I move amendment No. 1:—

In paragraph (1), page 7, to delete the table of rates of duty and substitute the following table:—

This amendment means a further addition of 1/- per gross in the tax on matches. It arises out of the work of the Prices Commission. Under the Resolution we proposed doubling the duty on matches. Following an investigation by the Prices Commission, it was conveyed to us that the tax on matches per gross could be further increased by 1/- without increasing further the cost of the box of matches to the consumer.

As a result of this additional 1/-, how much does the Minister expect to get?

About £24,000 this year.

Will the Minister explain to the House how that undisclosed report of the Prices Commission comes about? Is he in a position to tell us on what grounds they base their statement? What information can he give the House to convince it that what the Prices Commission have reported to him is so?

I cannot tell. I do not know the nature of their examination.

Therefore we are simply being asked to take it for granted, on a report which we have not seen and on reasons not disclosed, and to tax the people on that ground.

The company themselves have agreed to this.

What the Minister has said is that he can put on this extra 1/-, and get an extra sum of £24,000, without coming down on the consumer. The only authority he gives for that is an undisclosed report, from a body whose reasons for this he does not understand and does not undertake to explain to the House. I suggest that is an unreasonable procedure. I was thinking that this might be due to the fact that the Minister had found out that a number of ingenious people were, with the aid of a razor blade, splitting matches into two and some into four, as soon as the tax was put on. No reasons have been disclosed to the House on which to base the assertion that this will mean no increase to the consumer. It may or it may not be true, but, certainly, the Minister has refused to give any information to the House.

The price of matches has already been increased. I take it, therefore, that there is a standard price for various boxes of matches obtaining through the country. Are we to understand that the order of the Prices Commission is, as it were, a "stand-to" on the present retail price of the box of matches, and that, having that "stand-to" on present prices, the revenue is going to get another £24,000 for the remainder of this year out of this additional tax, and that that can be taken out of the profits of the matchmakers without any damage to the industry?

That is the information that I have.

If the Minister could find a few more industries of that particular kind, they would help him out a bit.

That is so.

But the Minister himself has not examined whether the prophecy of the commission is true or not. He takes no responsibility for this statement.

I am satisfied on the facts, as I know them, that I will get the £24,000.

I am not at all going to follow the Minister into measuring the ability of himself and Deputy Cogan, as he seemed keen on doing on the second last amendment. I am not dealing with imponderables. I am dealing with matches at the moment. Will he tell the House what satisfies him that he can get £24,000 without increasing the cost, merely because some people were for some time charging more than they were entitled to? Will he give us the facts which satisfy him?

We propose to double the tax on matches. The manufacturer made an application to the Prices Commission to increase his price. Probably fearing a tax on matches, or for other reasons, he made that application to the Prices Commission. The Prices Commission investigated the matter, and, owing to the increased cost of production, agreed that some increased price would be proper. They went into the matter with the officials of the company and the auditors of the company. They got the facts—the figures of profits and the figures of costs. Then they learned that we intended to double the tax. They came and showed us the figures on which they had based their decision that an increase was necessary to enable the company to carry on without a loss, but they showed that even the doubling of the duty on matches would in their view enable the manufacturer to get such an increased profit as the Prices Commission thought was not warranted. Seeing the facts, we propose to put on an additional 1/-.

That is to say the increased profit to the manufacturers would have come even from the original tax proposed? Is that the suggestion? The Government proposed, to put on a certain tax on those matches. As a result of this tax a certain charge would be put on by the manufacturers?

Yes.

Did the increased profit come solely from that —the profit that the Prices Commission found accrued to the manufacturers—or did they find that even before any step was taken by the Government undue profits were being made?

They did not find that, so far as I know.

Well, it is great to see the Prices Commission doing something, but the amazing thing in this is that apparently it was done on the initiative of the people who were hit.

That is right.

I am afraid that is generally the history of the Prices Commission, that one of the first cases we know of in which they stepped in effectively has been where the initiative was taken by the person who was hit.

There may be others.

There may be, but the House does not know of them.

The match makers must be terribly sorry they are not millers.

This seems to be a rather extraordinary suggestion. The price of matches has now been increased by ½d. per box, and they can bear a tax of £24,000 now in addition to whatever the tax was before. The tax is now doubled. That means £48,000; it was about £24,000 before, I think.

Oh, no. It was £85,000 before.

In addition to that, there is now an additional £24,000 going on. I wonder what the Prices Commission were doing previously, and I should like to see their figures. Matches were previously sold at 1d.; then the tax was increased, and evidently the increased tax meant that they would have no profit unless they charged over 1d. After raising their price to 1½d., the Minister can double the tax, and still they can have a profit. I suggest that we should have some explanation some time from the Prices Commission or from the Department of Supplies in connection with that particular matter. I think it would be very interesting.

We cannot oppose such a miraculous amendment.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In paragraph (2), page 8, to delete the table of rates of duty and substitute the following table:—