§ The said agreement shall, if not previously determined, cease to have effect at the expiration of six months after the termination of the present War.—[Mr. Roch.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
§ Mr, ROCHI beg to move, " That the Clause be read a second time."
I do not think the Solicitor-General can object to this proposal because it makes it absolutely clear that the period for which this agreement will be in force will be coterminous with the Defence of the Realm Act. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman did state on a former occasion that the duration of this Bill was dependent on the term that the Regulations were to be enforced. I am told by those who have gone carefully through the Bill that the agreement may not be terminated at the time. I think it just at well to leave it clear in the Bill, rather than to provide for the termination by reference to other Acts. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman, being a comparatively young Law Officer, will set a good precedent by making the Bill perfectly clear on the face of it.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am sorry to have to complain again of the failure of those in charge of the Bill to answer a perfectly simple question such as that put by my hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading of this Clause. The answer could have been given in a word or two, and would not have detained the Committee, but here, again, the attitude of the Government has forced a speech from me in order to get a reply. Really the Government ought to treat the House a little more decently and respectfully, and Ministers should at once get up when these Motions are read from the Chair, instead of making it necessary for me to thus interrupt the proceedings.
§ Sir G. HEWARTI am highly pleased at the desire of the hon. Gentleman not superfluously to interrupt the proceedings, and I am quite sure that his attitude is one from which we may entertain great expectations. With regard to this new 1951 Clause, I am afraid the effect of it will not be to curtail the duration of the agreement. If it is going to have any effect at all, the effect will probably be to prolong the duration of the agreement, because as it stands it does not say that the agreement shall not continue longer than six months after the War. It says it shall cease to have effect at. the expiration of six months, and at that precise period. In all human probability the agreement will have come to an end before that period. I cannot myself see the use of a precise date for the determination of the agreement when in all human probability it will have come to an end before then.
§ Sir C. CORYIf that is so, the Solicitor-General should accept the Amendment. We want a definite date to know when this Bill will come to an end. As it stands it may go on for ever. The Solicitor-General is shaking his head and saying, no, but if the Regulation continues it will go on for ever. We do not want all this interference, which is very bad and ruinous to the trade of the country, to go on. It is not only in the coal trade, but I find in the leather trade, the timber trade, and the shipping trade all are sick of control and have found it is fatal to business. No development of business has taken place, and no money is coming in, and it is desirable that a date should be fixed in order to re-establish confidence in these trades.
§ Mr. ROCHI think the Solicitor-General omitted to read the words " if not previously determined." If he says—and I hope he is a true prophet in this matter—that this agreement will be determined before six months after the end of the War all well and good. That is provided for under this Clause. All that is done is to fix an arbitrary time limit by which this is to be determined, and if I had to choose I would rather have the precise words?
§ Sir G. HEWARTThe previous determination of the agreement does not turn on the new Clause which deals only with a state of affairs in which there has not been a previous determination. I have said that in all human probability this Agreement will have determined before a .period of six months after the conclusion of the War.
§ Sir G. HEWARTIt is superfluous.
Colonel F. HALLWould the point be met by making the Clause read, " The said agreement shall, if not previously determined, cease to have effect at a date not more than six months after the expiration of the War? " I think that if the Solicitor-General says the words "if not previously determined " do not cover it that these would do so. He led the House to believe that he was desirous of determining the agreement as soon as possible after the War. We are only desirous of knowing when and where exactly it is going to finish, and I suggest, although I do not think it necesary, that if the right hon. Gentleman will accept these words he will get over the difficulty.
§ Sir G. HEWARTThis matter is certainly not one worthy of prolonged discussion. I adhere to the belief that it is a superfluous and useless new Clause, but it is certainly not worth talking about, and therefore I shall accept it.
§ Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANWith regard to the following Clauses in the name of the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch), I take it that the first one—
§ The CHAIRMANI think that is so. With regard to the following Clauses dealing with payments, I think those are part of one proposition.
§ Mr. ROCHI do not propose to move the one relating to payment by Inland Revenue Commissioners of coal mines excess payments to the Controller. I have another Clause lower down which I should like to move instead.
§ The CHAIRMANI was just going to say that the proposal seems to me in a better form, where the hon. Gentleman has it on page 2261 of the Amendment Paper, and that it can best be deferred until we reach that page. The Clause entitled "Appeal against refusal by Controller " is clearly an alteration of the agreement, and the same thing applies to the three following Clauses. The one in the name of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) (Guarantee of Compensation) is in the same way covered by what I have already said in reference to the first Clause in the name 1953 of the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch). The same applies to the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Colonel F. Hall)—(Payments to be made to the Controller). That will come up in the Clause that has just been refererd to on page 2261. The following four Clauses in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Sir C. Cory) are covered by what I have said
§ Sir C. CORYI do not know quite what you did say, Mr. Whitley.
§ The CHAIRMANThey are an exact duplication of those of the preceding page of the notice paper, with which I have already dealt.
§ Sir C. CORYWith regard to the one relating to a right of appeal, I understand the President of the Board of Trade is willing to accept that.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that cannot affect me. It is clearly an alteration of the agreement which in terms says that the decision of the Controller on these matters is to be final. With regard to the next three Amendments, again they are duplicates of those with which I have already dealt. The same applies to the Clauses in the name of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson).