GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL. (Hansard, 24 November 1914)

Sir HENRY DALZIEL
I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 953 whether he is prepared to give us any information—I do not say immediately—but later on, as to the parties who are going to get advantage from this Bill? I understand that roughly, this Bill is divided into three portions. It gives the Government power to advance money to the Bank of England under certain guarantees; it also gives guarantees to traders on account of losses suffered owing to the War, and also under circumstances described in the Schedule of the Bill, and there is a special Clause in connection with loans made to members of the Stock Exchange. With regard to that the Government are taking very wide powers. They are taking powers to advance money, I suppose, to certain members of the Stock Exchange. I am not prepared to say that that is not necessary and in the public interest, but I think it is a legitimate request to make, that the Government should, in proper time, let the public know who are the firms that so benefit. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have strict regard to economy in this matter, but it is due to the public to know who are the firms that get the benefit.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I would have made a statement upon the Second Reading, but I thought it would be much more convenient to do so on Thursday. I agree with my hon. Friend that there ought to be a full statement made to the House which would be a general summary of what we are doing in the form of guarantees to various interests. I agree with the desire expressed the other day that there should be discussion upon the subject. I think it is very desirable, because these guarantees are very novel in character, and I think the House is not merely entitled, but, if I may respectfully say so, it is the duty of the House to examine what has been done. I think it would be very much more convenient, subject to what the House thinks upon the matter, if this were done on Thursday rather than today, because there is a very heavy Agenda to-day, which will take probably the whole of the evening up to a late hour, and as the House would like to have a fairly ample discussion upon this subject, I suggest they should allow me to postpone my statement until Thursday, when all the points raised by my hon. Friend can be discussed.

Sir H. DALZIEL
On what Motion would that be?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
On the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill.

Sir H. DALZIEL
It would be too late for Committee then.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I want to draw attention to a point which I think is a Second Reading point. In the title of the Bill the phrase is used "for the purposes of the present War," but when I turn to the operative Clauses—particularly the Insurance Clause—I do not find anything that limits it to the present War. It seems to me that with regard to insurance matters Clause 3 would be looked upon very differently if it was to be permanent from what it would be if it were only emergency legislation for the purposes of the War. I do not know whether it is an oversight in the drafting or not, but I find nothing in the Clause that corresponds with the title. The title seems definite. This may be a Committee point. Clause 3 is an important Clause so far as I am concerned. It relates to policies of insurance or reinsurance, and there is nothing in the Clause to show this is emergency legislation. It would be very unfair if insurance companies who had made deposits and paid their Stamp Duties and conformed to all the Government regulations should find themselves in competition with other firms not engaged in insurance at all. I submit as emergency legislation for the War this may do a good deal, but if it is to be permanent it would meet with a good deal of opposition.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Clause to which the hon. Member refers deals with insurance against risk of the King's enemies. When the War has come to an end the King will have no enemies.

§ Mr. BOOTH
I am very much obliged, Mr. Speaker, but contracts formed against the King's enemies may run for a considerable number of years after the War is over. My point is that I do not think the text of the Bill is as definite as the title of the Bill. I understood this was to be emergency legislation, and that words would be put in limiting it to the War or to some reasonable period after the War.

§ Mr. HODGE
The House has been very generous to the Government with respect to War legislation, but it appears to me to be rather a tall order not to have an explanation of this Bill until Thursday. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if it is more convenient to him to postpone his statement, he should move the adjournment of the Second Reading until Thursday.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
There, again, I am entirely in the hands of the House, and if the House prefers waiting for the statement on the Second Reading on Thursday—

§ Mr. BOOTH
Why not?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Then there would be a good deal to be said for my hon. Friend's proposal. I have no objection at all to proceed at the present moment and to give a full explanation of the circumstances. I am sorry to say that it would take some time, and there are other matters we have to deal with now. Should anything arise in the course of the discussion which would make the House feel that there should be some Amendment of the Bill, we should consider on the Committee stage those particular points.

Sir H. DALZIEL
May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take the Committee stage at the end of the Second Reading discussion? I do not anticipate any Amendments of importance.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If the House will consent to the Second Reading being taken to-day, then the Committee stage might be taken to-day. I am only suggesting Thursday for the general discussion, for it is difficult to have the general discussion on the Committee stage, whereas on Thursday the House could range over the whole sphere of the action of the Government and criticise it in every detail.