§ Goods imported into the United Kingdom of the categories specified in the Schedule (Agricultural implements and raw materials to be imported free of duty) to this Act, being articles used as implements or raw materials in agricultural production, shall be imported free of any duty.—[Sir R. Acland.] Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 6.14 p.m.
§ Sir Richard Acland
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
992 This Clause relieves from import duties the raw materials bought by and used by the farmers of this country. I cast my mind back to the election I fought in my present constituency in 1931, when the great influence against us was the conviction in the mind of the agricultural community as a whole, farmers, farm workers and those who depend upon agriculture, that they were all going to have a wonderful time arising out of the tariff promises that were being made to them by Conservative candidates from one end of the country to the other. 993 We did our best to warn them that the introduction of Protection would not be to their advantage, but, on the contrary, to their disadvantage, that they would get the dirty end of the stick all the time and that tariffs would be imposed on the things they had to buy. That has turned out to be the case, and anyone who addresses a meeting of farmers to-day will not find them blessing the Government for any great benefits they have received through tariffs or expecting that any great benefits are to come. I do not propose to go through the Schedule which is attached to the new Clause, because I want to deal with the matter as a general issue. But I should like to quote a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Agriculture, on the 16th December, 1936, to show that the sum total of the duties which I am attacking does have a serious effect on agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman said at that time:We have to buy a tremendous amount of goods which are taxed, taxes which are borne by the farming industry alone. … Taxes on our fertilisers range from £4 ton to £1a ton; implements and machinery 30 per cent.; shovels, spades, scythes, forks, 15 per cent.; hay and grass mowers, the humble plough, planters and seeders, reapers and binders, 15 per cent.; wire 33 ⅓ per cent., barbed wire, nails and staples —nearly everything we have to buy is taxed in some way or other.It is only fair to the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did not make that speech to show that there was a very appreciable burden of taxation being paid by the farming community, or that he was in favour of the new Clause which I am moving. He quoted those figures in order to ask that further tariffs should be put on. In the course of that speech he used one sentence which sounds rather surprising to-day:I loathe these subsidies and would sooner have my taxes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1936; col. 2354, Vol. 318.]Compare that with the proposals of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman is now piloting through Committee. It has been estimated that the total burdens which are drawn exclusively from farmers amount to about £3,000,000. In relation to some of the articles on the list in the Schedule, there has been grave dissatisfaction expressed from no less a source than the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la B ère) as well as from other sources, to which I think the Front Bench opposite pays more attention, rightly or 994 wrongly. There is more than a suspicion that a number of the interests now selling to the farmers are making rather higher profits than the farmer who purchases from them. There are branches of the agricultural industry which have been brought to distress not because of the competition of the wicked foreigner, but because of the rising prices charged for feeding-stuffs, manures and other necessary raw materials and equipment. In our view it would be a good thing, in view of the somewhat well-founded suspicions, to clear away the duties and tariffs which do make increased prices profitable, and then give an opportunity to the industry to prove their case. Let us examine their case, and if they can show that they are not profiteering something may be done for them, but let us put it up to them to prove their case.
It would be absurd if I did not deal with the answer which was made to us from the Front Bench when we moved a similar Amendment some years ago. They said nothing whatever on the merits of the Amendment, nothing whatever about the principle, or the lightness or wrong-ness of increasing the farmer's difficulties, of taxing the things he has to buy. The beginning and end of their reply was that this matter falls to be dealt with by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and that it is not for the House to deal with such matters at all. If we were talking of some small proposal such as a tax on toothbrushes the answer of the Government might be adequate, but I submit that if hon. Members have any regard for the proper authority of this House they ought to safeguard from falling into the hands of a committee, over which the House has no control, matters of great principle. I think hon. Members will agree that on matters of principle and policy this House should control the Import Duties Advisory Committee, not vice versa. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) has been pointing out that the Import Duties Advisory Committee may be a good instrument for administering policy on general principles laid down by the House of Commons, but is not a good instrument for the making of policy. More and more that body is taking over the functions of making policy, and I think the House would be taking a long step towards redressing the balance if it were to say that this is not a matter of 995 detail but a matter of principle, on which the House is entitled to say whether raw materials shall or shall not be taxed.
§ 6.24 p.m.
§ Sir Herbert Williams
I do not blame the hon. Member for having a brief run on the subject of Free Trade but I think he might have taken a little more care with the Schedule. The fourth item in the Schedule is wheat. I rather gather that under the Anglo-American Trade Agreement wheat was to be on the free list. Perhaps those who prepared his brief were in arrear with their work and prepared it in a hurry. But the implication behind the new Clause and the Schedule is presumably that the duties have had an adverse effect upon somebody. Going through the list I cannot, broadly speaking, find that there have been any complaints. I think there was one case of a particular form of tractor of a kind not made in this country which was the subject of a duty, and quite clearly that is a case to be put on the free list. Going through the bulk of the items in the Schedule no one has alleged that the prices have been adversely affected by the duty. I do not think the hon. Member would get much support from the agricultural community to place oats on the free list because the low price has had a most adverse effect on agriculture in certain parts of the country, and especially in Scotland. Take the manufactured articles mentioned on the list. I cannot remember any successfully sustained case that any of these has been adversely affected in price so far as the consumer is concerned. I should have thought that the hon. Member would have brought forward some more serious documentary evidence in support of his new Clause, and without some such argument it is really a waste of time to discuss a matter of principle which has been established for so long —in order to establish the opposite principle —and in respect of which there have been no complaints whatever of the kind anticipated by the Liberal party when they were opposing the adoption of Protection.
§ 6.27 p.m.
§ Mr. Craven-Ellis
I do not gather the real significance behind this proposed new Clause. If I heard the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) correctly he said that it would have an effect upon 996 the £3,000,000 duty on the several articles to which he referred as being purchased by the agricultural industry. I want to point out that the turnover of the agricultural industry is about £250,000,000, and I speak as one who farms a fairly big area and who gets among farmers who are dependent entirely upon the industry for their living. I must confess that I have not yet heard of any general or even minute objection to tariffs. What we farmers feel is this —we are perfectly satisfied that it is the position —that as a result of the expanding general industry of the country the workers have a considerably increased purchasing power, and that if the £3,000,000 has any material effect upon the production of British farms it is not felt. I do not intend to say that the agricultural industry is in the position I would like to see it. As a matter of fact it is not. I should call for more tariffs if it was in order.
§ Mr. Bracken
The hon. Member will forgive me. Apparently he has not read the recent speeches of the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps he will address his remarks to the Minister.
§ Mr. Craven-Ellis
I am dealing with the new Clause, and I do not in any way commit myself to the recent speeches of the right hon. Gentleman. I am speaking from my own experience as a man who farms land, and I am satisfied that more tariffs are wanted to deal with foreign competition which is competing with British fanning. If I thought that the new Clause would in any way assist farmers—I have been fighting the farmers' case for some years—I would willingly support it, but I am satisfied that the hon. Member is approaching the matter entirely from the wrong angle if he has any intention whatever of assisting British agriculture.
§ 6.30 p.m.
§ Mr. W. Roberts
I should like to make a few comments on the speeches that have been made by the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). It may be within the recollection of some hon. Members that on the last occasion when a new Clause similar to this one was moved, the Scottish Farmers' Union held quite a different opinion on the subject, and circularised their Members in the House in support of 997 it. This would suggest that the hon. Member for Southampton —
§ Mr. Craven-Ellis
Perhaps the hon. Member was not in the Committee a few minutes ago, when we were told that conditions in Scotland are entirely different from conditions in this country.
§ Mr. Roberts
Scotland would come under the Clause, and I should be glad to hear in what way the Scottish farmers are at a greater disadvantage than the English farmers in paying these tariffs on their purchases. Moreover, I well remember that the Farmers' Union of England were very much concerned about the effect of the duties, not on one type of tractor only, but on tractors in general. There is also the question of the position of the poultry farmers. In 1937, particularly, the position of the poultry farmers was very serious. This is an industry which is not expanding now as it was in 1929, and the numbers of poultry are now declining. The greatest difficulty of the poultry farmers in those years was the high price of feeding stuffs.
§ Sir H. Williams
Will the hon. Member mention which feeding stuff in this country has risen above world prices, during any period he cares to mention, as a result of any duties we have imposed?
§ Mr. Roberts
What exactly world prices are it is somewhat difficult to ascertain. If the duty was paid entirely by the foreigners—which I presume is what would be argued by the hon. Member—there would be some ground for saying that it made no difference to the poultry farmers. What I am suggesting is that it was the strong opinion of the poultry farmers that the rise in the prices of feeding stuffs was affecting them very seriously, and that that rise was partly accounted for by the duties affecting many feeding stuffs.
§ Mr. Roberts
White maize is used very largely for fattening poultry. The hon. Member for South Croydon referred to 998 oats. If the duty on oats does not raise the price, why did he suggest that the farmers of this country who grow oats would regret the removal of the duty? The case of the Protectionists is always such a delightful one. When it is a raw material which is being imported into this country it does not affect the price; when it is something that is produced in this country, it is the only salvation of the producer of the commodity. They cannot have it both ways. I do not wish to go into a long discussion of the matter, but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, when he replies, to give an estimate of what these duties which cost the British farming community since they were imposed. We hear that the agricultural output of this country is between £200,000,000 and£250,000,000 a year; I believe the estimate is that it is £220,000,000, which is no greater than it was when the National Government came into office. What percentage of that are these duties estimated to cost the farmers? It may be £2,000,000, £3,000,000 or £5,000,000. I should like the hon. Gentleman to give an estimate of the increased cost which the farming community is paying as a result of these duties.
§ Sir H. Williams
The hon. Member seems to have been under some misapprehension. I mentioned the case of Canadian oats which enter duty free. The hon. Member will find that, practically speaking, there are no foreign oats imported into this country at the present time, and that they are almost entirely Canadian. If he will examine the general average price of oats, he will find a figure that will surprise him. In the case of maize, 99 per cent. of the imports are in the particular category known as flat maize, and they are duty free from all countries. The magnitude of the imports is so great that it dominates the price of feeding stuffs in this country. It is not in the slightest degree true that the tariffs have in any way affected the price of feeding stuffs to poultry farmers. The decline in the poultry industry is due to an extensive disease among the poultry.
§ Mr. Roberts
I know that many of these feeding stuffs come in duty free from the Empire. It is equally true that the effect of the duties has been to a considerable extent to divert the imports from foreign 999 sources to Empire sources, but I have yet to be convinced that that diversion has not enabled the Empire producer to obtain a better price for his products. If that is not the object of the duty, what is the object?
§ 6.38 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross)
I cannot follow the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) through the vicissitudes of his election in 1931, but he will be very conscious of the fact that a new Clause in similar terms to this one was moved two years ago and rejected. He will also expect me to say that the new Clause is unacceptable, and I do indeed assure him of that. The hon. Member said that he hoped I would not give a reply similar to the one that was given on the last occasion, but in view of the fact that he has put down the same new Clause, and further, that I think there was some substance in the reply then given, I hope he will bear with me if, to some extent, I do give a similar reply. The hon. Member has put down a list of goods which he desires to see imported free of duty into this country, and which are goods of which the agricultural community are either the users or the consumers. As far as I understood the hon. Member, he is not particularly concerned with the interests of the producers, but that, no doubt, is because he has no belief in the efficacy of tariffs in benefiting the producers. He will be conscious of the fact that the majority of hon. Members do not share his view, and feel that tariffs are of benefit to the producers as a whole and that no special section of producers should be deprived of those benefits.
I have looked through the list of goods proposed by the hon. Member. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) pointed out, that list is somewhat out of date in one respect, namely, the very important item of wheat, of which we import the best part of £40,000,000 worth a year, so that it is rather a large oversight. There is a number of other items which we are precluded by trade agreements from putting on the free list; namely, oil-seed cakes and rice, which we are precluded from putting on the free list under the agreement with India; flat white maize, by the agreement with South Africa; wheat flour and 1000 barley, by the agreement with Australia; and grass seeds and clover seeds by the agreement with New Zealand. I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish the new Clause, including those items, to go through at the present time and thus result in the unilateral abrogation of these trade agreements.
For the rest, the new Clause is unacceptable because, if I may repeat the substance of the reply given previously, the House would have to set up special machinery for the purpose of dealing with the thousand and one details which there are in the formidable list of items in the Schedule. The hon. Member said that he suspected, or believed, that there are cases of manufacturers who are making rather too large profits out of the articles which they are selling to the farmers. If the farmers and their representatives feel that this is so, they can take their case to the Import Duties Advisory Committee and try to establish it there. I must repeat what my predecessor said on another occasion. The Treasury has the right, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to direct by Order that goods of any description may be put on the free list. If a good case can be made for putting these goods on the free list, the fanners can use their opportunities of making representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.
The hon. Member attempted to establish that there is a special position for the agricultural users of these products. The list he has put down appears to me to consist of goods which are either produced in this country, or which directly compete with goods produced in this country, or which would be affected by trade agreements and in respect of which, therefore, we get a compensating advantage in our exports. If there are any exceptions, then they are exceptions of an isolated nature in connection with which the farmers can go, and should properly go, to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. The main answer to the hon. Member, surely, is that the list as a whole does consist of goods that are enjoying protection because it is the general policy of the Government to protect the producer in this country, whether he produces for home consumption or for export, as well as to care for the consumers. I submit that we cannot except different classes of producers in virtue of the particular 1001 class of consumers whose needs they fulfil. We cannot say that the producer of motor cars shall enjoy a particular kind of protection, while at the same time the maker of horticultural and agricultural implements shall not enjoy a parallel advantage. It seems to me that one cannot make a separate case for any one class of consumers, but that all must be dealt with alike.
§ Mr. Dingle Foot
Is it not a fact that when the Import Duties Act was passed, a special exception was made in the case of steel used in shipyards; and was not that singling out a particular class of consumer?
§ Mr. Cross
If the hon. Member had allowed me to go a little further I was about to say that the agricultural producer, the farmer, certainly does not enjoy the same degree of advantage from tariffs as industry as a whole, but he does enjoy off-setting advantages of other kinds. It is in that way that we achieve the balance between industry and agriculture. The proposed new Clause would be destructive of that balance and for that reason, among others, I must ask the Committee to reject it.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 121; Noes, 240.1003
|Division No. 214.]||AYES.||[6.46 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir R. T. D.||Groves, T. E.||Parker, J.|
|Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)||Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)||Parkinson, J. A.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)||Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Hardie, Agnes||Pools, C. C.|
|Banfield, J. W.||Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)||Pritt, D. N.|
|Barnes, A. J.||Hayday, A.||Ritson, J.|
|Bartlett, C. V. O.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||Roberts. W. (Cumberland, N.)|
|Batey, J.||Henderson, T. (Tradeston)||Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)|
|Bellenger, F. J.||Hills, A. (Pontefract)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.||Hpkin, O.||Sexton, T. M.|
|Benson, G.||Isaacs, G. A.||Shinwell, E.|
|Bevan, A.||Jagger, J.||Silkin, L.|
|Broad, F. A.||Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)||Silverman, S. S.|
|Brown, C. (Mansfield)||John, W.||Simpson, F. B.|
|Burke, W. A.||Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.||Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.||Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)|
|dynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.||Lathan, G.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Leach, W.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Collindridge, F.||Leslie, J. R.||Stephen, C.|
|Cove, W. G.||Logan, D, G.||Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)|
|Dagger, G.||Lunn, W.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Dalton, H.||Macdonald, G. (Ince)||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||McEntee, V. La T.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||McGhee, H. G.||Thorne, W.|
|Day. H.||McGovern, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)||MacLaren, A.||Walkins, F. C.|
|Ede, J. C.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Watson, W. McL.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)||Mander, G. le M,||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Mathers, G.||Westwood, J.|
|Evans, D. O. (Cardigan||Maxton, J.||White, H. Graham|
|Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.||Milner, Major J.||Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)|
|Foot, D. M.||Montague, F.||Wilkinson, Ellen|
|Frankel, D.||Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Donsaster)||Williams, T. (Don Valley)|
|Gardner, B. W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)||Wilmot, John|
|George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)||Muff, G.||Wilton, C. H. (Attercliffe)|
|Gibson, R. (Greenock)||Naylor, T. E.||Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Noel-Baker, P. J.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)||Owen, Major G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)||Paling, W.||Sir Hugh Seely and Sir Percy Harris.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Brooklebank, Sir Edmund|
|Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)||Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)||Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Beechman, N. A.||Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)|
|Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.||Beit, Sir A. L.||Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)|
|Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)||Bennett, Sir E. N.||Bull, B. B.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S,||Bernays, R. H.||Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.|
|Anstruther-Gray, W. J.||Bird, Sir R. B.||Campbell, Sir E, T.|
|Aske, Sir R. W.||Blair, Sir R.||Cary, R. A.|
|Assheton, R.||Bossom, A. C.||Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)|
|Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)||Boulton, W. W.||Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)|
|Baillie, Sir A. W. M.||Bracken, B.||Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)|
|Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)||Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)||Channon, H.|
|Balniel. Lord||Brisooe, Capt. R. G.||Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)|
|Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)||Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.||Remer, J. R.|
|Chorlton, A. E. L.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)||Hunloke, H. P.||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Clarry, Sir Reginald||Hunter, T.||Rosbotham, Sir T.|
|Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)||Hutchinson, G. C.||Ross, Major Sir R D. (Londonderry)|
|Colville, Bt. Hon. John||Jarvis, Sir J. J.||Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)|
|Conant, Captain R. J. E.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)||Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.|
|Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)||Kellett, Major E. O.||Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.|
|Cooke, J. O. (Hammersmith, S.)||Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)||Russell, Sir Alexander|
|Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'lt'r S. G'gs)||Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.||Salmon, Sir I.|
|Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)||Kimball, L.||Salt, E. W.|
|Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Sandeman, Sir N. S.|
|Cox, H. B. Trevor||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.||Sanderson, Sir F. B|
|Craven-Ellis, W.||Lancaster, Lieut.-Colonel C. G.||Scott, Lord William|
|Crooke, Sir J. Smedley||Lees-Jones, J.||Selley, H. R.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Shakespeare, G. H.|
|Cross, R. H.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.||Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)|
|Crossley, A. C.||Liddall, W. S.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Davison, Sir W. H.||Little, J.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)|
|De la Bère, R.||Llewellin, Colonel J. J.||Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Lloyd, G. W.||Smith, E. (Stoke)|
|Denville, Alfred||Loftus, P. C.||Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)|
|Doland, G. F.||Lyons, A. M.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Donner, P. W.||Mabane, W, (Huddersfield)||Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald|
|Dugdale, Captain T. L-||M'Connell, Sir J.||Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)|
|Duggan, H. J.||McCorquodale, M. s.||Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.|
|Eastwood, J. F.||MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)||Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.|
|Edge, Sir W.||Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)||Spens, W. P.|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)|
|Ellis, Sir G.||McKie, J. H.||Storey, S.|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.|
|Entwistle, Sir C. F.||Macquisten, F. A.||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Errington, E.||Magnay, T.||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)||Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest||Stuart, Lord C. Criohton- (N'thw h)|
|Everard, Sir William Lindsay||Manningham-Buller, Sir M.||Stuart, R(. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Findlay, Sir E.||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M. F.|
|Fox, Sir G. W. G.||Marsden, Commander A.||Tasker, Sir R. I.|
|Furness, S. N.||Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)|
|Fyfe, D. P. M.||Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)||Thomas, J. P. L.|
|Gluckstein, L. H.||Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P.|
|Gower, Sir R. V.||Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Tinker, J. J.|
|Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.||Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)||Touche, G. C.|
|Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)||Moreing, A. C.||Train, Sir J.|
|Gridley, Sir A. B.||Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)||Tree, A. R. L. F.|
|Grigg, Sir E. W. M||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)||Tryort, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.|
|Grimston, R. V.||Munro, P.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)||Turton, R. H.|
|Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)||Nicolson, Hon. H. G.||Walker-Smith, Sir J.|
|Guinness, T. L. E. B,||O'Connor, Sir Terence J.||Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan|
|Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Hambro, A. V.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)|
|Hammersley, S. S.||Palmer, G. E. H.||Wardlaw-Mine, Sir J. S.|
|Hannah, I. C.||Peat, C. U.||Waterhouse, Captain C.|
|Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Wayland, Sir W. A.|
|Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.||Pilkington, R.||Webbe, Sir W. Harold|
|Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.||Plugge, Capt. L. F.||Wells, Sir Sydney|
|Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.||Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)|
|Hepworth, J.||Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton||Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)||Procter, Major H. A.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Radford, E. A.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.|
|Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Raikes, H. V. A. M.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Holmes, J. S.||Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)||Womersley, Sir W. J.|
|Hopkinson, A.||Rawscn, Sir Cooper||Wood, Hon. C. I. C.|
|Horsbrugh, Florence||Reed, A. C. (Exeter)||Wragg, H.|
|Howitt, Dr. A. B.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)|
|Hudson, Capt. A. U. M- (Hack., N.)||Reid, Captain A. Cunningham||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Reid, W. Allan (Derby)||Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.|
§ The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert)
With reference to the proposed new Clause—(Taxation of friendly societies) —in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), I had not proposed to select it for discussion but I am prepared, if the hon. Member wishes to do so, to allow him to make a short explanation of any reason which he can find why I should select it.
§ 6.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Cocks
This Clause deals with a simple matter, but it has been transformed by the draftsman into a very complicated looking proposal. I am told that any Clause dealing with Income Tax must always be unintelligible, otherwise it would be out of order. I can best explain the meaning of this new Clause by stating that at the present time a small 1005 registered friendly society with an income of only £160 a year is exempt altogether from Income Tax, but if its income happens to be only a fraction of a pound over £160 a year, it has to pay the full Income Tax of £45. The object of the proposed new Clause is to substitute for this arrangement a graduated scale between £160 of income and £320 of income, in order to avoid that sudden imposition of £45.
§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has been giving an explanation of the measure of the proposed Clause itself. I asked him to explain any reason he could give why I should select it for discussion.