I am interested in the trend of the Debate, for I was not in favour of the abolition of the McKenna Duties. My view was, and I think I know something about the motor industry, that it would have been much wiser to have given these people three years in which to adapt themselves to the circumstances in which they found themselves. They did not ask for the duties to be imposed. The duties were of no advantage to them while the War was on, and during the slump it could not have been argued that there was any protection to the people who were manufacturing motor cars in this country. Here was a question affecting an industry which was developing on good, sound business lines, an industry which had gone through a very difficult period, and which was beginning to get on to its feet again. If the case had been argued from a business point of view, I suppose there never was a stronger case to put before the House. But that was not the line taken by the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition showed very bad judgment in arguing the McKenna Duties from the Tariff Reform Protectionist point of view. However, he argued it from that point of view and he got what he might have expected. He was defeated on the political issue.

The Opposition might have argued the question from the business point of view. It ought to have been argued from that point of view. The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) began his speech entirely from the business point of view, but before he had finished he could not leave the old nostrum alone. It is this mixing of politics with business that has as much to do with injury to the motor industry of this country as anything I have ever heard in this House. There was a really fine chance of getting the motor industry on to its feet in this country. That it had gone through very difficult times is proved beyond doubt. The position of their shares is eloquent of had times. Many firms within comparatively recent years have had to go into the Bankruptcy Court, and the story is not all told yet. Not long ago there was a meeting in regard to the winding up of Messrs. Harper Bean and Company, a very large firm. If there had been a chance of continuing the McKenna Duties it would have enabled some of these firms to get on to what is termed mass production lines, in order that they might have competed on more easy terms with their American competitors. We have heard from the hon. Member opposite remarks about the dismissal of men. He mentioned the name of one firm, and I will not controvert what he said, but I believe that a number of firms who have stopped their workpeople will be starting them again. It is utterly fantastic to suggest to this House that the rioter industry is a dying industry.