I beg to move recommendation No. 1:
First Schedule. To delete Ref. No. 5, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
I am sorry that these few recommendations of mine were too late for the Committee Stage. Under the new conditions a Finance Bill really brings us into a whole mass of detail which previously was dealt with in a much more deliberate manner. We have now in the Schedule of this Finance Bill virtually a whole range of Customs duties which, I suggest, a body of this kind is singularly unfitted to examine. It is highly technical. I think it will be generally admitted that the confusion which followed the imposition of some of those duties rather suggests that this is not the right way in which to go about imposing them.
With regard to Reference No. 5, I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary some justification for the placing of a preferential rate of duty of 33? per cent. on metal door frames, metal window frames, metal window sashes, and metal casements, excluding certain of those articles which are designed, constructed and intended for use as containers for stained glass. Surely all building material should be made not only as cheaply, but as wide in variety, as possible? It is inconceivable that local manufacturers, in this matter of metal casements and other metal work set out in the Schedule, can adequately supply the country's requirements. Anybody who has seen the catalogues of the large firms which specialise in this work will observe the infinite variety of these articles and will realise that it would never be worth the while of any firm with a restricted market to make them. These articles are of specialised manufacture and they are varied in their design.
I suggest that from the point of view of cheapness and quality we cannot, from our own resources, adequately meet those requirements. I do not say you will not get metal casements of one or two varieties and they may look all right, but I cannot believe that in a restricted market there will not be a very great temptation to cut quality. That is inherent in all these tariff questions in a manner that no ordinary person can detect. The range of competition is one of the sure methods by which you receive value. Value is not merely a question of price; it is just as much a matter of quality. In this case there are articles which are necessary for building, which are what I might call the amenities of building owing to their variety, and I think it is very wrong that a heavy duty of this kind should be placed upon them and that the sources of supply should be so restricted. I fail to see why casements intended for use as containers for stained glass should be free. I cannot take the view that ecclesiastical buildings, which probably have got stronger finances, should be given a preference of this kind. I take it that is the object in this instance. I think those engaged in work of that kind are just as well able to bear a tax as are those who are in need of housing and who very often are hard pressed to finance that need.