§ (1) Where an entry or specification of goods or a shipping bill for goods has been delivered for the purposes of the Acts relating to the Customs, the proper officer of Customs and Excise may, at any time within twelve months after the delivery, require from the importer of the goods or his agent, or the exporter of the goods or his agent, as the case may be, the production of any invoices, bills of lading, or other documents, relating to the goods.
§ (2) If the importer or his agent, or the exporter or his agent, fails to comply with any such requirement, he shall for every such offence forfeit the sum of twenty pounds.
§ (3) The powers given by this Section shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any power under the Acts relating to the Customs to require the production of invoices, bills of lading, and other documents upon the entry of goods or the delivery of the specification of goods.
1224§ Mr. CLAUDE HAYWill the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explain Clause 1, which has been sprung upon us?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe governing words of the Clause really begin in the line—"The proper officer of Customs and Excise may, at any time within twelve months after the delivery, require from the importer of the goods or his agent, or the exporter of the goods or his agent, as the case may be, the production of any invoices, bills of trading, or other documents relating to the goods."
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYMay I ask why all these provisions are not in the Budget? These Clauses, if they have any validity, should be included in the Budget. I want the line drawn somewhere. It may be said that there is a slight shade of difference; but where is it, in the question of the drawback on tobacco? Why should not everything with regard to tobacco be included in the taxing Statute? Instead of that you have the taxing Statute, and then you turn to Clause 5—
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI thought there was a Motion to report Progress. I beg to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." I think it is most unreasonable that we should have no explanation whatever as regards this Bill, and that now at the end of September it should be run concurrently with the Budget, which is supposed to have everything connected with the finances of the year. This is a Bill with no less than 15 clauses, and I do say that it is most unreasonable to bring in a Bill of this kind.
§ Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Joseph Pease)I hope this Motion will not be passed. There has been no desire to rush the Bill through the House. We have met the Opposition in regard to what night we should take the Committee stage, which has been put off several days with the view of meeting points that could be raised. I was under the impression that all legitimate opposition to the Bill had been withdrawn. Therefore, I do trust we may proceed. As 1225 regards what the hon. Member has said, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the second reading did explain the provisions of the Bill, and the explanation then given satisfied the House. I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) was not here, and perhaps if he had been here he would not have made remarks which he made just now with regard to the manner in which the Bill was introduced.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI have been watching the Bill, as I am keenly interested in the system. I did read the explanation which the Government gave as to the introduction of the Bill, and I am not satisfied. If I am not part of the legitimate Opposition, I am the illegitimate Opposition, and so far as I can see there is no reason why every one of these provisions should not have been embodied in the Budget Bill. There is no reason why the drawback on tobacco should not have been included. We spend something like six or eight months on the Budget, and, on the top of that, when we suppose the whole thing is over and the dish has been washed, we find something like fifteen new Clauses dealing with practically the same subject. Take tobacco, I am interested in such questions as the codification of law. Of course, if the "legitimate Opposition" have been "squared," I cannot expect to find any support.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think the hon. Member went a little too far when he spoke about the legitimate Opposition having been "squared." No information has been given to some of us, at all events, that this Bill was going to be taken to-night. We are just as entitled to complain about it as the hon. Member, and we do. The idea that there has been any "squaring," as far as we are concerned, is ridiculous; we are not capable of being "squared," either on this or on any other subject. The Financial Secretary says we have had notice, because the Bill is on the Paper. There are 46 Orders on the Paper, but we knew that 44 or 45 of them would not be taken to-day, and we assumed that this Bill was among them. I protest against this class of Bill being brought in. It consists of exactly the same kind of matter as we have in the Budget. Why a portion should be put in the Budget and another portion of precisely the same class of matter in a separate Bill I do not know, unless the Government are aware that something is going to happen to one of 1226 their Bills, and they think they may get some of these little things through in this way. I do not think that this system has ever been adopted before, and I join in the protest against its being done, especially at this hour of the morning, and practically without notice.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI think I ought, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, to say that this Bill has not been in any way sprung upon the House. For the last six weeks discussions have been going on between the Patronage Secretary, the Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone (Lord R. Cecil), one or two other Members, and myself, with regard to the Bill, and, at the suggestion of the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, more than a fortnight ago, I suggested to the Financial Secretary that he should issue a memorandum explanatory of Clauses 3, 4, 5, and 7. That memorandum has been issued, and for more than ten days has been in the Vote Office. The only Clauses to which the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire and the Noble Lord the Member for Marylebone took exception were Clauses 11, 12, and 13. The Financial Secretary met us in the most friendly way, and agreed to drop those Clauses. It was on that understanding that the Bill was taken. I am sure that nobody will accuse me of any desire to promote legislation. The eleven o'clock rule having been suspended now for some time, the only possible weapon we on this side of the House have is to endeavour to appeal to hon. Members opposite not to abuse the power they have. I must say for myself that since the suspension, I have always found that the right hon. Gentlemen have always met me in a most generous manner. I think we can hardly be repaying that consideration correctly by stopping this Bill.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI would ask leave, after the pressing appeal by the hon. Baronet above the Gangway, to withdraw my Motion to report Progress. I have come to the conclusion that as the House of Lords is going to reject the Budget, they will also reject this Bill.
§ Mr. CLAUDE HAYI object to this Bill being taken, and I object to the Motion being withdrawn. The Bill brings in a lot of very important provisions; not one matter of finance merely, but several—stamps, Income Tax, tithe rent charge, and 1227 agriculture. Communications have passed between the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench, but some of us have only heard about them to-night, and I think we are entitled to have an opportunity of knowing when a Bill of this sort is to be brought before the House for discussion. The Prime Minister, for instance, might have mentioned it when he made his weekly statement. It does not even stand third on the Order Paper. Failing a satisfactory arrangement, though I, for my part, have no inclination to sit up to-night, I shall oppose every Clause of the Bill as it proceeds.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIn reply to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I should like to say that this Bill is considered much more formidable than it is in reality. All it does is in two or three cases to equalise the existing practice with regard to stamps. It reduces the charges of stamps in one or two cases, and it is a convenience to the commercial and mercantile world. The Customs Clauses merely make for administrative convenience between the Customs and Excise Departments, and there is really nothing, I assure the Committee, of a controversial nature in the whole of the Bill. There was, as the hon. Baronet said, three clauses that I did not think were controversial, but to which exception was taken. I at once withdrew them in order that nothing of a controversial character should be present. Under those circumstances, I hope the Committee will allow me to have the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth said that he was rather doubtful whether it was customary to have a Customs and Inland Revenue Bill in the same year as a Finance Bill—
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYA Finance Bill of such a magnitude!
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEWell, for the benefit of the hon. Members who are not so well acquainted with the customs of the House as the hon. and learned Gentleman, I can assure them that it is customary for a Bill of this nature to be introduced, for many years it has been done together with the Finance Bill.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYYes; but with great deference to the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with the Stamp Duty, nobody will know where he stands if this kind of practice is allowed. Here is Clause 7 1228 dealing with the limitation of the Stamp Act, 1891:—
The limitation of Section fifty-nine of the Stamp Act, 1891 (which makes certain contracts chargeable for the purposes of Stamp Duty as conveyances on sale), to contracts and agreements made in England, Ireland, or Scotland shall cease to have effect.And then you read Clause 52 of the Finance Bill:—The Stamp Duties chargeable under the heading 'Conveyance or Transfer on Sale of any Property' in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891 (in this Part of this Act referred to as the principal Act) shall be double those specified in that Schedule: Provided that this Section shall not apply to the conveyance or transfer of any stock or marketable security as defined by Section one hundred and twenty-two of that Act.In the name of all that is sensible, why not put all this into the one Bill. The lawyer in future will expect to find all these things dealing with stamps in the one Act. In this Bill you have actually a Clause repealing an Income Tax Act—
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYHow do I know what bargain the hon. Baronet has entered into with the Government.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think we have actually been taken by surprise. We did not know this Bill was coming on. If the Government will content themselves with taking the first Clause to-night, on the understanding that they are going on with it to-morrow, we will not offer any opposition to the Clause, subject to any reasonable discussion on any point we may be advised to raise. I make that suggestion with a view to seeing whether we cannot find a way out of the difficulty.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI do not want to steal a march in any way upon anybody in the House. If there is any great or serious opposition, I do not press the matter, and if we get the first Clause now, we are agreed to report Progress and will take the Bill again on Thursday.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDI think that is fair.
§ Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERI have had a new Clause down for a considerable time. Now I hear that the Secretary to the Treasury has arranged with some other parties—
§ Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. E. H. CARLILEI cannot allow this Clause to pass without some observations, because it seems to me to be of a most arbitrary character. In Sub-section (3) it is laid down that copies of invoices and other details are to be furnished upon the entry of goods. Sub-section (1) provides that these particulars may again be called for at any time within twelve months. It is not a question of invoices only, but bills of lading and other documents relating to the goods are also included. It is unreasonable that merchants should be liable to be called upon any time during a period of twelve months after having furnished all these particulars to the Customs on the arrival of the goods to furnish over again not only the invoices and bills of lading, but also other documents which the Customs and Excise authorities may choose to call for. If there had been a fire they could not be furnished. If any merchant fails to supply any of these particulars he is liable, under Sub-section (2) to a penalty of £20 for every such offence. It seems to me that the Bill is very objectionable, and this Clause in particular is arbitrary and inconsiderate and would have a tendency to hamper the conduct of business. It would expose the merchants of the country to a great amount of annoyance and inconvenience and the risk of serious penalties. Unless some really satisfactory explanation can be given, I certainly think this is not a Clause which ought to be passed, and it certainly ought not to be rushed through without adequate discussion at this hour of the morning. I am very loath to interfere with any arrangement made between right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Members of my own party, but I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Harmood-Banner) as to the way this Bill has been sprung upon us.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONIs it necessary to make this stipulation for a period of twelve months? If merchants send their goods abroad they do not always keep the invoices for twelve months in the office, and this proviso might involve sending abroad to get the invoices back again. I 1230 think it would be better to have a shorter period fixed. Why is it necessary to have this long period of twelve months?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSETwo or three cases of the sort have occurred during the last year or so, and the difficulties were not discovered, I think, till a period of eight or nine months had elapsed. We then discovered that all access to documents was refused to the Customs and Excise Department. It is owing to that practical difficulty that I make the proposal and embody it in the Bill.
§ Mr. CLAUDE HAYSurely the case raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has had great experience in commercial matters, merits fuller consideration. Would the Financial Secretary put in some limiting words so that the Clause should only be operative as to twelve months when things are wilfully withheld? That seems to me a reasonable request?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI think I have met the hon. Gentleman and the Committee very fairly, and I hope I shall not be further pressed.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONBills of lading are documents which have to go abroad with the contract. You cannot retain them.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. This does not refer to bills of lading for goods shipped abroad, but to bills of lading for goods coming in. May I appeal to the Committee to carry out the suggestion to which the Government agree, and to pass this Clause and put the rest off, so as to give us a chance of looking at it? This Clause is exceedingly arbitrary, but all clauses in all Customs Acts are equally arbitrary and unreasonable. They are, however, never taken advantage of unless the Inland Revenue come across people who are doing them, and then the strongest powers are wanted to deal with them.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday, 30th September.