CLAUSE 1.—(Power to Raise a Loan in America.) (Hansard, 12 October 1915)

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in regard to Sub-section (2) of the Clause, which is: For the purpose of the charge on the Consolidated Fund, and for the purpose of any limit on the amount of borrowing, the powers of raising money given by this Act shall, so far as they extend, be deemed to be in substitution for the existing powers of raising money for any supply granted to His Majesty. Will this 100 millions we are asked for form part of the Consolidated Fund Bill?

§ Mr. McKENNA
That Bill was for the Vote of Credit. In regard to the words, "substitution for the existing powers of raising money," I would point out that we have already powers to raise money by loan.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I would rather like the right hon. Gentleman to explain why it is necessary at all to have this Bill.

§ Mr. McKENNA
We have never had an external Loan before, and the consequence is that attention has been called to the existence of the present law. It is the duty, under the present law, of the Treasury to deduct Income Tax on income from Government Loans. That being the duty of the Treasury, unless we remove that duty in this case of an external Loan, we should be bound to deduct the Income Tax before payment, and therefore Sub-section (3) says:— Any securities issued for the purposes of any such Loan in the United States of America, except when they are held by persons domiciled in the United Kingdom or by British subjects ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, shall not be liable to any taxation, present or future. That is really the result of the law which exists as regards revenue.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
That is the very reason for this Bill.

§ Mr. McKENNA
That is the reason why we thought it necessary, and as we take joint liability with the French Government that makes it necessary also to have this Sub-section.

§ Mr. KING
With regard to the words "in substitution for the existing powers," am I right in understanding—I should like 1273 to be quite clear—that the existing powers now in operation will be abolished by these words, and that this will be in substitution for them. It follows therefore, that the amount that is authorised will be diminished, not to the whole extent, but only to the extent of £100,000,000 mentioned by this Bill.

§ Mr. McKENNA
That is right.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
Would it not have been better if we had had this Debate some time earlier in the year. None of us knew that this Commission was going to America, or about the Loan being raised. Possibly if we had been taken into the confidence of the Government before and not afterwards, this Debate might have been more useful, and it would certainly have been more complimentary to the House of Commons, than having a Debate, which is in one sense a useless Debate, because we are all thoroughly satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman for one thing, and anything he asks us to do, we should probably do it. Even if we had not that view, the matter is un fait accompli. I do not think there is the slightest objection to the Commission, but I should like to know what Government Department sends out these Commissions. The right hon. Gentleman says this was sent out by the Treasury, but there have been suggestions that it was sent out by other Departments. I quite accept his statement; still, it is desirable that the House of Commons should know by what Department these Commissions are sent out, and what broadly are the objects on which they are sent out. One knows that the reports are very rarely laid on the Table. There was the case of Lord Haldane who went to Berlin in 1912, and we frequently asked for reports of that Commission to be laid on the Table, but it was never done. We then come down to this House and there is an Order Paper, which is supposed to tell us what we are going to do on a particular day. In my earlier youth I thought it sometimes told you what Debate was coming on, but this is really the limit to-day, because we have on the Order Paper notice of the presentation of a Bill 1274 in connection with the Post Office to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which was really moved by the Postmaster-General. We have no notice at all of the presentation of this Bill, and we only saw that he was going to introduce this Bill through a medium which of late years, I gather, has largely displaced the House of Commons as a medium of information, or, indeed, as a medium of power. I have no objection to the Bill, but I do think the Order Paper should have given us some sort of hint of its introduction, and that we were to be asked to pass all its stages to-day. It would be well if some official notice were given to Members of a matter of this kind. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am hostile to the Bill, or to the proceedings, but I do feel most deeply that when we come here and try to do our duty, as I hope all of us do, the Government ought to go as far as they possibly can to make it easy for us to do so.

§ Mr. KING
I should like to support very heartily what has just been said very wisely and well by the hon. Member who has just spoken. In my opinion, the House of Commons has not been treated with due and proper respect in this matter. The Government knew perfectly well, or ought to have known, that a Bill would be required, and that the Commission, with which, I suppose, they were in daily and possibly hourly communication by telegraph, were likely to come to an end of their successful labours. They knew also, or ought to have known, that a Bill was therefore necessary. If that is the case, why did they not provide for a sitting of the House last week, or for notice of a Bill to be put upon the Paper, so that at any rate they would have given us fair warning that something was coming on; whereas we only knew by this morning's Paper, or at any rate I only knew, that the subject was to be taken this afternoon. In view of the Debate we have had, the extremely interesting Debate, presenting a number of different points of view, from men of large and varied experience, I venture to suggest to the Government that they should take the House of Commons earlier into their confidence. The House of Commons really possesses some very able men. They are not all as able and experienced as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose ability I have always recognised, and every office he has filled he has filled to my complete satisfaction. He would add new lustre to his career, and a 1275 new jewel to his crown, if he would trust the House of Commons more, and if he would not come down, as he has come down this afternoon, with his proposals cut and dried. He told us at the onset, quite genially I admit, but yet not very pleasantly for us, that we must swallow them wholesale and send him away early to dinner. I must protest against the way the House of Commons has been treated.

§ Mr. McKENNA
I can heartilyassure my hon. Friends that if I had had the slightest idea that this Loan would have been negotiated before our short holiday, I should have asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not to adjourn over the week. As a matter of fact, I believe that the very last telegram I had before the House adjourned on Thursday week, was to the effect that there were many difficulties that would take a long time. It is quite true that within three or four days of that period, after the House had adjourned, there was a fair prospect of the Loan being successful. It was only 1276 well after the House had adjourned that I had any knowledge of that kind. I can, only express my very deep regret that I have been compelled by circumstances to ask for the Bill to be taken through its various stages to-day. I desire to thank the House for the manner in which they have met the urgent request of the Treasury in this matter.