. That is a proposal to which I am not prepared to assent. I should have expected the argument in favour of this Clause to be that the Army is a bad place, that it is like prison. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Allow me to state what I think would be the case—that the Army is a bad place, that the food is not good.

No hon. Member on this side of the House has made such a statement.

I agree: they are exactly opposite statements—and that it is bad for a boy to enter upon this career. No such argument has been advanced. On the contrary, we have been told by hon. Members opposite, and rightly so, that the Army offers a good career. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Thorne) said that if he had a boy to-day he would put him in the Army.

No. What I said was that if I had any sons of military age and they wanted to join the Army I should raise no objection.

The hon. Member would see no objection to his boys joining the Army if they wanted to do so. The fact is—and I ask hon. Members to consider it—that the Army does offer a good career, with good food and a healthy life. There is no reason why obstacles should be put in the way of joining the Army. It offers to the boy seven years guaranteed continuous employment. I do not see any reason why he should regret adopting that career, which is very much better than many others, I cannot see why, as if it were a bad profession, and in order to prevent a few boys, a small proportion of boys, getting into the Army under the age of 18, we should subject every would-be recruit to the Army to the inconvenience and expense of obtaining a birth certificate. I see nothing in the nature of the service in the Army which should cause us to put any hindrance in his way.

I cannot understand the argument which suggests that in 1938, when we need recruits more than we ever did, we should initiate a practice which has been rejected by all previous Secretaries of State, including Labour Secretaries of State, which could operate only as a deterrent and obstacle to recruiting.

Is it an obstacle to the Navy?

We require many more recruits than the Navy require, and the whole of conditions of service are quite incomparable. The Air Force practice and our own are on all fours-Is the year 1938, when we are increasing our appeal, when we want young men to join, the period when we should come forward and make this proposal?

My hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) spoke upon a different theory. What he did not like was deception. The deception is not on the Army's side, but on the side of the boy who gets into the Army, in effect under age. He said—and I see much force in what he said—"Why do you not be frank and say that a man is suitable to join the Army at 17? Why do you not put that on record and say that you would be very glad to have men in this service at 17, so that they would no longer be accused of deception and liable to punishment if they wrongly stated their age, and you would not be put to the inconvenience of making these inquiries? "Of all the speeches in this Debate, if we seek candour, frankness and objectivity, that is the speech that appealed to me most. To be quite honest with the Committee, I can see no reason why a man should not be allowed, frankly and openly, to enlist at the age of 17.

Would you ask for a birth certificate then?

If that were the case, I should then follow the practice which we now follow of discharging at once upon application anyone who was shown to be under 17 years of age, whether on his parents' request or on his own. That is the present practice. A man is discharged unconditionally and at once if he is shown to be under 17 years of age. I do not know whether I rightly interpret the expressions upon the faces of hon. Members opposite. Some of them, I should say, would prefer that the matter should be dealt with upon those lines, quite openly. If that be the view—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, if that is not the view, and if anyone is going to get up and say that a man between the ages 17 and 18 should be forthwith discharged upon the ground that the Army is not a suitable and proper profession for a man—[HON. MEMBERS: "We never said that"]. If that be said, I say that it is not a good argument. In the meanwhile, I say quite candidly to the Committee, with every desire to reach a fair conclusion, that the speech of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough appeals to me most.

One further compromise was suggested to me, and that was by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). He was anticipating that I could not accept the Clause, and I certainly cannot accept it. It would mean 35,000 people in a year producing their birth certificates. He asked whether I would look on each case sympathetically on its merits, and whether if the parents desired the boy to be discharged and they produced a birth certificate I would then discharge him and remit any fee that was payable. I can undertake that in any case of discharge on compassionate grounds where on inquiry it appears to be in the boy's interest as well as meeting the parents' desire, I will invariable and immediately order the boy's discharge. It is in that spirit that I approach the proprosal that has been made. I have stated the matter as I see it. I have dealt with the arguments fairly, I hope. I am unconvinced that it would be either in the interests of recruits or of the nation to require from every applicant who wishes to join the Army a certificate of his birth.

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has missed this opportunity. I am surprised also that he should have confined himself to what has been mainly a debating speech. As a matter of fact, he has shown on this subject far less understanding and sympathy than the previous Secretary of State. In order to show the entire difference of spirit displayed by the right hon. Gentleman and by his predecessor in the two preceding years, I will quote from the concluding words of the speeches of the former Secretary of State. I would further say that if his predecessor had been faced with the position which now confronts him, this change would have been made to-day. In the debate on the Army Annual Bill, in 1936, the Secretary of State said:

"There is a great deal of force and cogency in the arguments that have been put forward. If recruiting does increase satisfactorily I think it might well be possible that I should be able next year to adopt some suggestion of the kind put forward today, which would get rid of many of these difficult cases, and which would, after all, put the Army on the same basis as other occupations." [OFFICIAL REPORT: 7th April, 1936; Col. 2740; Vol. 310.]

Last year the Secretary of State, in his concluding words, said:

"I should like to adopt such a Clause as that now put forward. If recruiting had improved I should have been able to introduce such an Amendment into the Army Annual Act myself." [OFFICIAL REPORT: 19th April, 1937; col. 931, Vol. 322.]

Reaction at the War Office.

I say that but for the change in the position of the Secretary of State we should have had this proposal carried out this year. It is quite clear, listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that he has not followed the debates on this subject, otherwise he would not have adopted the tone he has this morning. I suggest that he should really consider this matter now that it has been brought to his notice because I am convinced that this is a change which in a few years' time will be made. We have moved three or four Amendments to the Army Bill in previous years and this is the only one left, and it is being opposed merely on the ground of tradition. An infinitesimal number of people only are affected. There are two alternatives. One is that the War Office should demand a birth certificate. The right hon. Gentleman has given us his objections to that. The other is that if a boy enlists under the age of 18 and his parents ask that he should be released, it should be the will of the parents which should prevail rather than the will of the War Office.

Or the wishes of the boy?

I am talking of the parents.

Is the boy to be ignored?

I strongly hold that the welfare of a boy should be decided by his father and mother rather than by the military authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the argument on this side is that the Army is not a suitable profession for young men. He must have entirely misunderstood our attitude. That is not the nature of our argument. It is this. It is accepted throughout the country in every other occupation that when a boy is under 18 his parents are better judges of what is best for him, and also what is best for other members of the family, than any outside authority. That is the point of our argument. The right hon. Gentleman has explained with what care the War Office investigate these cases. Let them continue to investigate them with the same solicitude, let them try to impress parents with their views, but in the last resort, when there is a difference of opinion between parents and the military authorities, we contend that parents, who know a great deal more about the circumstances of the family than the colonel of a regiment, ought not to be deprived of a right which is accepted everywhere else because a recruiting sergeant has made a mistake.

The right hon. Gentleman's arguments this morning were not arguments, but sophistry. He spoke about the Army being more humane than parents, that boys would have better companionship than in their own home. The way in which the right hon. Gentleman looks at this question shows that he is the victim of a class distinction of a most insulting kind. If these were boys of Members of this House or the sons of professional men or men of means, I cannot conceive that they would tolerate a situation in which they would be told that the colonel of a regiment knows better than themselves what is best for their sons. It is a most insulting doctrine to say that parents are so ignorant, short-sighted and selfish, and that the colonel of a regiment is entitled to treat these boys in a way in which in every other case parents can be treated only if they are proved to be guilty of habitual drunkenness, persistent neglect or immorality.

Moreover, it is quite clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the War Office does not confine itself to what is best for the boys, and for the parents. The Secretary of State, in fact, has said that there are other considerations in the mind of the War Office; they want recruits. If they are considering that, then they are not considering what is best for the boys. Because the War Office want labour they are no more entitled than any civilian employer to obtain labour by conniving at breaches of the law. When the matter is thought out I do not think the Secretary of State will maintain his position next year. What a small thing it is. The number of boys is infinitesimal, and they undoubtedly create a great deal of trouble. I doubt whether a continuance of this practice is an aid to recruiting. It means that the Army is behaving in a way no civilian occupation would be allowed to behave. It has been said that the Army is a career, and that it is a more honourable occupation than ordinary civilian employment. I oppose the widely prevalent view which is held that the Army is a last resort. That is a view which is most dangerous to recruiting, but it is being justified and perpetuated by the practice which the Army insists on maintaining.

Is it not the duty of all of us to try and dispel that view?

That is exactly what I am saying, but the only Member of this House who is justifying it is the Secretary of State for War. He says that these boys have made a contract, and he actually used the argument that they should be held to it. Is he not aware that if a boy under 18 signs a contract it is not regarded as being binding upon the boy? He said that not only have they made a contract but that they have committed an offence for which they are liable to two years' imprisonment. I do not think I am using too strong a phrase when I say that, if that be the case, the Secretary of State and the War Office are conniving at a fraud and a breach of the law. They are obtaining their labour by means which, if any civilian employer imitated them, would cause him to be prosecuted in the courts of law. In those conditions, I say that this is one of the things which justify the belief that the Army is in some way a kind of second-rate occupation which resorts to methods less civilised than those universally practised now in civilian life.

The new Clause (Rules of Procedure) in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) is either out of Order, or, if it is not out of Order, it is ineffective and meaningless, and, therefore, I shall not call it.

On a point of Order. I did not feel competent myself to draw a Clause dealing with this point. I went to the officers of the House of Commons for their assistance and guidance, and this is their Clause, not mine.

I beg to move:

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1938, dated the tenth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said tenth day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be approved."

This Order is designed to impose a minimum specific duty on handkerchiefs made wholly or partly of cotton, in order to give manufacturers in the United Kingdom protection against abnormally cheap imports from Japan. Prior to the issue of the present Order on 10th March, handkerchiefs of all sizes were liable to a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem, or 30 per cent. ad valorem if they contained lace or embroidery, and these rates of duty will continue to apply as an alternative to the minimum specific duty which the Order now seeks to impose. The Order, which has been issued on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, relates to handkerchiefs made wholly or partly of cotton, wool, hemp, flax or jute. Most handkerchiefs, as the House knows, are made either of linen, that is flax, or cotton. Linen handkerchiefs and the better qualities of cotton handkerchiefs are, in the main, priced at a level which puts them entirely beyond the scope of this alternative specific duty, and in practice, therefore, the change in duty of which I am asking the House to approve would only affect the cheaper—indeed, the very cheapest—type of cotton handkerchiefs.

The scope of this new specific duty has been further restricted by limiting its application to those handkerchiefs which neither in width nor length exceed 24 inches. These limitations have been inserted in order to exclude so-called handkerchiefs of very much larger sizes which, I understand, are now used for bead or neckwear. The Committee have not included handkerchief material in the piece in their present recommendation; but they propose to watch the course of events carefully with regard to handkerchief material, and, if it should appear that the new duty is being avoided by the importation of this material, they may consider taking steps to close that loophole.

There is a substantial production of the cheaper types of cotton handkerchiefs in this country by firms situated mainly in the Manchester district. There was very little foreign competition in this class of trade until about four years ago, but since then there has been a very striking increase in imports from Japan at prices with which British manufacturers are unable to compete. As a result, the market has become disorganised, and there has been a marked decline in home production.

Let me support that contention with a few figures. In 1933 the imports of handkerchiefs were 1,186 cwts. at a c.i.f. value of £31,426, and of those imports only 35 cwts. valued at £401 came from Japan. Four years later, in 1937, the position had materially changed; our total imports were 6,093 cwts., valued at £83,081, and of that quantity no less than 5,768 cwts. came from Japan at a total value of £60,834. Therefore, more than 90 per cent. of the handkerchiefs imported in 1937 came from Japan, and the average c.i.f. value of those imports was the very low figure of 1s. 10½d. per lb. The House may not at first sight appreciate the smallness of that sum. Let me, therefore, give the average price per lb. of the imports from other countries. Those which came from Switzerland were valued on the average at 17s. 8d. per lb, those which came from Germany at I2s. 10½d. per lb. and those which came from other foreign countries—such as France, Belgium, China and Austria, a very small proportion of our imports—were valued at us. 8d. per lb. The goods which came from within the British Empire, that is, from Canada, India and Hong Kong, also a very small proportion, were valued at 5s. 7½d. per lb. The Japanese imports, as I say, were valued only at 1s. 10½d. per lb. On those cheap Japanese goods the average ad valorem incidence of the new specific duty would be about 80 per cent. On the basis of the average c.i.f. value as we know it for last year, the higher priced goods imported from within the Empire and from other foreign countries would not be affected at all by the specific duty which is imposed by this Order as an alternative to the ad valorem duty.

The Japanese goods in question consisted partly of children's small handkerchiefs weighing 2 lb. to the gross, and costing an average of about 3s. 6d. per gross c.i.f., and partly of larger-sized handkerchiefs which are used by adults. Both these types, and particularly the larger-sized handkerchiefs, are produced in cheap qualities by British manufacturers, and although the new duty will, as I have explained, bear a high ad valorem incidence on the average of the Japanese imports, it is really no more than is necessary having regard to the very low price of these goods. British manufacturers, I am informed, have never made handkerchiefs for retail sale below 1d. each. They have always, however, produced goods for the cheap end of the trade, and until the Japanese entered the market they had the whole of this section of the trade to themselves.

British manufacturers still produce large quantities of penny handkerchiefs for distribution through the fixed price stores as well as the wholesale trade, and I believe there is not the slightest reason to suppose that the new duty will lead to any diminution in the supply of penny handkerchiefs. I made particular inquiries this morning in order to find out whether this would mean hardship to the people who wanted the cheapest possible kind of handkerchiefs, and to ascertain whether there existed halfpenny or even farthing handkerchiefs; and I am informed that that is not so. There may be one or two cases in which handkerchiefs have been sold at under a penny, but, substantially speaking, the penny handkerchief is the handkerchief which is bought by these people who want the cheapest handkerchief possible. The substitution, therefore, of an alternative specific duty, which will frankly hit the very cheap Japanese goods, will neither put up the price of the penny handkerchief nor lead to any diminution in the supply of these useful articles to the market.

I remember that on the last occasion when we discussed Import Duties Orders, hon. Members in various parts of the House were anxious to know exactly the home production and the number of people employed.

And their conditions.

No complete figures of the home output of cotton handkerchiefs are available, because they are not separately listed, but it is estimated that the cheap handkerchiefs, comparable with those foreign goods affected by this Order, which are produced by British manufacturers to sell in the home market amount to between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 dozens annually, not by any means an inconsiderable amount.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us those figures in weight? The figures of imports that he gave were in weight of goods; could he give the home production in weight, so that we could compare them?

I will if I can later on. There is no direct evidence in my possession of a decline in the home production, but taking the trade as a whole—that is, the better-grade as well as the low-grade handkerchiefs—there was a decline in the quantity of grey cloth, which is what they are made of, used by eight large producing firms from 12,000,000 square yards in 1933 to 10,300,000 square yards in 1935, and down to 4,000,000 square yards in the first half of 1936; and the Committee are satisfied, from the inquiries that they have made, that this decline continued in the second half of 1936 and through 1937, and also that it was the cheap end of the trade that had largely suffered.

Separate employment figures for the cotton handkerchief industry are not available, but I have attempted to get made for me a number of calculations, which, I am afraid, are contingent on various factors which cannot be exactly stated, but which I can put to the House like this: It has been ascertained that six firms which carry out all the processes of manufacture, other than the production of the grey cloth, together employ about 1,200 workpeople; and on the assumption that about 60 per cent. of the output of these six firms would be sold to the cheap end of the trade, and making allowance for further output of cheap handkerchiefs, it is estimated that not far short of 1,000 workpeople, in addition to those weaving the cloth, are employed in the manufacture of handkerchiefs of the type with which this Order is concerned. I am excluding, as hon. Members will see, the better class and more expensive handkerchiefs, upon which the passing of this Order will have no effect. The total number of workpeople employed in the handkerchief industry as a whole would amount to several thousands.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me about wages. This trade is covered by a trade board, and changes in the rate of wages were made on 18th October last year in a sense favourable to the workers. I do not know that it would be necessary for me to cite to the House the various details of these wages, but if any hon. Member wishes for them, I shall, of course, with the permission of the House, be delighted to answer specific questions. I think the House will see that this Order to substitute an alternative specific duty for the existing ad valorem duty is simply a wise measure of protection against a a flood of imports from one particular direction, at prices with which the home manufacturers cannot compete. They will see, moreover, that the passing of this Order will have no effect upon the supply of home-made handkerchiefs to those people who wish, or indeed can only afford, to buy the cheapest varieties; and I hope, in these circumstances, the House will recognise that this is a thoroughly good proposal from every point of view, and accept the Motion.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, before sitting down, tell us what are the rates of wages paid to the Japanese workmen or workwomen, in comparison with the rates of wages paid to English workpeople?

I could not give the right hon. Gentleman exact details, because for instance, the hours worked in Japan are entirely different from the hours here, but I think it must be plain to the House that, when these handkerchiefs can be imported at an average price of 1s. 10½d. per lb., compared with 17s. 8d. from Switzerland, 12s. 10½d. from Germany, 11s. 8d. from other countries, and 5s. 7½d. from the British Empire, the wages paid in Japan cannot be such as could possibly be tolerated in this country.

It is not necessarily so at all. It might be that the cheap flood of Japanese imports arises from Government subsidies.

There are many of us in this House to-day who, if we were considering the taking of measures by the Government by way of economic sanctions against Japan in relation to the widespread aggression which has taken place on her part ever since 1931, would have been prepared to back them, but this seems to me to be a very small, meagre, and almost petty, backdoor method of dealing with the question. If you, therefore, consider the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary purely on fiscal grounds, you are brought back to consider the general procedure which the Import Duties Advisory Committee pursue and to consider the kind of information which they usually give to this House when this House is asked to approve, after the imposition of a duty has taken place, the actual fact. This duty has been paid by the taxpayer ever since 13th March, and we are now asked to put a rubber stamp on the decision. We are simply given a White Paper which consists of a few dozen words and treats the House almost with complete contempt. We have complained against this again and again. There is no real information in the White Paper, and I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to talk to this Committee and tell them that we are the representatives of the taxpayer and have a right to know on what basis they come to their decision. We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary who, in the middle of a lunch hour on Friday, makes a longer speech than usual and gives us a lot of ancillary and additional information. We have, however, no chance of checking any of the statements with Government reports and Customs and Excise returns.

The Import Duties Advisory Committee treat the House with contempt, and it is about time it came to a stop. The actual information in the White Paper consists of just a few generalities. There is no real information at all. When I consider, from my own experience of commodity after commodity, the manner in which the common people are being mulcted in increasing taxation by this procedure, I think it is a disgusting thing that the House should be treated in this way. I looked this morning at the total figures of Customs duties shown in the financial return published last night Almost every week new duties are put on and this year the taxpayer is being charged something like £110,000,000 more in Customs Duties than in 1931. Over and over again we get these White Papers with no information in them, and then on pressure a little extra information trickles through bit by bit by the courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary. We make no complaint about what he says to the House, but the Opposition say on this occasion that the time has come when we are not going to stand it any more. We insist on the right of the representatives of the taxpayers to have proper information before they are taxed. That is the right and the prerogative of the elected Members of this House. The information which is given must be adequate, informative and capable of being checked by hon. Members before they give their decision.

With regard to the actual tax which is now proposed, when we compare the sources of the imports, we find that the most expensive come from Switzerland; those from Germany are less expensive, and those from other countries less expensive still. Between the cheap Japanese imports and these more expensive imports there is, apparently, a considerable volume of imports at very low rates from Empire countries. There seems to be, however, a lack of knowledge on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary for the moment, or an unwillingness on the part of the Department, to supply the answer to the question of my right hon. Friend with regard to Japanese wages. When I compare the price of Empire imports, which is between 5s. and 6s. a pound, with the Swiss imports at 17s. or 18s., it seems there must be some pretty low wages paid in Empire countries. Before we begin to attack the wages and conditions of the British producers, we want to look at the Empire position. Is there a preferential duty in respect of these handkerchiefs from the Empire? We do not know from the White Paper which imports were foreign and which were Empire. We want to know what was the quantity from the Empire, what were the wages paid in the Empire, and what duty, if any, remains to be paid on the Empire product, or whether it is included in some schedule of the Ottawa Agreements?

We want to be informed of these things before we can come to a proper judgment on the duty. We also ask for information with regard to the conditions of employment in this country. It is always interesting when we begin to talk about the protection of the British worker on such manufactures as this to note that over and over again the trades concerned are such as have to be scheduled under the pre-war Act as sweated industries, and as industries in which the employés are not sufficiently organised to be able to do without a trade board. Here we have another instance of a trade board industry. It would be as well for the Parliamentary Secretary, before he gets a decision of the House, to tell us what are the trade board wages.

I will.

The Parliamentary Secretary must see that the House ought not to be treated like this. I am not blaming him for working to a brief from a Department which is not wholly his Department, but is largely under the influence of the Treasury. But the Government must see that the House is entitled to the information in advance in a report given to the House. We want to know what are the actual wages paid in the industry. We also want to know what are the prices of the goods. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the average value of the handkerchiefs coming from Japan is 1s. 10½d. per lb. and that the duty is under 8 per cent. He has given us no real information about the really comparable article, and the prices that would be charged at this end. He has told us that, generally speaking, we do not charge less than 1d.; but what are the prices charged by the wholesaler to the retailer? What are the wholesale prices of the Japanese, Empire, Swiss and French imports which the retailer has to pay? We ought to know so that we can see how the duty will affect them.

I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) has to say about it; he has a wider knowledge of the workpeople in the industry; but I have grave doubts about accepting the type of calculation given this morning as to the number of people in the industry. The Import Duties Advisory Committee have heard the case and gone into it, and they ought to know how many workpeople are in the industry and how many there are to be protected. They ought to know what the wages are for this commodity. If they do not, they are not doing their job. If they are not doing their job, we ought not to be asked to put a rubber stamp on their decision. The Parliamentary Secretary says that there are no separate figures but that calculations subject to contingent factors and sub-divisions of this, that and the other kind give us a total of 1,000 people. I am beginning to doubt whether there are 1,000 people employed on the cheaper handkerchiefs.

We are tired of the treatment we are getting from his Department, and I must inform the Parliamentary Secretary that we have really come to the parting of the ways. We give him this warning: either we get proper information in these White Papers or we shall treat these Orders in a very different way when they come before the House. I beg of him, in the interests of the House and of the taxpayers, to see that proper information is supplied in the White Papers in future. I would like to add this, and if I am not completely in order I hope that the Chair will forgive me. Not only do we want more information in the individual White Papers, but we want an annual report from the Import Duties Advisory Committee giving a list of the applications which they have dealt with and a summary of their recommendations showing the applications granted and those turned down. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what he proposes to say to the Department, and what he proposes to do about the final request I made.

With the last observations of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) I should like to associate myself. I am sure that many of us who are watching the working of the new fiscal system of this country would be glad if it were possible for the Import Duties Advisory Committee to issue a report at the end of the year showing the number of applications they have heard and the results, both in the cases where they have advised a duty, and those in which they have declined to do so. I may add that I have asked on many occasions that we should be told some of the circumstances in which the duties are sought by different industries and refused. But having said that I must join issue with the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the rest of his speech. As one representing a constituency which will be affected by this Order, I desire to offer my gratitude to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has brought it in, and I hope that it will become known to the party which is led for the moment by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough that he, at any rate, speaking from their Front Bench, desires that we shall take no steps to cheek the increasing imports of Japanese goods into this country.

When the hon. Member looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT I do not think he will find that I made any such statement.

I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I repeat that, although public sanctionist No. 1, he would take no steps at all to improve the home trade by imposing some check upon Japanese goods coming into this country. Not only will Manchester be affected by this Order but many constituencies in the Midlands where this is a small industry will reap an advantage, and I hope that those on the Socialist Front Bench will realise that although they oppose it, it is an advantage which will be shared by those who work in the industry. It is true that it is a small industry, that the number of people engaged in the making of handkerchiefs is small by comparison with those occupied in many other industries; but the fact that it is small is no reason why it should be overlooked.

I desire to say, on behalf of a constituency very much interested in this industry, that it has suffered a heavy setback for a long time by reason of the continued influx of Japanese goods, and that we are grateful for the protection afforded by this Order. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough complained because there was no statement in the White Paper as to the wages paid to the Japanese workers. It is not so long ago that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informed me in this House that the wages paid to the skilled hosiery workers in Japan were about 1s. 6d. a day sterling. We have no such sweated labour in this country, and the House ought to welcome anything which will protect industrialists here against the sweated wages paid on conditions existing in other countries. The right hon. Gentleman further complained that there was no information in the White Paper, but I would refer him to one or two very important statements made by the chairman of the Advisory Committee, who said:

"No question arises as to the ability of the home industry to cater for the cheap end of the trade, since until quite recently the needs of the market were almost wholly met by firms situated chiefly in the Manchester district. Within recent years, however, imports at very low prices have developed from a new source and have latterly reached such dimensions as to have disorganised the market and resulted in a substantial decline in home output."

That is a general statement without a single figure in support of it.

I think the House will feel satisfied that when this Committee, which was set up in 1931 considers these matters it acts upon the evidence submitted as a judicial body outside the control of the House. On the evidence before it it came to this conclusion. From my own knowledge I can tell the right hon. Member that in many centres in this country employment is suffering by the influx of Japanese-made goods, and I take this opportunity of saying how much we appreciate the attention which was given by the Committee to what is comparatively a small industry, though to that industry the matter is really a momentous one. There is no reason why these goods should come from foreign sources. They can be made in the City of Leicester and other cities under conditions and safeguards which are incomparably different from those existing in Japan. Although the so-called Labour party, for their own political ends, will not see it, the real way to protect the standard of life of the worker is to maintain standards in the industry in which he works by giving him reasonable protection against sweated goods from other countries. It is difficult to think of any point which can reasonably be made against putting on the duty proposed.

The right hon. Member spoke of the Customs duties in existence now by comparison with those imposed in 1931. Would he like to compare the trade of this country now with what it was in 1931? Would he like to compare the figure of unemployment to-day with the figure in 1931? Would he like to compare the annual income of the country now with the annual income in 1931, when he himself was a member of a Cabinet which had to take very stringent action because of the difficulties in which they were placed? The difference to-day is largely due to the change in our fiscal system, which has given to our industries a confidence, such as they never had in 1931. With the knowledge that they will be treated reasonably, both small and large industries can prosper, and the industry under consideration, although a small one is just as much entitled to the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee as any larger industry with a bigger establishment of labour.

I understand that this Order is to be opposed, and I hope the House will realise that those who oppose it would continue to allow importations from foreign sources which jeopardise the standard of living of the workers in this country, whereas we on this side take the line that we ought to give reasonable protection to our own workers by a measure of this kind, which is reasonable to the trade and will in no way affect adversely the consumer. On behalf of the many constituencies which will benefit by this Order, I desire to thank the Import Duties Advisory Committee for the consideration they have given to this small industry.

I hope the House will notice how a member will come forward and support an Import Duties Order which affects his particular constituency. Whether that is a healthy feature in our public life or not I do not know. However, the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) made some references to the more general situation and to the declining unemployment. In the depth of a world depression we had 2,750,000 unemployed, and to-day, at a time of world prosperity, when we have 750,000 men making armaments, we still have more than 1,500,000 unemployed. If that is a marvellous result of their fiscal policy hon. Members are welcome to it.

Are the United States of America supposed to be enjoying prosperity at this moment?

They have tariffs.

It is a paradise of tariffs.

We cannot pursue the subject of the interruption.

I strongly support what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) that our patience with this kind of order is exhausted. My small party will support every effort that is made to receive these Orders in future in a different way from which they have been received in the past, if the Orders continue to be put before us in this way. In the last six lines of the second paragraph of the Order there are terms wholly vague:

"Needs of the market. … almost wholly met. … recent years. … very low prices. … reached such dimensions. … substantial decline in home output."

Unless this House is regarded by the Government as a mere rubber stamp they might amend the procedure so that when these Orders come before us all such terms as those should be supported, if we are to be able to make up our minds, by all the information at the disposal of the Ministry and of the Committee.

When it is stated that there were very low prices, could we not have the prices stated and be told the prices of what? I suspect that throughout this statement the Minister has been compounding the price for British and German manufactured handkerchiefs of the sort which he and I use with the price of toy handkerchiefs, absolute trash, which does not even find its place on the stalls of Woolworths. He is not comparing similar articles in the prices which he has given us. We hear that these imports have reached "such dimensions," but we have no statement in writing which we can consider before we come to the House to discuss the matter. What has been the volume of importations, not in two years, of which the Minister talks? We cannot grasp the full meaning of the details as he gives them out. Figures go by, and we lose the significance of what the Minister was going to say.

Let him give us the figures not for two years but for all the relevant years. Is is not true that the importation of these handkerchiefs is less this year than in 1937? The Minister has chosen two years to show a substantial and steady increase. The figures which he gave suggest a graph which is rocketing to the sky and which, unless stopped, will swamp the whole of British handkerchief production. I suggest that the true state of affairs is that the graph has gone up, but that in the last two years it has steadied, and to-day shows no tendency to increase. I make that suggestion upon information which may or may not be accurate. We ought to have the information.

For the sake of comparison we ought to have the figures of British production and of British exports in the same years. We have been told that the figures of British production are confidential, and cannot be disclosed. It has been said that those who desire equity must come with clean hands: I would say that those who desire tariffs should disclose all the information available, and not hide behind the story that the information is confidential. After all, most of it will find its way into some report or other in four or six years' time, when it does not matter.

One fact about the application which has been entirely overlooked in the speeches is that these Japanese handkerchiefs are a new article which has never appeared on the British market and never been manufactured by any British firm. They are no more competitive with British handkerchiefs than British handkerchiefs are competitive with silk scarves. They are so different from, and so inferior to, the Japanese handkerchiefs often made in this country that you will not find one of these Japanese handkerchiefs on the counters of any of Woolworths stores. The Minister spoke of the penny handkerchiefs in the cheapest price stores, but these handkerchiefs do not find their way into those stores. They are the kind that you will find upon hawkers' barrows. They are an entirely new article which has never been manufactured or attempted here, and no British manufacturer has ever wanted to manufacture them. If I am right, the importations of this new article began five or six years ago. The importation increased, and today the market is saturated. There is no further increase in the importation.

As to the scale of this importation, we are informed that the figure one year was 300, and five years later it was 5,000. It sounds as though the whole market is being swamped, but the importation of these handkerchiefs is one-fifteenth, not of our production but of our exports, of handkerchiefs, and is a mere fleabite on the trade with which we are asked to deal this afternoon. What evidence has the Import Duties Advisory Committee really taken to show that there is a decline in home production? What firms have been invited to submit their figures? There are over 140 firms manufacturing handkerchiefs in this country, including firms in Northern Ireland. Not more than nine of them have submitted information. Their names are given, but I will not read them. Then the firms are mentioned who are not included in the general application, and who have been invited to submit their figures privately to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Have any firms other than the nine submitted any figures or given any information to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, or is this an application on behalf of nine out of 140 firms? I understand that Tootals, the well-known handkerchief manufacturers, are not included, and that that is also the case with the Calico Printers' Association. When the Minister talks about a general setback to the trade by reason of these importations I would point out that the exports have been substantially going up in the last three years. If the information is all supplied by these nine firms, then I am not at all surprised that their production is going down. They said in their application that the factory cost of cotton handkerchiefs manufactured by these nine firms was about 2s. per dozen, or 24s. per gross. I am informed that comparable handkerchiefs of British manufacture can be purchased at 17s. per gross in London to-day, so it is not particularly surprising that the output of these firms is going down. I submit that an application on behalf of a limited number of firms who cannot hold their own against the ordinary normal competition, from this country as well as from outside, which is not supported by the trade generally, and which is directed against an article which the trade generally never have produced and do not want to produce, ought not to be approved by the House.

I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), who endeavoured to prove, in reply to my right hon Friend, that there is evidence in the White Paper. He accepted those general statements as evidence. I have been reading of some of the work upon which the hon. and learned Member has been engaged recently, and I do not think that, when people in Croydon made general statements of this kind, he accepted them as evidence. The moment, however, that there is an opportunity of benefiting one or two employers in this country—

Employés.

On the day when the hon. Member begins to look after the employés I will congratulate him.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in every case of this nature the employés get the same benefit as the trade. I do not like the hon. Gentleman imputing motives of this nature, which he knows are not well-founded.

I am not imputing motives, but I think they were imputed by the hon. and learned Member when he suggested that we were quite willing to have imported into this country that which would reduce the standard of living of our people. It has been our life's work to endeavour to raise the standard of living of our people. In this case a trade board had to be set up, because the industry was a sweated industry, because the employers would not pay adequate wages or give working conditions that were reasonable. Not once did the hon. and learned Member mention a firm in his constituency, or in the Midlands, that was engaged in this trade. Probably we could tell him of one or two, but he might at least have told us, so that we could have dealt with what he is relying upon the present moment. I hope that, when he takes part again in a discussion of this kind, he will at least decline to accept as evidence that which he would not accept when he is dealing with other matters in his own profession.

He spoke of the confidence that this duty would give, and he made interjections during the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) as to the confidence that it would give to the operatives. The rates are set down by the trade board for the people employed in this industry, and it will not only require the two months' notice which must be given for consideration, but, even after agreement is arrived at in the trade board, there is the two months' notice which has to be posted before any change in rates and conditions can be agreed to. I would ask the Minister in charge to reply in more detail to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). The Minister quite readily jumped up and said what were the hours worked by the people in Japan, but, if he has particulars of those hours, I would ask him also to give the rate of production per hour in the Japanese textile trade. He went to Japan some years ago in order to test what was happening there. The operatives in this country are not afraid of what is produced by people in Japan, who take many more hours to produce a piece of work than any of our operatives in this country required to produce a much better article. I hope, also, that we shall be told something about the wages.

The Minister referred to the 1,200 people who, he states, are engaged in producing handkerchiefs of this cheaper kind—the penny handkerchief, as he called it. Is it his information that these 1,200 people are solely engaged on that particular side of the trade? Are they engaged upon it throughout the whole year, or are they engaged at various times in producing handkerchiefs of a more expensive type? Then I think we might have been told a little more about the firms—there are not many—in this particular industry. We have a right to know their names, so that we can see who are concerned in these applications, and can discuss the matter in greater detail. There is another question that I would like to put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, though I do not know whether he will be prepared to answer it this afternoon. How many of the young people whose wages are fixed according to their age by the trade board are employed on the production of this type of handkerchief? I hope it will be realised one of these days that we in this country can carry on much of our work without artificial assistance by means of these tariffs, which are not an advantage either to the industry concerned or to the country.

I should like to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has said this afternoon about the inadequacy of the information that is being supplied to the people's House of Commons when we are being asked to tax ourselves in various degrees for the benefit of various industries. I approach the matter from quite a different angle, but I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend said, and associate myself with the threat that, if there is anything more of this kind of thing, we shall do our utmost to give the Government of the day the warmest possible time before it gets any fresh duties passed. The Minister spoke rather off-handedly this afternoon, assuming that the reason for the cheapness of these Japanese imports is that a lower rate of wages is paid in Japan than is being paid in comparable industries in this country. He only assumed that; he gave us no figures. I interrupted him and asked for figures, but he had none. It is one of the jokes of the season that labouring people in this country should be asked to pay higher prices for goods on the assumption that cheap goods are necessarily produced by cheap labour. That may be so; but there is no proof adduced here.

It is vital that in every case where there is a proposal to impose a duty at the instance of the Advisory Committee we should be given clearly in the White Paper a comparison of the rates of wages paid in this and in foreign countries and the hours of labour worked in this country and foreign countries. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he assumed it was low wages. Might it not be Government subsidies? I do not know whether the Japanese Government are subsidising their exports of cotton goods; it is common knowledge that they subsidise their shipping and their shipping rates. It might be not low wages, but a fall of the yen. It might be monetary disturbances.

I do not want unnecessarily to interrupt the Speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I ought to make it clear that it does not matter, for our purposes, whether it is a fall of the yen, Government subsidies, lower wages or longer hours of working. The only question at issue at the moment is, whether the price of these goods that come into the country is one with which our people cannot compete.

I am quite certain that that is the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the Government. But it is not our point of view, and I am sure it would not be the point of view of the great majority of the people of this country if the issue could be fairly put before them. I would prevent international traffic in sweated goods. I have done my utmost for many years, by pen and speech, to carry on propaganda in that direction, and it is the expressed official view of the Labour party that we should take steps, through the League of Nations, to stop the traffic in sweated goods, wherever there is an alternative source of supply. I am not going to argue whether it is possible, by the methods of the Government, to interfere with sweated goods at all. I am certain that, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, sweated goods are no concern of the Government. His interruption entirely disposes of the pseudo-humanitarian, democratic speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). The hon. and learned Member represents an industrial constituency, and he, therefore, claims that these duties are protecting the interests of the poor working man, but that is not the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary. If it can be proved that the rate of wages paid abroad is as high as, or higher than, ours, or that the hours of labour are similar, and that what we are doing here is protecting an inefficient industry—protecting, perhaps, second-rate machinery as against high-class machinery abroad—we shall take steps, on good, sound economic grounds, to protest, in any way we can, against the protection of inefficiency. There is no evidence produced to show that, in the case we are examining, we are not protecting inefficiency. I am not saying that we are doing so; but the Parliamentary Secretary has given us no evidence whatever to show that we are.

The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester, who is outside the bounds of Parliamentary discussion at the moment, very gravely misrepresented my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough. I am sure he did not mean to do so; but he did it. I listened to every word that my right hon. Friend said, and his speech did not in any way justify the taunt that he was welcoming the importation of sweated goods from Japan or anywhere else. What he did—very properly, in my judgment—was to demand that the people's House of Commons should have adequate information supplied to it before it came to a decision on any of these Import Duties Orders. Because a Member of Parliament makes that legitimate request, it is grossly improper and unjust that he should be charged with welcoming the importation of sweated goods from abroad. May I say to the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester that I went to India once to investigate the sweated conditions in an industry there which was competing with an industry here. It was true that rates of wages there were much lower than the corresponding rates here. It was equally true that a large proportion of the cheap labour there was being organised by British capital. But it was equally true that we discovered that, while lower wages were being paid there than to workmen in this country, they had to employ about three labourers there for every labourer employed in this country, and it averaged out that, in the course of the day, it was no cheaper to produce goods in Bengal than in Dundee. I am certain that, in some instances, we are led blindfold through these Import Duty Orders, protecting backward methods of production, and it is rather curious that the industries which are most active in promoting these Orders and giving us no information when we discuss them are those which themselves have had to have trade boards imposed upon them. It may be that the trade boards had to be imposed on them because of the cheap labour abroad. But why should they not give us the information? What is our function here but to safeguard the public interest and the public purse? Before taxation is imposed we ought to have information laid before us, and it is absurd for the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester to stand up and attempt to justify the kind of White Paper which has been offered to us by misrepresentation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough.

I intervene only on a comparatively narrow point, but one which I shall continue to raise every time. The Commissioners treat this House with contempt. I do not think they even read our speeches. That might be a punishment, but it might do them good. It is treating us with contempt when we ask, as we asked last year, that they should give us the same figures as when they were first constituted, and they fail to do so. When first constituted, they had a much more difficult job. We had Import Duties passed through by the dozen dealing with vast industries and complicated trades. Not only did they give all the figures and facts, but part of the evidence. There is none of the evidence this time.

I know these distinguished gentlemen. I certainly would not like to attack them. They are men of great distinction, men with long years of public record; but if they are going to ignore the House of Commons we shall have to find some remedy, and the only remedy open to us is to make the Government responsible. Unfortunately the Commissioners are in a very independent position, but if they are thinking that because their work is getting less, because the number of Orders is becoming fewer, they need publish less information we shall have to find some method of bringing them to account. I do not blame the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Government bench. He is always the embodiment of courtesy and gives us all the information that is at his disposal. But that is not enough. This White Paper is the printed document which is placed before the Treasury. It is the document which is published to the various industries concerned. We are entitled, as a House of Commons, not to ask but to demand that in future when Orders of this kind are placed before Parliament the Commissioners shall fulfil the task for which they are appointed and give us the necessary information, whatever point of view we take, to enable us to arrive at a conclusion as to the justness of the recommendations contained in an Order.

I shall not detain the House long for I see the Postmaster-General present, and I imagine that he is about to contemplate the desecration of some graveyard in Leeds. One or two things have been said to-day which make it almost necessary for any Member who is concerned with this subject of import duties to say something. The representative of the Board of Trade is perhaps the most disarming Member of the Government. I think he would get away with anything. He has done his best to-day, within the confines of the information to hand, to put up a case.

I may be forgiven for mentioning the name of Cobden in this House. It is very dangerous to mention the name of a fundamental thinker in 1938, in this age of superficiality and flippancy. However, I will risk it. Cobden said that sooner or later the apologists for Protection in defending their case would be bound to drop into the last trench of their defence by making a comparison of price with price. That is evidently so here to-day. The Parliamentary Secretary rose in his place just now and said that it was a matter of no concern to the Government whether the goods were produced under sweated conditions or whether the goods had been subsidised by the Government of the country that produced them, that that did not matter and that here is was a matter of price with price. If he had been a little more astute in his economics he would not have dropped into that trap.

Price with price—let us look and see what it means. The whole meaning and intent of science is to reduce the cost of production. It is based on an old economic law that man seeks to gratify his desires with the least amount of exertion. The whole meaning of science in production is to reduce the price of the unit of production. We are told here today that we are to fly in the face of science and try to keep up prices, although science in production is knocking them down every day. It may be that Japan is more efficient or has more efficient machinery than we have. It is probable; indeed I am almost certain it is so. I would not be at all surprised to find that Japan has more efficient machines than we have; it is so in their pottery industry. They produce commodities at a cheaper rate, volume to volume, than that at which we can produce them. I do not know who is on this Import Duties Advisory Committee. I have heard a great deal about their distinction. I saw them only once and I do not want to see them again. The Members of this distinguished Committee leave out of their consideration on every occasion the fundamental principles which govern price. They are regardless altogether of what is the condition under which these goods are produced in other countries, the point of efficiency of production, and the effects of taxation.

We, in this country, carry a greater burden of rates and taxes than any other country in the world. Those rates and taxes are passed into price. It may be that we are competing with a country that is more efficiently organised in the field of production, and a country that is certainly not carrying the burden of rates and taxes that we carry. Our prices are inflated by the enormity of our rates and taxes, and if it be true that we are not producing as efficiently as others are, what then is the result when our commodities meet the commodities of others with these handicaps? The Import Duties Committee seem to say, "Price for price is our basis of comparison: Keep the foreigner out."

These are other fallacies it is necessary to point out. When asked about wages the Minister spoke again about the comparison of price with price. It is not possible to answer a question on wages paid in one country as against another by merely saying, "Look at the price of the goods." The whole meaning of science in production is to increase the volume of production with an ever lowering cost of the unit of production. It should be that the greater the volume of production the higher the wages paid to the producer, although the price per commodity may drop. But here we have a Committee which is wholly innocent of these laws, making a comparison of price with price, per commodity. It would be an easy job so to condemn almost any commodity that ever comes into the country if economic principles are ignored.

Another interesting thing is this: The prices quoted by the Minister showed that Germany charged 12s. 10½d. per pound, France 11s. 8d., Canada 5s. 7½d. and Japan 1s. 10½d. It is worthy of note that those countries which are carrying enormous expenditure on the Budget side and carrying out grandiose schemes in subsidising industries, compare very badly with Canada, only 5s. 7½d., compared with Germany's 12s. 10½d. I had intended referring to a speech made this afternoon by one hon. and learned Member, but his behaviour is such that I think it more advisable to ignore it utterly. There has been much talk about the Import Duties Advisory Committee treating the House with contempt. What else does the House of Commons expect? Here we have a Committee which is outside this House, to which we have given practically uncontrolled statutory authority. Hon. Members complain about it. We hear speeches in this House about threats to democracy and the encouragement of dictators, and yet we set up all these committees outside this House. We are told that we have no right to challenge them. We have delegated authority to this House to all kinds of committees. We have given this Committee such authority outside this House and the best treatment they can give us is an occasional little leaflet telling us the duties we must impose.

We have heard some talk about sweated goods this morning. I am sitting below the Gangway, and I am, therefore, in a unique position. I would ask those who talk about sweated goods to be careful. What are sweated goods? Have they ever been defined? The Government to-day are holding up Japanese handkerchiefs as sweated goods. If I came into this House and held up a lump of coal, would that not be a sweated article? And that is not a sweated article from Japan. So let us be careful when we speak of sweated goods. Reference has been made to the condition of this country in 1931, when our trade was bad, and we have been told, "Look how fine it is now as a result of this tariff policy." Trade may have been bad in 1931, but what is the result of these tariff policies which are pursued not only in this country, but in every country in Europe? Look at Europe to-day, and look at the condition of your budgets due to armaments, the result of trade rivalries. We talk much about the League of Nations but listening I often wonder whether the House does its thinking in watertight compartments.

If we mean what we say about our belief in a League of Nations are we consistent in pursuing a policy of tariffs and protective duties? The very Act we are carrying through now is in opposition to a League of Nations principle, but hon. Members do not seem to be aware of it. What will be the interpretation of Japan—whether we like it or not is another matter—of this Order? It will be, that we are taking action in this House—in a minor way, if you like—to impose new sanctions upon Japanese trade. It cannot be interpreted in any other way.

I feel myself in some difficulty in view of the remarks which have been made with regard to the presence of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-General on this bench and the apparent necessity for converting some burial ground to the use of the Post Office before the end of the afternoon. Had we unlimited time on our hands I would have tried to the best of my ability to follow hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House in the wide economic discussion into which we have drifted. I would say in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that we are not seeking to impose any fresh duty upon anything but simply proposing to put alongside an ad valorem duty a specific duty as an alternative, because it appears from the figures themselves, that imports from a certain country are defeating the object which this House had in imposing the ad valorem duty.

I have not the slightest objection to the general question of the procedure under these Orders being raised or to the way in which it has been done. The procedure, as I understand it, is that it is the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to supplement, with all the information which ought to be at his disposal, the alleged deficiencies of the White Paper. Any hon. Member would realise, if he were placed in this particular position—and I know that my predecessor with all his eloquence used to suffer from it—the difficulty of appreciating exactly how much or how little detailed information the House wishes to have placed before it in regard to any particular Order under discussion. It is very doubtful as to how far the amount of detailed information which the Minister could give would help the House. I realise—and this was a point made by the hon. Gentleman opposite—how very much easier it is to have these figures on paper, but the House will realise that I am not in a position at short notice at this Box to give any undertaking whatever as to any alteration in procedure. I can only take note of it.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made exactly the same remarks in the last two Debates. He said that he would take note and offered to convey our remarks to the proper quarter but apparently the Commissioners ignore even his friendly and courteous communications.

You never know. It may be like water dropping on a stone.

There are at any rate a number of detailed questions which I can answer. The imports from the Empire last year amounted to only 35 cwts. out of 6,000 cwts. total imports, and these goods from the Empire come in duty free. The annual home production of handkerchiefs last year was between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 dozen which weighed somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 cwts. That compares with the figures of imports from Japan of 2,181,000 dozen, weighing 5,768 cwts.—[Interruption] Perhaps the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) will allow me to make my speech. It is easy enough for an hon. Member to interject questions which he has prepared, but the unfortunate Minister has to memorise a hundred things at once. I was asked the prices of the Japanese handkerchiefs compared with the British. If we take a typical case, say a handkerchief 17½ by 17¾ inches which, whether it be British or Japanese, weighs 6 lbs. per gross, the British wholesale selling price is 24s. a gross and that of the Japanese article 10s. 5d.

The figures of wages which I offered to give to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) earlier in the proceedings were fixed on 18th October by the Trade Board and the general minimum time rate for workers of 18 years or over, other than those to whom minimum rates are specially fixed, was raised from 6¼d. to 6½d. an hour.

Men or women?

I am obliged to the hon. Member. I should have said that this relates to women. The wages of females of all ages on piece work were raised from 7d. to 7¼d. per hour. For male workers of 21 years of age or over the general minimum time rate was raised from 11½d. to 1s. Coming down the ages the wages for those under 15 were raised from 3d. to 3¼d.

The hon. Member for Barnstaple suggested, with his usual urbanity, that I was intentionally or unintentionally misleading the House in regard to the imports for the last few years. He suggested that since 1937 the imports had actually gone down. We do not know anything about the imports since 1937 since we have only just started 1938, but I can tell him that for the last three years, 1935–36–37 the graph of imports has been going up in exactly the direction which he suggested I was wrong in insinuating that it was doing. He also suggested that I was not entirely frank with the House as we were dealing with different articles and not comparing like with like. Surely the proof of the pudding is in my previous statement that the grey cloth consumption has suffered such a drop. The fact remains that whether the goods are strictly comparable or not they are in fact knocking out a certain amount of British production. The hon. Member also asked about our exports. I can only say that our exports for 1936 were 23,000 cwts.

Is not that export greater than the total volume of British production which the Minister gave us earlier? I understood him to say that we had produced only 10,000 cwts. How is it possible to export 23,000 cwts. from that?

The answer is that it is not possible in this case to compare like with like. I can only give 23,000 cwts. as our total export in 1936 and I am afraid that that included a lot of the larger and more expensive ones. With regard to consultation with only nine firms out of 140, I an assured that the Committee did consult with, and get information from, all the principal makers of cheap cotton handkerchiefs in the United Kingdom. It is not possible in a debate of this kind to bandy across the Floor of the House the names of individual firms. That was generally recognised and was probably one of the reasons why this particular procedure was accepted by Parliament, of leaving the matter to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and taking the detailed discussion of these things off the Floor of the House.

I should also like to tell the hon. Member for Barnstaple that the Japanese handkerchiefs in question are not toy handkerchiefs. The same hon. Member made an amusing reference to what he described as the vague language used in the White Paper. Perhaps I might clear up four of the phrases to which he drew attention. "During recent years" means since 1934. "Very low prices," means 1s. 10½d. a pound. "The needs of the market," means that at the present time about 4,500,000 dozens of cheap handkerchiefs are required in this country. "Almost wholly met" means that except for trivial consignments the whole of these 4,500,000 dozens of cheap handkerchiefs were produced in the United Kingdom before 1934.

At 1s. 10d. a pound.

No, not at 1s. 10d. a pound.

I fully appreciated the economic lecture to which I was treated by the hon. Member for Burslem. He would be right in his argument if there were a world state and it was not necessary to have any tariffs. The obvious thing then would be to buy or use everything from the market where it could be produced most cheaply. In that case, it would be a very poor look-out for some branches of our agricultural industry. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that in this imperfect world we cannot, for political as well as economic reasons, have complete and unfettered commercial exchange of goods throughout the world.

The matter with which we are dealing to-day is a small one. Our proposal is the substitution of a specific as an alternative to the ad valorem duty, which is not being raised, in order to effect our purpose of restricting very cheap imports from one particular source. I think the issue is quite clear to the House, and I hope that we may now have the Order.