§ (1) It shall not be lawful for any company, firm, or individual after the expiration of six months from the passing of this Act, or such longer period as the Board of Trade may in any particular case allow, to carry on the business of extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way of wholesale trade in metal or metallic ore to which this Act applies, unless licensed to do so by the Board of Trade:
§ Provided that the purchase of metal by persons for the purposes of use in their trade shall not be deemed to be dealing in 148 such metal by way of wholesale trade where the trade carried on by the purchaser is not primarily the trade of dealing in metals.
§ (2) in the case of a company, firm, or individual with respect to which any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply, no licence shall be granted unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant of a licence is expedient, but save as aforesaid any company, firm, or individual carrying on or proposing to carry on such business as aforesaid shall on making application in the prescribed manner, and on furnishing such information and allowing inspection of such books and documents as may be reasonably required, and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to a licence under this Act.
§ (3) A licence under this Act, unless suspended or revoked, shall remain in force until the first day of January following the date of issue of the licence, but shall be renewable annually, and the same provisions shall apply to the renewal of the licence as apply to the grant of a licence.
§ (4) The Board of Trade, if satisfied by evidence not before them at the time when the licence was granted that such company, firm, or individual is, or has become, subject to any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act, may revoke or suspend the licence.
§ (5) If any question arises between the Board of Trade and any company, firm, or individual, as to whether or not any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply in respect of the company, firm, or individual, the question shall, subject to rules of Court, be referred by the Board of Trade to the High Court for determination, and on any such reference it shall rest with the company, firm, or individual, to show that none of such conditions as aforesaid apply, and the decision of the High Court on any such reference shall be final, and no appeal therefrom shall lie to any other Court.
§ (6) Where at the expiration of the said six months or longer period allowed by the Board of Trade, or at any time when a licence expires, proceedings on any such application are pending in the High Court, the Court may, on application being made for the purpose, extend the said period of six months or longer period as respects that company, firm, or individual, or as the case may be, the duration of the licence, 149 for such period as may be necessary to allow the question to be determined by the Court.
§ (7) References in this Section to the High Court shall in relation to Scotland be construed as references to the Court of Session.
§ The CHAIRMANThe first Amendments on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member (Commander Wedgwood), refer to a matter which has been already settled.
§ Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "dealing" ["or dealing by any"], to insert the words, "within the United Kingdom."
Since giving notice of this Amendment I have had a communication from the President of the Board of Trade to the effect that if I were to move an Amendment lower down on the Paper it would, in his opinion, meet the purpose I have in view. I am sorry I have not had an opportunity to see the right hon. Gentleman, or I would have pointed out to him that I doubt whether the Amendment which he suggests in substitution would entirely carry out the object I have in view. While I think that the President and I agree as to excluding "winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing" operations carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom, I am afraid the difficulty is what, in fact, "being carried on wholly" really means. Under the decisions which affect Somerset House and Income Tax matters a company in great Britain may have offices abroad which are united with it, and which at e considered to be carrying on business in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the words suggested by the President of the Beard of Trade, "excluding businesses which are wholly carried on outside the United Kingdom," do not appear to me to meet the case. A business house established in London may have a branch in, we will say, Bolivia, through which it deals, in Bolivia, in tin concentrates for the United States. So far as my legal knowledge goes, that business house would be considered as carrying on business within the United Kingdom, and its. operations in Bolivia would be prohibited, without a licence. I think we ought to arrive at words covering what I think the President means, namely, to exclude from the operation of this Bill operations which are really carried on wholly abroad. Many British 150 firms have branches abroad, and they make advances to miners or sell goods to miners and are paid for those goods by the delivery of ore which the foreign branch ships to the United States or Great Britain or somewhere else, or sells upon the spot to a local smelter; so that there are many transactions which begin in a foreign country and end in another, but which technically, through the theory that the firm is carrying on business within the United Kingdom, would bring them within the words of this Bill. I take it that the President does not want that, and, therefore, I am afraid that his words would not quite meet the case, and I think some other words require to be provided. I may say that the words in the Bill as drawn, if allowed to remain, would simply be another step in the tendency of legislation to destroy the whole genius of business and separate firms overseas which have hitherto been united with the dominating organisation in this country. I am bound to say that anything like the operation under the Income Tax would be an uncommonly bad thing for the country. I hope that in this case we shall escape another step in an unfortunate direction. This matter is very important, because, lower down in the Bill, there is provision. as to persons who get licences on payment of a fee, and we are not quite sure whether the Board of Trade might not say, "We will give you a licence on the understanding that you confine your operations to certain countries or places," and therefore the theory that a foreign firm is entirely outside the scope of the Bill is very important. Perhaps the President will state what course he thinks will be the most convenient to follow.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley)With your assent, Sir, and with the acquiescence of the Committee, it may be convenient that I should at the outset give some indication of how we propose to meet some of the more important points that have been brought to my attention, and upon which we are prepared to make certain alterations with the object, and I trust result, of removing some of the real criticisms which have been made upon this particular measure. I will deal later with the point raised by my hon. Friend (Sir A. Williamson). In the first place, we propose to move an Amendment to make it appear that the operation of the Bill will be restricted to the United Kingdom, and that it does not affect the business of 151 "extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing by way of wholesale trade in metal or metallic ore," which takes place entirely outside the United Kingdom. In the next place, the annual renewal of a licence introduces an undesirable element of uncertainty into business, and we therefore propose that the licence which is granted should be valid for the whole period of the Act, unless suspended or revoked. That. will make necessary a consequential Amendment to Clause 1, Sub-section (4), in order to extend the power to cases in which licences have been previously granted to a firm or individual, in spite of the fact that they come within the Schedule. The next point I propose to meet is that of the definition of "wholesale trader." As the Bill stands this definition is not left, as has been supposed in some quarters, to the Board of Trade, but is a matter on which the Courts could decide. It. seems, however, desirable, in order not to extend unduly the number of small business transactions which come within the operation of the Act, to prescribe the minimum amounts of such transactions below which they shall not be deemed to be by way of wholesale trade. I propose, therefore, when Clause 4 is reached, to move a condition providing that the Board of Trade Rules may prescribe such minimum limits. I come next to the question of the issue of the licence, to which I understand some hon. Gentlemen attach great importance. We do not desire to issue licences on any conditions. It has never been our intention to impose conditions on these licences. There is an Amendment on the Paper providing that a form of licence should be a Schedule in the Bill, and, though it is a somewhat unusual provision, yet, in order to allay anxiety, I am perfectly willing to accept that Amendment. The actual form of licence, proposed by my hon. Friend in a later Amendment, will need a little verbal redrafting. I hope before the House rises to-night to be able to communicate to him a form of licence which, I think, he will find will substantially meet his views. While on the subject of the licence, I desire to make a reference to the amount. of the fee. to be charged. It is our intention to fix the tee at a figure which will make the administration of the Act self-supporting. As at present advised, I anticipate that a fee of a guinea w ill be sufficient for this purpose.
§ Mr. MOLTENODoes that apply to the miner who is digging metals
§ Sir A. STANLEYIt would apply to anybody who is entitled to a licence. I next come to the question of the reference to a Court provided for in Clause 1 (5). We cannot accept any Amendment giving a further right of appeal because of the delay which this would cause. But I desire to go as far as I can in meeting any criticisms on the ground that a matter of such great importance ought not to be settled by a single judge. We therefore propose to substitute for the High Court a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division. The effect of that will be that the reference will be to a Court consisting of at least two and frequently three judges. I notice a good many Amendments on the Notice Paper designed to transfer the onus of proof from the applicant to the Board of Trade. After considering the matter, I ant prepared to agree to delete the words of the. Sub-section which expressly provide that the onus shall rest on the company, firm, or individual. I wish, however, to make it quite clear that this concession can only be made if the Board of Trade retain the power to secure the furnishing of such information and inspection of such books and documents as they may reasonably require. In passing, I may observe that the Bill does not give unlimited powers to the Board of Trade to inspect any documents, but only such as may be reasonably required. That means that any unreasonable requirement could be challenged in the Courts. I am prepared to agree to restrictions of the powers conferred by Clause 2 which, as at present drafted, empowers the Board of Trade to require information to be supplied by a third party entirely unconnected with the company, firm, or individual from which information is required. I propose, therefore, when the time comes, to move an Amendment to confine those powers to persons employed by or interested in the company or firm in question.
I think the Committee will agree that the Amendments I have foreshadowed will go a long way towards meeting the criticisms that have been made. Here I should like to indicate a direction in which we think it necessary to strengthen the Bill. It has been pointed out to me that it is possible that in some cases the provisions of the Bill might be evaded by the expedient of creating subsidiary companies. In order to make this impossible 153 I propose that the opening words of Clause 1, Sub-section (2), should be amended so as to include the case of a subsidiary company controlled by the company, firm, or individual to which the conditions of the Schedule apply. To come to the particular Amendment before the Committee, it seems to me that we are not in disagreement in substance. We intended in drafting our Amendment that it should cover the particular point raised. If that is not so, we will consider words which will make the matter quite clear. I suggest, if it is agreeable to the Committee, that the matter should be held over for the moment, and at a later stage we will consider words which will make it quite clear.
§ Mr. L. JONESI should like to understand, is the President going to accept this Amendment, which makes it unnecessary to have any licence if all the operations are carried on outside this country
§ Sir A. STANLEYYes; that is what I desired to make plain. As long as they are carried on outside the United Kingdom no licence will be required.
§ Mr. JONESDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise the reflex effect of such action? Does he not realise that the direct effect of that will be a tendency at any rate to transfer to other countries every one of those operations which can possibly be transferred, seeing that if you carry on this trade altogether in foreign countries you will not be subject to the interference of the Board of Trade, while if you bring any part of it into this country you at once invoke the interference of the Board of Trade? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there will be at least a tendency to drive the whole of this trade out of this country which cannot be the real object of the Board of Trade? I submit that sooner or later, although it is theoretical at the moment, that the right hon. Gentleman is invoking a series of economic forces which will work their effect, whatever the Board of Trade of this country may wish or think about the matter, and which may possibly transfer trade to other countries and discourage trade in this country.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have certainly given most careful consideration to that particular point, and the Board of Trade 154 would be very neglectful of its duty if the effect of its action were to drive away business from the United Kingdom. We desire to do everything possible to encouraga business in the United Kingdom. I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman attaches too much importance to this question of a licence and of the discretionary power of the Board of Trade. After all, the amount involved in securing a licence will be, I estimate, about a guinea, and I cannot believe that that mere formality will have the effect he describes. Personally, I think the effect of this Amendment will be to attract business to this country rather than to take it away.
§ Mr. MOLTENOThe general statement made by the President of the Board of Trade, so far as one can follow it off-hand, seems to go in the direction of meeting difficulties felt in connection with the Bill. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any statement to make in regard to Clause 6, which prescribes the continuance of the Act during the present War and for a period of five years thereafter?
§ Sir A. STANLEYIf it is suggested that this period should be decreased we could not accede to that suggestion. It is a vital necessity to have some such period, and certainly not less than five years. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind what we are trying to do by this Bill. We are trying to establish this industry free from this German control. This control has extended over a very long period of years. It has very firmly entrenched itself not only in this country, but practically in all the other countries of the world. Now, if you are going to encourage our traders to organise themselves so that they will be strong enough. to resist this control, if they are going be encouraged to attract capital into their business strong enough to resist this control, and adequate to meet the demands of this country and the Empire, I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that it is vitally necessary that the period of protection should be long enough so that the capital will be assured of a fair chance of establishing itself in this country.
§ The CHAIRMANI think that particular point is a separate one from the more general statement.
§ Mr. HOLTI am afraid I do not understand exactly what the President of the Board of Trade proposes to do with regard to the Amendment before the Committee a the moment. Do I understand that the Amendment which he, proposes to insert in order to meet the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is one that is to be brought forward on the Report stage, or is it to come on at some later period of the Committee stage, and is it on the Paper? I cannot see any such Amendment on the Paper. I think before my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment we really ought to know exactly what it is the President of the Board of Trade proposes to do.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI think my Amendment is still probably necessary even with the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, which is almost in the same words as that in my name lower down on the Paper with the exception of the last four or five words. I would suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that the words I now move, "within the United Kingdom," are still necessary.
§ Sir A. STANLEYWe do not object to the introduction of those words.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. JOHN HENDERSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words, "by way of wholesale trade in," and to insert instead thereof the words, "in quantities of ten hundredweight and upwards of."
This Amendment will meet the difficulty of ascertaining the real meaning of the words "by way of wholesale trade." It would meet the case of a great many small men who deal in quarter and half-hundredweights. If the right hon. Gentleman will state how he proposes to meet that, I will withdraw the Amendment.
§ Sir A. STANLEYAs I have explained previously, we propose to deal with this when we come to deal with the Clause relating to rules. Our difficulty is that it will be impossible to accept any particular figure representing a standard weight in connection with all the metals Ten hundredweight might apply in one case but not another, and therefore we think it necessary, when we come to the rules, to adopt different standards of weight for the different metals. That will arise when we come to the Clause dealing with rules.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI can quite see the difficulty. Therefore I will wait until the proper time. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. ARTHUR STRAUSSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "by way of wholesale trade."
§ The CHAIRMANI think that covers the same ground.
§ Mr. STRAUSSMy Amendment is only to leave out the words, "by way of wholesale trade," without inserting any others. I would point out to the Committee how very difficult it is to define wholesale trade in metals at all. It is absolutely impossible to do so either by quantity or value. I can give some concrete instances to show there is virtually no demarcation possible. The wholesale trade upon the Metal Exchange is a minimum quantity of five tons of tin. In many cases that goes to a storekeeper. The storekeepers in London and Manchester deal it out in lumps of two or three tons to smaller storekeepers. Those smaller storekeepers again deal it out to tinplate workers in quantities of, say, from ten hundredweight to a ton. Those men re-sell A to little tinkers in quantities of, perhaps, one ingot or two ingots. Where can you define the wholesale trade? The same thing applies to copper and, more or less, to all other metals. It is virtually impossible as regards quantity to define where wholesale ends and where retail commences. Every metal has got-its own quantities. When you come to values it is still more difficult. Half a ton of copper is worth about £60. When you come to platinum, which is one of the metals controlled by the Government during the War, half a ton is worth £150,000. Quicksilver is worth £800 a half-ton. You would have rules for about 100 different metals, which would have to be added to annually. It would be better, therefore, to leave out the words "wholesale trade." The result would be that the small dealers would have to take out a licence, but we are told there is no harm in that and it is the simplest possible plan. Therefore I do not see why all people who deal in metals should not take out this licence, and, considering the impracticability of dividing wholesale and retail, surely the simplest plan is to leave out these words.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI cannot accept this Amendment. I think what I have said 157 before has made it quite clear how we propose to deal with this matter. I am sure it is not desirable that every small dealer, every plumber, should have to take out a licence.
§ Amendment. negatived.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Trade" ["unless licensed to do so by the Board of Trade"], to insert the words "such licence to be in the form set out in the Second Schedule to this Act."
The right hon. Gentleman has indicated his willingness to accept the terms of this Amendment, with some alteration. I am not wedded to these particular words, but I want to know from the Government if the owner of the licence is to be forbidden to buy from or sell to Germany? That is the point! If there is no restriction in the licence. I shall be satisfied with the words of my right hon. Friend. But the point I want to make clear is whether or not it is to be an open licence without any restriction?
§ Sir A. STANLEYThere is no desire or intention to impose restrictions.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir C. HENRYI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "purchase" ["the purchase of metal"], to insert the words "or sale."
The object of this Amendment is to give greater latitude to certain individuals who have transactions or operations in metal, but who do not primarily deal in metals. Unless you have facility for sale it lessens the value of facility for purchase. My real object in this Amendment is shown by the consequential Amendments that follow. May I briefly explain my object, and also show how the series of Amendments will affect this special provision? The whole point turns on what is described as primary dealing in metals, but what I prefer to call "habitual" dealing to metals. As is broadly well known, for very many years London has been the chief centre of speculative transactions and operations in the different kinds of metals. It would be very prejudicial to British trade if that form of business were restricted to any extent, because where the speculative market is there the trade very often follows. As the Bill is at present drafted it may have this effect: A broker could not receive an order from anyone residing in this country or execute 158 it unless that person had a licence, but he could receive an order from France, or the United States, or any other country, and that order could be executed. Therefore it would place a person residing in this country, wishing to deal outside his habitual business in a transaction in metal, at a very serious disadvantage. Not only would it affect these individuals, but it would affect what might be called merchant bankers. Under the provisions of this Fill a merchant banker could not accept a bill against these metals unless he had a licence. Although personally I have no objection to the licence—for all the arguments I have so far heard against it are more or less. fallacious—I think the licence ought to be confined to those who habitually deal in metals, and those who have occasional transactions ought not to be called upon to obtain one. If my Amendments are adopted the Clause will read:
"Provided that the purchase or sale of metal by persons shall not be deemed to be dealing in such metal where the trade carried on by the purchaser or seller is not primarily or habitually the trade of dealing in metals."
This a matter that ought, I think, to, receive the sympathetic consideration of the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment ought also to be an advantage to those concerned in the metal exchanges of the country, and primarily to brokers in metals. It is also necessary so as not to hamper those who from time to. time deal in these metals.
§ Sir A. STANLEYThe suggested Amendment is acceptable.
§ Sir F. BANBURYSo far as I can make out, the Bill is supposed to be aimed at Germans. But a German will be able to. speculate in metals provided he carries on a business which is not a metal business, and provided he is a general merchant. It is a very extraordinary thing. I cannot understand hon. Members who apparently support the principle of the Bill one moment and another moment oppose it. The effect of these Amendments must be-to do exactly the contrary to what we understood was the intention of the President of the Board of Trade, namely, to prevent Germans dealing over here.
§ Sir C. HENRYMy right hon. Friend is entirely wrong in his assumptions. The object of these Amendments is that those 159 people who are not in the metal trade, but only casually have dealings in metals, shall not be obliged to take out a licence.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is just what I said.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONEnormous transactions may be carried through by those who only occasionally deal in these metals. It is really impossible to understand how the President of the Board of Trade can prevent this kind of transaction, for there is no limit to the dealing that may be done. While, we are assured, the bulk of this trade is done in Germany, the main field for dealing with it is in London. That being so, it is doubly important, if there is anything at all to be gained by the Bill, that wholesale evasion should not be allowed.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI happen to have the same Amendment down, but with a different object. My object is to provide for the case of a British firm who have sent goods abroad, and who have received from abroad in some isolated, in some perhaps unique, transactions, some metals for sale. It ought not to be necessary for such a firm to take out a licence if they are not dealers in metals, and simply dispose of them in order to realise the cash, by way of remittance, for the goods sent abroad.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI have no objection to this Amendment, and for this reason: The more you go on the more futile and absurd this Bill will turn out to be.
§ Mr. BRUNNERI have a similar Amendment on the Paper, but the object of it is entirely different to that of my hon. Friend opposite. I put it down on behalf of the chemical manufacturers, with the object of allowing the sale of the scrap from any transaction in metal on the part of these manufacturers. Unless these two words "or seller" are in they will not be able to sell the scrap without a licence.
§ Mr. STRAUSSBefore the right hon. Gentleman replies I should like to know whether my hon. Friend's Amendments will really enable outside speculators or bankers who have advanced money to do so without a licence? If so I shall support the Amendment.
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Clyde)No. My right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Robertson) suggests that the Amendments will lead to wholesale evasion. 160 How can that be so I The purpose is to put a certain restriction upon persons whose business follows certain lines. It is always true when that is your purpose that there may be isolated transactions. It is indeed conceivable, if you look at the thing as a theorist and not as a business man, that there may be a series of large isolated transactions, but business is not worked in that way. So far as my knowledge goes, and it extends over matters dealing with other things, the business dealings in these articles does not consist of a series of occasional and sporadic large transactions with people who do not otherwise deal in that line. On the contrary, the business consists of the large and continuous volume of business done by people whose business is in that line. Nothing that this Bill will do will create a set of people who occasionally and sporadically have a particular large deal. In fact, it will be quite the other way. The suggestion of my right hon. Friend opposite that this Amendment might lead to wholesale evasions of the Bill I am rather disposed to regard with suspicion. The words proposed are perfectly clear and unambiguous and they are to this effect, that those whom it, touches are those whose business is primarily and habitually in these metals.
Let us suppose one of those altogether exceptional cases, where somebody has a business which is neither primarily nor usually dealing in metals, and a purchase is made. In that case will a licence be required? The answer is "No." What criticism is that upon the Bill, because the words are perfectly clear? The words we propose will have their effect without admitting anything in the form of wholesale evasions. I agree that it is impossible to make a general rule to apply without exceptions, but the words which my right hon. Friend proposes to accept are perfectly clear and unambiguous, and they are not exposed to the criticism which has been passed upon them, nor would they in any shape or form raise up the state of things which has been suggested a few minutes ago. There is nothing in this Amendment which will weaken the effect of the Bill, nor anything in it which need give cause for any alarm.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe Lord Advocate has put this case, as he always does, extremely well, but he has based himself 161 upon one point only. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument, he says "here are certain people who do not primarily or habitually deal in metals, and they have an isolated transaction, and they will not then require to take up a licence. It cannot be said that people who have an isolated transaction in metals are in any kind of way evading the principle of the Act or evading the object for which the Bill is introduced." That is the argument of the Lord Advocate. Let me put another point. Say a foreign bank has German capital. They certainly are not primarily or habitually dealers in metals, but after this Amendment is passed suppose they have speculative transaction in metals, which is a very likely thing, because they will be inclined to do this for their German friends.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy right hon. Friend says that they will not be doing it habitually, but who is going to decide what is meant by "habitually"?
§ Sir F. BANBURYWill the Board of Trade examine the books of this particular foreign bank to see how many times they have dealt in metals?
§ Sir F. BANBURYBut is there any provision in this Act to that effect? This Bill is now going to exempt these people, and they will not be required to have a licence. Therefore the Board of Trade will not have any power to go to them and say, "You must submit your books to us." I want to thoroughly understand where we are in this matter, because it seems to me that this Amendment allows dealings and speculations by people who may have money from Germany, or it may be done even by Germans themselves after the War is over. I cannot conceive that the Board of Trade has power to investigate in the City into every transaction by a foreign merchant or a foreign banker who has speculative dealings in metals, in order to find out how many times in a particular year or month any particular 162 foreign bank or business has dealt in metals If it is found that these foreign firms have had a certain number of transactions, then they are to be brought into the Courts, but what is the Court going to do then? I think we ought to have some further answer to these points.
§ Mr. CLYDEWhat would happen in the case in point would be just exactly the same as would happen in the case of anybody, not a banker, who had, or was believed to have had, a number of transactions of the kind contemplated and who hid not taken out a licence. There is no peculiarity about that case, because a bank is in the same position as anybody else. What would happen would be just exactly the same as in the case of any other person. If the information came from a proper authority that somebody who was believed to require a licence had not taken one out, he would be communicated with, and if he had no satisfactory explanation to give he would be told that he could not carry on his business. He might say that his transactions did not bring him within the Act, but the Court would have to say whether that were so or not What is there more clear or simple or more common than that under our system of administration of licences and permits?
§ 4.0.P.M.
§ Mr. HOLTIt seems to me that we have got into a certain amount of difficulty through the procedure which has been taken. We have a stream of Amendments on this question, and it is evident that the words, "or sale," must be put, in. I will give an example that has arisen in my own experience. A public body of which I am a member had to deal with a building with a zinc roof. Owing to the high price of zinc it seemed expedient to sell that roof and put on a slate roof in its place, and this was done. The result was that not only did we get a new roof, but also a considerable sum of money. That is a case of selling metals not for the purpose of your trade, and I imagine nobody suggests that in a case of that sort it should be necessary to take out a licence in order to sell the zinc. Therefore, the words, "or sale," must. necessarily be put into the Bill. It would be much more convenient if the words, "or sale," were at once inserted, and if we continuer? the discussion on the second Amendment, which really raises a matter of principle.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI am quite certain that my right hon. Friend does not follow what is done in the metal market. Supposing, after the War, a German comes to me and says, "We want you to get the market in lead. Lead is short, and we give you authority to buy every ton that you can pick up on the market." I do it, That is one transaction. Your object, however, is to keep the Germans from getting control. They get control at once by buying up the market.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) was a good one, and that we might deal with these points on the subsequent Amendment.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESIf the other words are not put in, the Clause would read: "Provided that the purchase or sale of metal by persons for the purposes of use in their trade." A person does not sell a thing for use in his trade. The words, "for use in their trade," are applicable if it is a question of purchase, but not if it is a question of sale. It seems to me therefore, whether the subsequent Amendments are carried or not, that the Clause will need some further Amendment to meet that point. I am a supporter of the Bill, and I am bound to say that I am a little perturbed by this Amendment. I have assumed all along that the object of the Bill in licensing people is that the Government may have certain means of information, and prevent certain transactions taking place, but anyone who wants to evade the provisions and carry out enormous transactions may go to one person not habitually engaged in the trade and make it worth his while to carry out a certain transaction, and then may next week, when he wants to do a similar transaction go to someone else. If you make it difficult for a person to carry on business through the ordinary channels, you give him an inducement to go to one bank or concern this week and to another next week, and to carry out a large number of transactions in that way, the Government in that case not being in a position to control them. It may be that the promoters of the Bill see their way to avoid any difficulties of that kind, but I am bound to say that I do not.
Mr. RUNCIMANThe points put by my hon. Friend are well worth the consideration of the right hon. and learned 164 Gentleman (Mr. Clyde) who has supported this Amendment. I do not know in what way the Government propose to prevent people using not one regular firm, but one or two or twenty or fifty individuals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware, if any attempt were made to secure control of a metal or to effect something approaching a corner, that it might be well worth while having a number of individuals dealing in very large amounts, and the whole object of the Board of Trade in controlling the distribution of these metals among the industries of this country and of the Empire and of the Allies might be defeated. I say perfectly frankly that I am in favour of controlling some of these metals at their source, which I believe is the only method. Whenever you embark on licensing business transactions in this country, you involve yourself in endless difficulties and inconsistencies. It is perfectly obvious that my hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry) put down this Amendment because he does not object to any individual having an occasional speculation in metals; he thinks that it is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
§ Sir C. HENRYAnd not be obliged to take out a licence.
§ Sir C. HENRYSchmidt can do it under the Bill without a licence, but Smith must have a licence.
Mr. RUNCIMANThe ostensible object of the Bill—I will say the object of the Bill as introduced by the Board of Trade—is to prevent those men who are of German origin, or under German influence, or who have German connections, being involved in the metal trade at all. It is to cut them out, to "eradicate the cancer," to "bomb German businesses." We all know the phrases. My hon. Friend says, "Let it be done thoroughly, but spare the speculator."
§ Sir C. HENRYMy right hon. Friend must not misrepresent me. All I want is that the man who desires to speculate in England shall not be put at a disadvantage as against the man who sends orders from Germany.
Mr. RUNCIMANI quite agree. The object my hon. Friend has in mind shows the extraordinary difficulty of licensing 165 dealings. These very difficulties were put by those who opposed the Bill on Second Reading. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend had them in mind at the time. He realises that you cannot cut out the whole of foreign influences in the international trade of this country. The only way in which you can get control of these metals for Great Britain and the Allies is at the source, and merely to say that you are not going to allow a broker of foreign origin, or any man of foreign origin, to have dealings in these metals is ridiculous. It cannot be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Elgin (Sir A. Williamson) said he was thinking more particularly of merchant banking transactions. He wants the merchant banker to be able to realise on his securities. There were a good many who saw that point on the Second Reading. Another great hole is to be made in this thorough eradication of German influence in our trade. My hon. Friend is right. The carrying on of merchant banking transactions would become impossible if you did not allow the merchant banker to realise on his securities in case of need. How far can that be carried You may have foreign banks whose influences may be just as dangerous as that of foreign metal brokers. I can mention one great firm that is represented not only in this country, but in Paris and Vienna. How are you going to deal with them? Are they to be licensed, or merely because they have occasional dealings in metals or their headquarters in Vienna, or Frankfort, or Berlin, are you to accept them? The attempt to licence all dealings has already broken. down and the Government by accepting this Amendment had had to admit it. We shall come to the discussion whether or not a speculator is to be allowed to trade without a licence. If he had to be licensed you would absolutely destroy London as the international metal market of the world, and for that reason I should be inclined to support my hon. Friend. I would suggest to him, quite good-humouredly, that his next Amendment will be greatly improved if he cuts out merely the words "use in," instead of all the words "for the purpose of use in their trade." If he made the Amendment so that it would read "Provided for the purchase or sale of metals for the purposes of their trade," I should be heartily in agreement with him. We should then get rid of the whole trouble, and the Government would find that they had fewer administrative difficulties.
§ Mr. D. MASONThe right lion. Gentleman has made an. acute analysis of this Amendment, but he gives me the impression that whilst he is anxious to pose as one desirous of getting rid of German trade his intellect shows him the impossibility of doing it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) spoke of bankers. Just imagine a British banker who has made a loan on the security of a metal being prevented, when the metal falls in value, from foreclosing and selling the metal without going to the Board of Trade for a licence! The right hon. Gentleman forgets that this is not a war measure. We entirely sympathise with attacking Germany now and stopping all trade with Germany, but this Bill is for five years after the War has come to a conclusion.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI have always opposed the Bill, but the Government have said that it is necessary in order to prevent Germans dealing over here in certain metals. They now come and accept an Amendment which will allow Germans to do it.
§ Mr. MASONI quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the attitude he has taken up, but I hope he will go down and tell his banking constituents that he is preventing them foreclosing on a security on which they have advanced a loan and that he will ask them what they think of it. I do not suggest that he is an enthusiastic supporter of the Bill. I believe he is, but I am not.
§ Sir F. BANBURYNo, I am not; I voted against it.
§ Sir F. BANBURYBecause I dislike humbug.
§ Mr. MASONI confess that I am at a loss to understand what the right hon. Gentleman does support, but I assume that he is anxious to eliminate German trade and to prevent Germans having any influence over here. I was not suggesting that he does not propose to carry that out after peace, but T was suggesting that the views he is supporting will not commend themselves to his banking constituents. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will adhere to his acceptance of the Amendment. It will widen the scope of the Bill. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Runciman) that it 167 is impossible to have a proper licensing system without crippling your trade, and whether the Germans come here after the War or not, I for one do not object. I want to fight them.
§ The CHAIRMANThis is too general.
§ Mr. MASONI am sorry if in the heat of an argument I went outside the scope of the Amendment. I do not wish to cripple our trade after peace is established, and I think we sometimes forget that this Bill is to run five years after peace is concluded. Therefore, I hold that anything which will widen the powers of dealing in metals by persons not primarily responsible for dealing in them originally, such as bankers and others who make leans against them, will improve the Bill. If we were to oppose this Amendment, we should unquestionably very much cripple our trade in the future.
§ Mr. BIGLANDAs a strong supporter of this Bill, I should like to utter a word of warning to the President of the Board of Trade as to whether he is wise in accepting this Amendment. I would rather that the Clause stood as it appears in the Bill. As a man with large experience in speculative transactions, I can quite see how a foreigner coming in through Liverpool by indirect ways could do an exceedingly large business. By having no one party transacting that trade on the London market, it would only appear as an occasional transaction. I do not see that there is any objection to a banker in London having to apply for a licence. I occasionally get orders in my business for some transaction in a market with which I am not acquainted, and it would not be the slightest difficulty for me to instruct one of my clerks to obtain a licence from the Board of Trade to carry through that transaction. Of course, if he came often, the Board of Trade would apply to him for the name of his principal in the transaction. The Board of Trade should have a right. through the licence. to ascertain the origin of the business in these metals which is going forward in this country. I would suggest that after the discussion we have had my right hon. Friend would not be wise to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEOne remark that fell from the Lord Advocate shows the extraordinary difficulties to which legislation of this sort leads us. He was asked who 168 would determine the question whether people were habitually or primarily trading in a certain way, and he said that was a matter that was decided almost daily by the Courts. That raises most interesting problems, because, supposing that a man bonâ fide deals, either by pin-chase or sale, in metals, and if a question arises whether he was right in doing so without a licence, then we are told that is a matter for the Courts. Let us suppose he is wrong. Now look at Clause 3 as to what happens. He will find himself guilty of an offence for which he is liable on conviction on indictment to two years' hard labour and a few other penalties of that sort. That is a genial way of reconstructing our trade after the War and leads me to think that the Board of Trade's desire to sing this commercial hymn of hate for some years after the War is going to lead us into difficulties with the criminal law. As one who occasionally has to administer the criminal law, it fills me with a certain amount of alarm that we shall be faced with problems of this sort if people, merely because they have misinterpreted the question whether or not they ought to have applied for a licence, should find themselves, provided the Board of Trade wish to bring proceedings, within the criminal law. This procedure lends itself to all sorts of abuse and shows how important it is to deal with this question in a rational way.
§ Mr. PETOI wish to strongly support the appeal made to the President of the Board of Trade by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Bigland). What is it the Committee have to consider? The proviso as set out in the Bill is intended to apply to the purchase of lead for a roof by a builder or to purchases of metal by a blacksmith or a small metal worker. It would enable such a man to purchase the quantity of metal he wanted to work up in his own business. The moment you put in the apparently harmless words "or sale" you are up against the difficulty that they do not fit the proviso at all, unless you accept the further Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) ingeniously suggests, namely, the omission of the words "of use in," appearing in the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wellington (Sir C. Henry), in which case this proviso, which is inserted for the purpose of enabling a tradesman who is going to work up the metal to purchase what he 169 wants for his trade, is converted into a machine for practically neutralising almost the whole purpose of this Bill, because it will mean that transactions of any size can be done if they are not done habitually, and that they can always be put through so long as they are not put through in the ordinary course of trade. If the person who wants to defeat your object is only sufficiently ingenious to select a different person to put through a deal every day in the year, lie can carry on the whole business which the Bill is intended to defeat. Therefore, I think that the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead is the correct one, that we should leave the Bill as printed, and that we should consider the suggestion that underlies the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner), who said his object was to enable chemical dealers to sell metal which they had in excess of what they required for their own trade. That is a harmless purpose. The Amendment now proposed to this proviso would bring in a flood of transactions which were never intended to be covered by the Bill. Therefore the President of the Board of Trade would be wise to change his mind, resist all these Amendments, and merely give us the usual undertaking, so often given from the Treasury Bench, to carefully consider the matter in the light of this Debate and to put in appropriate words to deal with the cases he wishes to deal with without licence and to keep out the others.
§ Mr. KILEYI hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I know the other day a firm was in possession of a quantity of metals which on account of labour difficulties they were unable at that time to utilise. An adjoining firm very badly w anted metal and were unable to obtain it. Why is it necessary that the licence should be obtained in a case of that kind? I understand the object of the Amendment and the reason why the President has accepted it. He is entitled to the thanks of the Committee for his reasonableness in this matter.
§ Sir W. PEARCEThe object of the proviso is to cover the consumer. I suggest that it is unwise in the same Amendment to cover speculation. We should get along better if we took the proviso in the Bill dealing with the consumer alone. Obviously you must have some provision in regard to sale, because, for instance, in a large industry like the chemical trade, they use large quantities of lead which, 170 when it is worn out, they sell. I would appeal to the President to allow the proviso to deal with consumption only and to deal with the point of sale later on.
§ The CHAIRMANThat will arise on the next Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir C. HENRYI beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words, "by persons for the purposes of use in their trade."
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury suggested that I should leave out of my Amendment the words "use in."
Mr. RUNCIMANMay I explain that I should have preferred the hon. Baronet's Amendment, from my point of view, because I do not regard myself as a friend of this Bill. I think it is futile. I should prefer his Amendment to leave out the words, "use in," letting all the rest stand. I quite understand that the lion. Baronet, as a friend of the Bill, would not agree to that.
§ Sir C. HENRYI see the point of the right lion. Gentleman's suggestion. I would ask the Committee to consider seriously whether it is advisable that any steps should be taken—certainly it was not the object for which the Bill was promoted—to stop transactions and dealings on the London market. The object of this hill is to stop in future German influence permeating the metal business as it has done in the past.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThis Amendment will enable them to speculate.
§ Sir C. HENRYI am certain that the hon. Baronet's attitude towards this Bill does not commend itself entirely to his constituents in the City of London. I can tell him from personal knowledge that the banking interest, the metal interest, and a large number of people outside both those interests, are heart and soul in favour of this Bill. Therefore he takes his own individual line, irrespective of the opinion of the City of London.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI always have done so.
§ Sir C. HENRYMy point is that there is a large number of small brokers in the City of London to-day who obtain their livelihood on the Metal Exchange by 171 transactions or operations of a speculative character. Very often the transaction is of small amount. It may be for fifty tons of lead, or twenty-five tons of copper, or ten tons of tin. If you are going to compel these men, who give their small orders occasionally, to take out a licence, that small business will be stopped. That small business, in the aggregate, amounts to a very large total. It has been the means of attracting much business to the City of London from other countries like America, France, and Germany in the past.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONHear, hear!
§ Sir C. HENRYI cannot understand why the right hon. Member for Tyneside is so delighted over it. Does he wish to stop that speculative business?
§ Mr. ROBERTSONNo.
§ Sir C. HENRYDoes he wish it to develop I am at a loss to understand his attitude.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONMay I point out to the hon. Baronet that, as he says, a very large amount of trade is being done here, and under the operation of the Amendment he proposes very large transactions can be carried through, but he is defeating the whole purpose of the Government Bill. The effect of his Amendment will be to permit an enormous number of transactions to be carried on here by persons who will be able to make corners in metal perfectly easily by simply selecting as their operators men who are not generally dealers in metals.
§ Sir C. HENRYThe right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake. The object of the Bill is contained in the Schedule. It is to stop German permeation, and to stop the ruthless methods which German firms have pursued here in the past with which the ordinary Englishman cannot compete. The object of the Bill is not to curtail or restrict operations that have been a well-known feature in London in the past. I am certain that the President of the Board of Trade recognises that, if the Clause stands as it is, he is handicapping a large business that has been done in the past in this country. The Amendment in no way weakens the object of the Bill. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyneside is so afraid lest the German might come here and operate after the War that he thinks this will enable him to do it. Nothing of the kind. 172 He may send over here to buy lead, copper, or tin through an agent in this country. The German principal will not have to obtain a licence. The same is true of the Frenchman, the Italian, and the American, but not the Englishman. He must get a licence before he can do so. I do not want to handicap the trader in this country and to place him in a worse position than I would the foreigner, but to put both on the same basis. As regards bankers, I am certain that most bankers will take out a licence. I do not want the occasional trader to go through the necessity of having to obtain a licence. It will handicap and restrict business, and that is not the object of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to eliminate the German interest and association with the metal trade which there has been in this country in the past.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Baronet has fully justified my opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, because he has shown that unless this Amendment be accepted the trade of the City of London will be seriously affected. It was because I saw that the Bill would seriously affect trade in the City of London, without doing any good to anyone, that I opposed the Second Reading. It is a great pity that a large number of people who are ostensibly in favour of the Bill have not read it. I am very glad the Government has accepted this Amendment, because it will do something to prevent the injury to trade which the Bill, without the Amendment, would have done, but I still maintain that the acceptance of the Amendment does away with the pretension on the part of the Government that it wanted to stop Germans here dealing in metals, because anyone who has been in business, notwithstanding the very able speech of the Lord Advocate, can see that without the Amendment it would permit any corner to be made in any metal by any German who wishes to do so. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend this question. He rather thought that my question to him as to what was the meaning of the word "habitual" was so clear that it did not deserve an answer. A German firm sends over to a merchant banker, a foreign banker, with whom it may have opened an account—there will be no difficulty in doing that after the War—an order to buy copper at 150 a ton—any amount that is offered. Is that an habitual transaction?
§ Sir F. BANBURYThey send an order to the banker to purchase on their behalf any quantity of copper that is ordered up to the price of £150 a ton. That is a very common transaction. There is no limit as to the amount, but only as to price. Is that an habitual transaction or is it not?
§ Mr. CLYDEI do not know that I quite understand the point because, as put, it seems too simple. It would depend, of course, entirely whether the transactions that followed under the minimum price were of such number as to become habitual or not. I really do not see what is the use of constantly presenting fresh illustrations of the same point. Merely to say to some person or firm, "Buy me all such metal you can under a certain price" is nothing, but if the transactions become habitual transactions a licence will become necessary.
§ The CHAIRMANMay I suggest that we are getting rather in the habit of anticipating Amendments which are already on the Paper? There is one on the Paper to insert the word "habitual." The present proposition is merely to leave out the words "or persons for the purposes of use in their trade." Let us dispose of that first.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI will not pursue my argument. I will only say that my opposition to the Bill has been fully justified by the action of the Government and by the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Henry).
Mr. RUNCIMANI do not think we can allow this to pass without making perfectly clear what was the original meaning of the Bill. My hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry) has made it perfectly clear that, as the Bill originally stood, London, as the international metal market of the world, would have been destroyed. There is no other interpretation to be put on what he said.
§ Sir C. HENRYI did not say it would have been destroyed, but that it would suffer.
Mr. RUNCIMANI should like to know what would be the effect on the London metal market if every time a cable order came across for any quantity, however small or however large, a licence had to be obtained? My hon. Friend sees the total impossibility of doing that. I can 174 quite understand those who merely take a theoretical view of trade—I am not addressing myself to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clyde), but those who take a theoretical view of trade and occasionally write about it in the Press as though by a single stroke of the pen you can get rid of all German influences, and, indeed, that it is your duty to get rid of them by a single stroke of the pen—imagining that it is only necessary to say a thing is done and it is done and no harm is to be suffered hereafter. But immediately the thing was put down in the form of a proposal in the Bill, the Government has realised how enormous the difficulties are. This is the very best illustration I have come across yet of the practical impossibility of conducting international trade by way of licences. It is possible in time of war, but a good many things are put up with in time of war which would be absolutely ruinous to us in times of peace. If the Government had persisted with the Bill as originally drafted they would have made it totally, impossible when the War was over to get anything like the same control over the metal markets as before, German influence or no German influence. Now that my hon. Friend has moved his Amendment and pressed the point and illustrated it from his own personal knowledge as to the effect the original proposal would have had, we, are indebted to him for his proposal. I am glad to think the Government is accepting it, but it fully justifies the very strong opposition which was shown to the Bill in the early stages, and it also illustrates the futility of attempting to conduct international trade on a licence basis.
§ Sir C. CORYWe know pretty well, by our experience in the coal trade, the impossibility of carrying on trade under licence. We know what we have had to put up with in war-time, but if that had to be continued after the War it would make trade absolutely impossible. If a merchant wants to ship a cargo he first of all has to arrange for his coal, and after he has arranged for his coal to arrange for his ship, and by the time he has arranged for the ship he has to get a licence, and by the time he gets it he has perhaps lost his coal and lost his ship. We shall probably have the same sort of difficulty in the metal trade. This is not a war-time Bill, but an after war-time Bill, and if you are to have all these difficulties arising in the metal trade that 175 you have in the coal trade, then God save the metal trade. I certainly shall oppose with all my influence a Bill of this sort which must make business absolutely impracticable. My hon. Friend (Sir C. Henry) has, I think, pretty well shown the impossibility of a Bill of this sort. He now sees its weak points and is trying to amend them. Although he is a strong supporter of the Bill he sees the impossibility of carrying it through in its original form and proposes an Amendment which will practically destroy the whole purpose of the Bill.
§ Mr. BIGLANDIt seems to me that the whole object of the Bill may be frustrated by this Amendment. While the object of the Bill is to reinstate smelting and the carrying on of these non-ferrous metal trades, I can quite see that under the Amendment the carrying on of smelting work in South Wales and wherever smelting factories may be put up may be nullified and it may be impossible for those people to carry on their business while there is a speculative market overruling and overriding the benâ fide transactions of the actual smelters. I see clearly that that might easily happen, and therefore I press the President of the Board of Trade not to accept the Amendment as proposed. When a person is licensed the President of the Board of Trade can send for him and inquire into the nature of the transactions which are reported to him on the market, can look into the whole question and into the origin of the orders and how they are affecting the trade of the country. If in the view of the President of the Board of Trade they are enemy orders, sent really to wreck British industry instead of assisting it, he would have authority under the Act to suspend the licence and to go on suspending every broker's licence if he persevered in transactions inimical to the foundation of this trade in this country. I feel quite clearly that this Amendment could not be accepted in its present form.
§ Mr. HOLTThe speech we have just heard is one of the strongest reasons why we ought to support the Amendment. The hon. Member talks as if it were desirable that every person who proposes to deal on the London market in metals should take out a licence. I wonder whether he in the least realises what a person exposes himself to who takes out a licence. It is not the payment of the guinea that is going to be asked for it, it is the fact that 176 he has no sooner taken out a licence than at any moment the Board of Trade may investigate all his books, call his clerks and servants before them, and have a general inquisition into the man's methods of carrying on business. It is quite plain that people are not going to take out licences if they can help it, and you will have very few people going into a business in which there is a danger of being licensed unless they have got themselves into the state of mind, which is very distasteful to Englishmen, of not caring how much the Board of Trade pry into the whole of their business. I suppose everyone wants to see a strong international market in London, but you cannot expect the dealers in that market to be exposed to this abominable inquisitorial system. Nothing could have convinced me more strongly of the importance of the Amendment than the speech to which we have just listened.
§ Amendment. agreed to.
§ Further Amendments made: Leave out the words "by way of wholesale trade."—[Sir C. Henry.]
§ After the word "purchaser" ["the trade carried on by the purchaser"], insert the words "or seller."—[Sir C. Henry.]
§ Sir ERNEST POLLOCKI beg to move to leave out the word "primarily" ["is not primarily the trade"].
In view of the modifications which this proviso has already undergone, it is unfortunate to leave in the word "primarily." As the proviso originally stood the word was a very bad one, because it does not really clarify the proviso and does not improve it. It does not make it more easy to work when you are applying it to the real facts of real cases "where the trade carried on by the purchaser is not primarily the trade of dealing in metals." Who shall say what is the meaning of that where you have a trade carried on by a person which is manifold, and which embraces many branches? Who shall say whether or not, in a trade which may include many other spheres of activity besides the metal trade, the metal trade, by reason of its bulk or the number of persons employed in that branch, is primarily the trade carried on? In view of the fact that the hon. Member for the Wellington Division (Sir C. Henry) proposes to insert the word "habitually," I think that would be much better, if any word at all is needed. At any rate, I venture to submit 177 to the Committee that this word is really inept for the purpose of giving any light as to what is meant. All these matters must be determined on the facts when they are known, and it is better to leave it at large rather than to put in a word which is not capable of any precise construction. I think if the word "primarily" is left out, and my hon. Friend, instead of inserting "habitually" after "primarily" merely inserts the word "habitually" he will have added a great deal to the Bill, because it is easier to say whether a person carries on a trade constantly or habitually than whether one of many branches of trade carried on ought to be considered the primary business.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI should very much prefer that this word was left in the Clause. I agree it is rather difficult to find words which make it quite clear, but this is the best word we have been able to find.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? I understand he made a statement earlier in the discussion as to who was to decide whether a person was engaged in this particular trade. The Clause says, "Where the trade carried on by the purchaser is not primarily the trade dealing in metals." Who is to decide that? Is it to be left to the Board of Trade's ipse dixit to decide that a man is so dealing and therefore must take out a licence, or is the person to show that he is not? I think the word "primarily" is better than the word "habitually," because it makes a very great difference as to the status of the persons concerned if they have to show whether they are or are not primarily engaged.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt seems to me that, as the Government have decided to stand by the word "primarily," at least the Committee should be told what it means. My hon. and learned Friend opposite who has moved this Amendment has put forward some strong arguments against the use of the word "primarily," on the ground, first of all, that it is very uncertain what the word means and the difficulty of deciding between the primary business of a man and the secondary and tertiary. The President of the Board of Trade has told us they cannot find any better word. First of all, I think he should have told us what was the idea in the mind of the Government, if, indeed, it had an idea in its 178 mind; and, in the second place, the Committee would then have been in a position to decide whether the word "primarily" or the word "habitually" was the better and the more apt word to be used for this specific purpose. I know my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is a high authority on all these points of legislative expressions. He has had along experience of them, both in regard to the framing of legislation and in its interpretation, and I am quite sure that on this matter he will be able to give the Committee some assistance. I hope, further,. that before We come to a decision on this point he will be able to say exactly what the object of the Government is in inserting this word "primarily," so that we may decide whether the word as it stands is the best way of achieving the object in view or whether it is better to accept the alternative word proposed.
§ Sir C. CORYAs I understand the object of the word "primarily," it is meant to apply to the man who deals in metals as his principal business and not merely as occasional business. I would ask whether the word "primarily" carries out that intention if that is the intention t Suppose a man's usual business is a very small business and that he does one solitary very big transaction in metals, would his general business be his primary business or the one big transaction in metals, which might far overshadow his general business? I do not think it at all clear that the word "primarily" would carry out the intention of the Government.
§ Sir C. HENRYI somewhat regret that the President of the Board of Trade has not accepted the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick, because there is some difficulty to a layman in defining the meaning of the word "primarily." I give an instance. Take a merchant banker who gets consignments of metal against which he accepts. His primary business is not dealing in those metals, but is a banking business of a general character. Therefore, I consider the word "habitually" would meet the purpose I have in view. It was not my intention in putting down these Amendments that a banker who habitually deals in metals should not take out a licence. I wish that he should. If "primarily" is left in, and the main business is not dealing in metals, but that is subsidiary, then the banker would not have to take out a licence. I hope, in any case, 179 that if the President of the Board of Trade leaves the word "primarily" in he will accept my Amendment to include the word "habitually."
§ Mr. HEMMERDENow we know that "primarily" is to be left in, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is exactly going to be the procedure. Who is going to determine what "primarily" means? It might be a very nice and delicate question as to whether a man is primarily dealing in metals or not. Members seem generally to recognise that it may be a difficult question. Apparently the only way to decide that question is that the Board of Trade should either institute, or allow to be instituted, a prosecution against a person who is dealing. I do not see any other method in the Bill. We shall have a great many new forms of prosecution, I take it, if this is to be a sample of the legislation we are to have after the War; but apparently this difficult question is to be decided either on indictment or else is to be left to a police magistrate or even to a bench of magistrates. It really opens uncomfortable vistas. I would like to know what the Government is going to do with Clause 3? Is it really to be the fact that we are not going to get a decision upon whether a man is primarily engaged in dealing in metals or not except through the instrumentality of an Assize Court or a Court of magistrates? have read the Bill with great care, and I do not see any other way of getting the matter decided. It is a difficult question to say whether a man is primarily engaged in dealing in metals or not, and it is objectionable that people should have to be taken before Assize or Police Courts to decide whether they can exercise their ordinary rights as British citizens.
§ Mr. HOLTIt seems to me that the word "primarily" must be left in and "habitually" rejected. There are a large number of persons who carry out habitually small transactions in all sorts of goods which are not part of their usual business. While I have been listening to this discussion I have come to the conclusion that in my occupation as a steamship owner I am habitually dealing in metals. There is a certain quantity of old telegraph wires always obtainable at Suez and at Perim, and for a long time we have bought it, taken it to Shanghai and sold it there, getting a modest sum for the freight. That is habitually dealing in metals, as I under- 180 stand it, and if the word "primarily" is left out and "habitually" inserted, my firm will have to get a licence. No, the Amendment of the lion. Baronet has relieved that case, but similar cases may easily happen which are not covered by the Amendment. There must be thousnds of cases of people who do some little odd jobs which fit in with their usual business. I think the word "primarily" must be left in, and that the word "habitually" must be rejected. I submit that in this case, at any rate, the Government happen to be right.
§ Mr. CLYDEI think what I am going to say has already been said in answer to questions. The question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse) is closely allied to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde), who has raised again the question as to what Court this point would come before. The first answer to the right hon. Member for Bristol is that the Court will inquire into the question as to whether a person was bound to take out a licence. The question of whether he was a person who falls under the conditions of the Schedule will, of course, be for the Court to determine.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEThen lie must be brought into Court?
§ Mr. CLYDEThat is quite clear, just like anybody else who requires to submit to a statutory condition before he can do something.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEThe presumption is that the person is trading unless he proves that he is not?
§ Mr. CLYDEOh, no; I do not mean that for a moment. To put it as simply as I can, suppose there is somebody who is believed to be carrying on a business which is substantially a business in this kind of metal, or who, whatever the nature of his business, in point of fact habitually engages in transactions in that sort of metal. Suppose there is such a business and the Board of Trade hears about it and they find that he has no licence, I presume the first thing they would do would be to make inquiries, and I think they might make inquiries of the man himself and say to him, "If we are properly informed you ought to take out a licence. We must know whether any German influence comes in or not and whether you come under the Schedule."
181 5.0 P.M.
One can imagine a case in which the subject might refuse all information and say, "Do your worst." In that case, no doubt, he would be called before the Court and then it would lie on the prosecutor to make out his case. On the other hand, if the subject were a reasonable person he would probably give the information as best he could, but then it might be quite unsatisfactory, and if that were so once more he would be called into Court, no doubt, and again the prosecutor, of course, would have to make out a case, not only that the information was not satisfactory—because that is not enough —but that the person or company was one of those who come within the Schedule. hope that clears away any idea of the kind suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Hobhouse). May I say on the question of the wording that of course hon. Members, especially those who are both honourable and learned, will know that whenever you introduce an adverb into any Act of Parliament you are doing something which in all probability will cause trouble some day. Sometimes you cannot help it, and if anyone wants me to say that I will put in my own language what this means, I would say that it means, as I said a, moment ago, that the main substance of the business consists of dealings in this kind of metal. You may have a case where it is not so, but where the business carries out habitually transactions of this kind. In other words, carries on regularly a metal business which is not their main business. It is exceedingly difficult to select anything better, but if something better does occur, the opportunity will, of course, arise of putting it right.
With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde), it would be a very serious matter if Clause 3 were restricted in the manner suggested. I do not pretend to know the principles or practices of the English. Courts at all, but speaking of the system with which I am acquainted, I do not think there will be any more difficulty in trying questions of this kind under the criminal form—and strictly it is the criminal form—than there is in trying such questions under Food Bills, and all that class of case. At the same time, may I say I know that my right hon. Friend will not be indisposed to listen to any reasonable question about procedure on Clause 3? At the moment I do not think I can say more.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEMay I say, as regards that, that I think the hon. Gentleman rather underrates what the people of this country attach to Police Court proceedings, and I do not think we can treat this question as merely one of procedure? It raises a point about which I want to say something later, but which I should like to mention now. It does seem to me that what is wanted in this Bill is some tribunal that, during these five years, will deal with all questions under this Act, appeals and all. I think the Bill would be nothing like so objectionable if the right hon. Gentleman could devise something in the form of an appeal tribunal, or a legal tribunal, to which all questions should be taken on appeal. There are a number of Amendments dealing with that question, and I do think that when a man says "I do not think I am primarily dealing in that business, and I intend to go on as now," it is a hard measure to say, "We will simply prosecute you in the Police Court." It is true that the prosecutor will have to state a case, and that there will be an appeal, but I think it raises the whole question that if the Government could devise a scheme of a tribunal, it could deal with the question of the wrongful exercise of this discretion. What the people feel about this Bill is that you are going to bring them within the ambit of the criminal law on the ipse dixit of the Solicitor-General. If the Government could devise a scheme of the nature I have suggested, I think there would be much greater ease in getting the Bill through. I certainly should not have such a strong objection to it.
Mr. FUNCIMANI am glad to hear that there is a possibility of the Government considering carefully between now and a later stage the use of the word "primarily." There are certain great difficulties attaching to it. May I give one illustration? One can imagine the case of a man who has control of great financial resources, and who devotes his whole attention to that class of business, suddenly in the course of a single year having to deal very largely in metals. I can imagine, the Court asking to see what his turnover was, and that they might find that nine-tenths of it had been in metals, although in previous years he had done little or. nothing in that class of business. All this ought not to be disposed of by simply using the word "primarily." I hope the Board of Trade, who are really charged with the duty of making business 183 run as smoothly as possible, will not pledge themselves at this stage too firmly to the use of the word "primarily." As to the word "habitually," we can deal with that in the next Amendment. The word "primarily" itself is very difficult to define, and raises obstacles in the way of legitimate trade to which I hope the Board of Trade will not he a party.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir C. HENRYI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "primarily" ["is not primarily the trade"], to insert the words "or habitually."
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI think if it is not desired to touch the person who only does a little trade as a sort of second or third string—one, perhaps, of many branches of trade carried on by some big house—the word "habitually" should not go in, because that person might habitually have a small, modest., transaction bearing no sort of proportion at all to his general business. If, therefore, it is not intended that such a house as that should require a licence, the word "habitually" should not go in, and I should support the Government in sticking to the word "primarily," and refusing to accept this Amendment.
§ Sir C. HENRYThe object I have in view in asking the Government to insert the word "habitually" is the object to which the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred. I maintain that a firm who, although it is not the main feature of their business, habitually engages in the consignment or disposal of metal should take out a licence. As I said before, I think the word "habitually" is much preferable to the word "primarily," but in any case I do not think the class of firm to which my hon. Friend has alluded should be exempted from taking out a licence. They should come within the scope of the Bill, and it is for that class of firm that I propose this Amendment.
§ Mr. HOLTI am sure it is quite impossible to agree to these words being inserted in the Bill. We had a little time ago cases given of the necessity of traders being in a position to sell their waste products. If the word "habitually" is put in, the effect will be that everyone who makes a practice of selling scrap metal of any kind whatever will be required to take out a licence. It is plain that persons dealing in scrap are habitually dealing in 184 metal. It is, in fact, a necessary part of their business, and if you insert the word "habitually" you do away with almost the whole of this proviso, the main object of which is to protect those persons who are buying or selling small quantities of metal in the course of their business from the necessity of taking out a licence. I hope the Government will refuse to accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. L. JONESI think it will be for the convenience of the. Committee if the Government will say whether they intend to accept or not to accept an Amendment of this kind. I think the objection to the word ''habitually" is in the mind of every person not connected with the metal trade. Almost every other trade has to deal in metal of one kind or another. Every large builder has considerable dealings in lead and copper and other metals. and the surplus has to be disposed of. It has to be done habitually. and if that word were put in every builder in this country would have to take out a licence. I cannon conceive for a moment that the Board of Trade would accept that, and T think that if the right hon. Gentleman would give us the mind of his Department he would save the time of the Committee.
§ Sir A. STANLEYWe very carefully considered these words, and I think we must have either these words or words somewhat similar to them in this Clause.
§ Sir A. STANLEY:If the Committee will accept this Amendment, then we might later on, on the Report stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—find words which could be substituted for these. I should be quite willing to adopt. that course, but I cannot for the moment accept any alternative words.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEI hope the right lion. Gentleman will not persist in the acceptance, even temporarily, of these words. Think what a tremendous burden he is going to lay on the general trade of the country and on the Board of Trade. Any person who habitually deals—if these words are accepted—in non-ferrous metals will be required to take out a licence. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) mentioned the case of the builders, large and small. Let us take the case of any person who has the control or management of an estate. He will become an habitual dealer in metal. It is the fact, and you cannot get away from it.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEI mean a dealer in that way. What is the result of a person selling or buying metal? He is to have the whole of his accounts, business, and transactions liable to be inspected by the Board of Trade. It will become the duty of the Board of Trade to inspect practically everybody's accounts in this country, because he habitually buys or sells—or both—non-ferrous metals. Think what an enormous burden you are laying on the Board of Trade; and for what purpose? Not for the purpose of revenue, because what will be received from this source will be spent on persons travelling up and down the country making unnecessary examinations of accounts. It will enormously increase the cost of the Board of Trade. It will be necessary to have an examining department of the Board of Trade, consisting of officials running up and down the country examining accounts because people are to be liable to prosecution if they do not take out a licence. What has this to do with Germany, or with any foreign control? It is a matter of pure domestic, ordinary day-to-day transactions which must take place if the ordinary business of the country is to be got through. Supposing the Board of Trade hold to these objectionable words and we are unable to defeat them—certainly I should feel it necessary to go to a Division—they will have to modify Clause 2, and they o ill have to limit their inspection of the accounts to that part of the business which has reference to dealing in these metals; otherwise they will involve themselves in a great amount of trouble and they will cause a great amount of unnecessary interference with businesses of every sort and kind. I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade, who has so lightly taken upon himself this burden and so unnecessarily involved himself in quarrel with the opinion of this House, will be well advised unless he recedes from the attitude which it has been stated he intends to take.
§ Mr. CLYDEThe right hon. Gentleman has put forcibly some of the objections in regard to the use of this particular word, and I think some of the points lie made were unanswerable points. Therefore, I think, after having bad consultation with my right hon. Friend, the best course will he to ask the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment to add the words "or habitually," not to press the Amendment.- I must say, however, on behalf of the Government, that 186 that is done on the understanding that we shall have to reconsider the precise phraseology. I do not think my right hon. Friend opposite would strongly press the Board of Trade to take the Clause as it now stands. If my hon. Friend can see his way not to press the Amendment the Government will agree on the footing that we will try to get, if we can, a better form of words.
§ Mr. L. JONESBefore the hon. Member withdraws, I must enter a protest against the way in which the Government accepted this Amendment and the way in which they have dealt with the question. They consider that some Amendment is necessary, and they are going to deal with it later. They have had three weeks, while the House has not been sitting, in which to consider the matter, and it is only now that we learn that some such words as have been proposed are necessary for this particular part of the Bill. I cannot see why, if it really was so important to have these words, that an Amendment was not put on th-3 Paper in the name of the Government. I think we have every right to protest against the Government, discovering accidentally that their Bill requires altering, finding that the words brought forward by a private Member are exceedingly important, and without which the Bill cannot go forward, although there has been three weeks' recess in which an Amendment could have been put down by the Government.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEIt would facilitate matters very much if, when this question comes up again, the President of the Board of Trade, instead of telling us that the matter has been thoroughly considered and that such-and-such words are necessary, would on that occasion give us the reasons leading to that determination, because I am utterly unable, from the Debate which has taken place to-day, to understand why the word "habitually" or words anything like habitually are necessary. If we could have some clear reasons given it would help us very materially.
§ Sir C. HENRYI shall accede to the request of the right lion. Gentleman and withdraw this Amendment, but I would like to say that I attach the greatest importance to the word "habitually." or 187 some other word with a similar meaning. Without the word "primarily" or "habitually" the Bill will fail.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "metals" ["dealing in metals"], to insert the words, "Provided also that no licence shall be required when the winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing is carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom."
I understand that the Government accept the Amendment in that form, therefore I will not delay the Committee.
Mr. RUNCIMANMay we have some explanation of what is meant by the words "wholly outside"? This is a material alteration which has been made in the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Baronet. Would a case, for instance, of a firm, with its headquarters in London, doing a large business wholly in Spain in winning, extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing in metals, come within the scope of this Bill simply because it has its headquarters in London? For what reason was the Amendment which stands on the Paper unsatisfactory?
Sir A. WILLI AMSONMy Amendment on the Paper contains the word "wholly." I drew the attention of the Committee to the matter at an early stage this afternoon, and I understand that the Government are going to consider the exact bearing of the word "wholly" between now and the Report stage, and if it is not quite satisfactory in protecting the position intended to be taken by the Government they will make some other Amendment on the Report stage.
Mr. RUNCIMANI regret I was not here earlier when the matter came on. Could the Government let us know exactly what they mean? Definition is a. very serious matter when you are inserting any of these adverbs. Cannot we have a statement as to the position of the Government in regard to the use of these words?
§ Mr. HEMMERDEAgain we come to a curious feature of the Bill, and we come to it when any one of these adverbs come to be put into the Bill. This matter will give rise to prosecution. A firm or individual who is carrying on business 188 abroad, because that business is in some way connected with this country can only be dealt with by the method of prosecution. A man who bonâ fide thinks that he does not come within this Clause can only be brought before the magistrates to prove that he does. I urge this to show the necessity of having some proper tribunal to deal with these matters.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEMay we have a specific answer to the questions put by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Runciman)? It is a little inconvenient if the Committee does not get information from the Government.
§ Mr. CLYDEAlready there has been accepted an Amendment to insert, after the word "dealing" ["refining or dealing"], the words, "within the United Kingdom," which makes that part of the Clause read:
"To carry on the business of extracting, smelting, dressing, refining, or dealing within the United Kingdom by way of wholesale trade."
That was an Amendment to do that which my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Stanley) said he would accept, and the acceptance of the words now proposed, "wholly outside the United Kingdom," is to make it perfectly clear that no licence whatever is to be required if the business is wholly outside the United Kingdom. Of course, if they have a business both inside and outside the United Kingdom, then they-must get a licence.
Mr. RUNCIMANThe point I was putting is this: You may have a firm here which in its London office is doing no transactions in metals at all, but in its foreign branch it may be conducting transactions in some of these metals. In those circumstances, would you regard that as a firm which must, of necessity, have a licence?
§ Mr. CLYDEThat is putting a hypothetical question, which is very difficult to answer categorically. It is the law that if a man acts by an agent he is himself responsible. But the word "agency" covers many things in business language, sometimes a completely distinct and self-governing branch of a business to which the law of agency might not apply. I cannot give a better explanation unless a concrete case is put to me. The point is that if a business is carried on wholly 189 or partly in the United Kingdom it must be licensed, but if carried on wholly outside the United Kingdom it need not be licensed. On the question of agency the answer must depend entirely upon the character of the agent and the nature of his relations with the principal.
Mr. RUNCIMANThis conversational method is somewhat difficult. As I understand the definition which has been given that would not meet the cases which my hon. Friend (Sir A. Williamson) wishes to meet by his Amendment. The effect of his Amendment as it is defined now is wholly useless to him, and I think those who are in the position of my hon. Friend had better bestir themselves if they wish to prevent the whole affairs of their concerns being overhauled under Section 2 and all their transactions of every sort and kind, because they happen to be conducting business in their foreign branches which are not dealt with in their home business.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI did not speak on this subject when I moved my Amendment, because I had had some conversation with certain individuals, and I thought the difficulty with regard to "wholly" was recognised and would be dealt with. The difficulty which I pointed out when I spoke earlier this afternoon is that of [inking up a house in this country with foreign branches. Under the Inland Revenue Acts these foreign branches are said to he carrying on business in this country because they are controlled here, and so closely allied and linked up with their firm in London that they are said technically to be carrying on business in this country. The words, "carry on business," appear in this Clause, therefore the wording comes very close to the words used in the Inland Revenue Acts, and I wanted by my Amendment to protect the position of a house with foreign branches, and which in those foreign branches might be conducting a purely local business abroad. I instanced earlier this afternoon the case of a firm with a branch in Bolivia which had sold some goods to some of the natives in Bolivia, and in return for those goods had received some tin concentrates which it had to sell in order to realise money. I pointed out that I thought it perfectly unnecessary that such a house, for such a purpose as that, should require a licence, and I also pointed out that that foreign branch might send tin 190 from Bolivia to California for sale, and that it was quite unnecessary that the London house should, because of that transaction, be considered to be within the purview of this Bill and to require a licence. I understood that the Government intended to protect that position, and that in such cases no licence would be required. But the words, "carry on," are rather dangerous, and I think, if the Government would give us an assurance that they would protect the position in these Cases, we might accept the situation.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI thought I had made it clear at the beginning that the cases referred to by my right hon. Friend were not intended to come within this Bill. A house in the United Kingdom having branches in some foreign country carrying on transactions in metals does not require a licence for those particular transactions. I thought that perhaps the word "wholly" was unnecessary, and I undertook, at an earlier stage, that any words that were unnecessary in order to secure what I have said would be put into the Bill.
§ Mr. HOLTIs this proviso in itself, as a matter of draftsmanship, desirable, having regard to the wording which has been already accepted from the hon. Baronet in this Clause? It seems to me that this proviso does not really take you any further, and that it is going to add nothing to the sense of the Clause, but to cause a certain amount of confusion and possibility of doubt.
§ Mr. L. JONESI would like to know how fir this goes? As I understood at the beginning, the President of the Board of Trade stated definitely that, provided the transactions were wholly carried on in foreign countries, there would be no need for a licence even though there was a London office. But these transactions to which attention has been drawn are controlled largely by the London office though the business is carried on wholly in foreign countries. For instance, in the transaction mentioned by the lion. Baronet, of buying tin concentrates in Bolivia and selling them in the United States, the actual terms of the bargain may be settled in the London office of the company concerned. Is that still a transaction carried on wholly in foreign countries, or in the case of that firm which has given its 191 sanction to, and very possibly prescribed the details of a transaction of this -character in foreign countries, and determines the conditions on which the bargain should be made—is that a business carried on wholly in foreign countries or would that firm have to take out a licence
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONThe hon. Member has misunderstood me. Such a transaction as that to which I referred would not be governed from London at all. London would have nothing whatever to say to it except to this extent, that they might possibly draw or remit on London because the settlement of nearly all these foreign transactions is by draft on London, but of course London would have nothing whatever to do with the transaction.
§ Mr. JONESIn the particular case referred to by the hon. Baronet that may be so, but I am only anxious to know how far this goes, and there are many cases in which transactions in foreign countries are carried on by reference to the London office before the transactions are concluded.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONThe position of the hon. Baronet is that the concentrates are not dealt with here, but the London office gets a profit, though they are dealing with them in a distant country. The tendency of this would be to keep these very metals out of the country. I was speaking to the manager of a Chili bank the other day. He told me that if we passed this Bill this is what would happen: They constantly get the concentrates sent from Chili and Bolivia on a bill of lading to Liverpool or Hamburg. Liverpool, he says, would be struck out now. I hope that you will pass this, because I am quite sure that when you have done so you will find that the Bill is an absolutely impossible Bill. We can control metals only at two sources, either at the mines or in the metal market. You have opened the door for the German to control them in the markets. It shows the utter futility of the Bill. Our object is to get the metal here, but this will send the metals away from you.
§ Mr. HOLTMay I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a specific question? If I write a letter to my agents at Suez and instruct them to buy old telegraph wires, and send them to Shanghai and sell them there, have I to get a licence?
§ Mr. CLYDEIt depends on what the lion. Gentleman means when he says "agents." In a big question of that sort it is impossible for an answer to be given in this House without knowing all the facts. The question would he whether it was really a case of an agent acting under instructions or whether there was, on the other hand, what you might call an entity of itself with authority of itself to make contracts and do its own dealings. That is a question of difficulty which he is asking me to solve in a general sentence, and I tell him frankly that I cannot do it, and I will not attempt to answer the question if he does not give me the details.
§ Mr. CLYDEIf the bargain is made here, and somebody else is told to carry it out, that is trading here, and you would need to take out a licence.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire that the whole controversy shows how impossible this Bill is. Consider what is going to happen when you attempt after the War to compete with the skilful German trader in foreign countries and what he will make of the limitations that all English traders will be under. No agreement, he will point out, can be made with English traders because they may lose their licence, and all these questions as to whether a business is carried on wholly abroad are going to raise the most intricate questions which will be susceptible of the most gross exaggeration in the mouths of rival traders. I believe that my hon. Friend is right in saying that we shall be simply shut out of trade after trade merely by this attempt to do what has been described as attempting to bomb German businesses. You are not going to bomb German businesses but you are going to bomb Liverpool businesses.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "apply," to insert the words "or which is controlled by a company, firm or individual in respect of which any such conditions apply."
As I pointed out previously, when I made a statement in the earlier part of the Debate, it is necessary that we should have some such Amendment as this in order to make it impossible for a German controlled company to set up a subsidiary company, and that that subsidiary com- 193 pany could carry on these operations, though the subsidiary company is not itself controlled by German finance.
§ Mr. L. JONESMay I ask why this important Government Amendment is not on the Paper '? This is a very important Bill. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is a considerable amount of misgiving about it among certain Members of the House, as is shown by the number of Amendments put down. The Government have had the whole of the Recess m which to consider Amendments to the Bill, and we have not this Government Amendment on the Paper. The Government attach importance to the Bill as is shown by the way in which they are pressing it, and I protest against their not taking the trouble to put down their Amendments on the Paper, so that we may have an opportunity of weighing up the effect of the Amendments. I have no desire to oppose this Amendment, so far as I understand it, because if the Bill is to operate at all it must apply to subsidiary companies, as well as to companies already mentioned in the Bill. But I do protest against this method, and I hope to-night, when we get to the end of our proceedings, that we shall have on the Paper any Amendments which the Government propose for to-morrow.
§ Sir A. STANLEYWe should have taken steps to deal with this matter before, and the only apology which I can give the members of the Committee is that, but for the House rising so early last night, we should have had it on the Paper. We are rather pressed at the present time, hut that is the real explanation why it is not on the Paper.
§ Sir A. WILLIAMSONI would like to put this to the President of the Board of Trade. Supposing a German firm was dealing in Spain or in South America, and they were in correspondence with a firm of brokers in London who had a licence to deal in metals, could they give an order to these brokers to execute it in their own name, under this Bill? It seems to me that there is nothing to prevent the brokers here in London, who hold a licence to deal in metals, from selling to some German firm in South America or somewhere abroad. It is very frequently the case that people buy copper ores, and that they want to hedge by selling copper bars here for three months' delivery; or they supply tin ores, and sell bar tin here as a hedge. These 194 transactions are frequently done by cable to some broker's firm in London. I want to know whether there is any provision in the Bill that would prevent undesirable people from carrying on these transactions through British brokers who hold a licence.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI cannot understand why these words are proposed at all, nor do I see the necessity for them. The Schedule says that "no licence-is to be granted to any firm to which this Schedule applies, or which is controlled by a company or firm," and so forth. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule contains the words "that the company, firm, or individual is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, to enemy influence or association," and there you have got it. There you have the means of control, as provided in the Schedule.
§ Mr. HOLTI agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman is wholly unnecessary, and it adds nothing whatever to the terms set out in the fifth paragraph of the Schedule. So far as they have any meaning, the words of the Amendment would only have the effect that. they will prohibit the dealing of a subsidiary company. But they would not prohibit the subsidiary of the subsidiary company. Everybody who knows anything of business is aware that there are many cases of subsidiaries to subsidiary companies. I should have thought that the words in the Schedule would have accounted for the subsidising of the subsidiary company, but, if that is not the case, then words should be put in to deal with it. The words proposed, I submit, are of no value whatever, and might as well be left out.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEThe words are not only of no value whatsoever, but they will do exactly the opposite of what is intended. If you put in the words, you are really not going to enlarge the scope of the Bill, hut you are going to limit it; whereas, at the present time, with the Schedule in its present form, and without these words, you can deal with a subsidiary to a subsidiary company, but, by limiting the Bill in this way, you will be actually undoing what you wish to do. These words had much better be left to the Report stage. No one has had time to consider them, and apparently the Government has not had any. I submit that these words will only 195 hamper us when we come to consider the Schedule, and I think the Amendment should be postponed until it can be put forward in a better form.
§ Mr. CLYDEAll that is said by the fifth paragraph of the Schedule is "that the company, firm, or individual is by any means whatever subject, directly or indirectly, to enemy influence or association," and I think that those words are perfectly clear, and that the Amendment now proposed is necessary.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. L. JONESI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "no" ["no licence shall be granted"], and to insert instead thereof the word "a."
The right hon. Gentleman will see another Amendment in my name taken along with this, and it will make the Clause read, "a licence shall be granted unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant is not expedient." I wish to do in this Clause what has already been done by the right lion. Gentleman in the announcement he made to-day as to Sub-section (5). The Amendment throws the onus of proof upon the Board of Trade. I wish the granting of the licence to all firms to be made as a matter of course, unless the Board of Trade have some reason for saying that a licence shall not be granted. That would leave them exactly the same power. They would have all the information brought to them, but it would relieve the trader of the necessity of going to the Board of Trade, if he holds himself to be a thoroughly innocent person trading in these metals. The Amendment does not interfere with the power of the Board of Trade; it simply brings the Sub-section into conformity with Sub-section (5), as it will be amended by the right hon. Gentleman. It will make the granting of a licence slightly easier than it would be under the Bill as it stands. We do not wish to interfere with trade, and I am sure that the whole House wishes that there should be as little interference as possible with those who are carrying on these trades. That is the universal desire of the House, and such opposition as there is to the Bill is due not to any quarrel with the purpose of the Government in trying to root out the mischief which has occurred in the past, but to the conviction that the proposals 196 made are ineffective for their purpose, while it is very much feared that general business is going to be interfered with by the operation of this measure. My Amendment will to some slight extent minimise the interference of the Board of Trade, and I submit that licences should be given as a matter of course, unless the Board of Trade sees any objection to that being done, and that there should be the least. interference possible with the trader.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment, which would involve a very drastic alteration in the principle on which the Bill is founded. It would really mean that any person or individual who came within the Schedule would be entitled to a licence, unless the Board of Trade deemed it inexpedient to grant the licence. On what ground could the Board of Trade establish a refusal? As I understand the Amendment, it would mean that the whole Schedule would be swept aside, and that it must be on some other grounds that the licence would be refused. What would those grounds be? I find it very difficult to say. By this Bill we have tried to make it as easy as possible for traders carrying on these trades in metal to secure a licence. If they do not come within this Schedule they obtain a. licence; if they do come within the Schedule, then the assumption is primâ facie that they are under some disability owing to the mere fact that they come within the Schedule. As the Bill is drafted it does provide that the Board of Trade shall not grant a licence to any of those who come within the Schedule, unless some reason can be shown why a licence should be granted. There will be instances where, by a mere technicality, some firm comes within the Schedule. Clearly advantage should not be taken of that; they would receive the licence. But there are other reasons. Supposing there is a firm that is really and genuinely under German control. I trust the hon. Member will deem it desirable that, if it can be done, that control should be removed. Is he going to suggest that the Board of Trade should give that firm a licence? Are we to assume that it is entitled to a licence, unless the Board of Trade can establish some other reasons why it is not entitled to a licence? Supposing it were not in the national interest that a licence should or should not be granted, who is going to determine whether it would be in the national interest or otherwise? As the Bill is drafted 197 I think we have made it perfectly clear that if a firm comes within the Schedule we have the right to refuse the licence; and if it does not come within the Schedule, then it is entitled to receive a licence. It seems to me quite clear that those who do come within the Schedule should not receive the licence, and that if this Amendment were accepted the whole object of this Bill would really be destroyed.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEThe right hon. Gentleman says that if an application comes within the provisions of the Schedule the people are not to get a licence, but that if they do not come within the pro visions then they get a licence. Who is to decide, and at what point of the transaction is it decided whether or not any particular firm comes or does not come within the provisions of the Schedule? Under Sub-section (5), if there is any dispute between the Board of Trade and the firm in question, it is referred to the High Court for determination. That is a secondary process in the case, and may be after the firm has undertaken a transaction. I do not think that the point has been made quite clear, nor do I think it was cleared up by the Lord Advocate in hi statement just now.
§ Sir A. STANLEYThe question of whether an applicant does or does not come within the Schedule would arise just as soon as the application was made for a licence. The Board of Trade would be entitled under this Bill to take such steps as might be necessary to ascertain whether the applicant did or did not come within the Schedule. If the investigation prove; that he does not he gets the licence, and if he does it does not follow that he would not get the licence; but on the question of fact as to whether the applicant does or does not come within the Schedule, that would be determined at the time application was made for a licence and by the Board of Trade. If there was a difference or dispute it would be referred to the High Court.
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEMust every transaction of this character be preceded by an application for a licence, because, if it and as the person may be subject to a penalty, every person concerned would be likely to precede any transaction by an application for a licence? That seems to me to be an extraordinary position to take 198 up in tine Bill, and I am sure it n, not the position which the right hon. Gentleman intended.
§ Mr. A. STRAUSSOn the occasion of the Second Reading the President of the Board of Trade laid great stress on a resolution from the Metal Exchange which approved of the principle of the Bill. I was in hopes that he would give equal weight to the resolution of the Metal Exchange which expressly declares this Amendment, or a similar Amendment, to be acceptable. I cannot conceive why the President should in one case tell us of the importance of a Metal Exchange resolution and in another case ignore it altogether. The Clause as it stands now is, in my opinion, absolutely mandatory, and gives the Board of Trade no choice. We have an example in the provision that the Board of Trade, unless for any special reason that appears to them expedient, shall stop any business, and that has been held ever since to be an absolute command to the Board of Trade to stop any business unless there are special reasons in the national interest why the business should continue. The President told us that lie does not intend to refuse a licence except in the case where it isabsolutely against the national interest, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer went even further and told us that he would not refuse a licence probably in one case out of a hundred. I have not the slightest doubt that as long as the President is in office he intends to carry that out. But he knows as well as I do that Ministers change. I have been long enough a Member of the House to see more than a dozen Presidents of the Board of Trade, and I doubt whether he himself thinks he will be President five years after the termination of the War. We must not look to his good intentions or benevolence, but to the wording of the Bill, which distinctly says that no licence shall be granted unless for special reasons. That means that all licences are to be refused unless a man can show that it is in the national interest that he should obtain such a licence.
The question, of course, arises, How will the Board of Trade know to whom to give a licence and in what cases they should refuse? You cannot expect any official of the Board of Trade to know sufficient t.f the metal trade as to know exactly which firms are likely to be suspect of doing that which you want to prevent them from 199 doing or which of the firms on the Metal Exchange are quite above suspicion. He is bound to take the advice of some people who know the trade, and it. is very important to find out how that advice is to be given, and I will tell you how it is to be given. This Bill is the upshot of recommendations of the Non-Ferrous Metals Committee which was established by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded the present President in his office, and not for the purpose of getting a Bill like this. The reference to that Committee was to see how we could increase our oversea trade and to recommend what could be done to recover the non-ferrous metals trade which might have suffered through the process of the War. The Committee went far beyond its reference in recommending this Bill. There must be something more behind. It is quite clear that as the Government have put their Bill before us in consequence of the recommendations of this Committee that when the Bill becomes an Act they will take the advice of that Committee. In order to know what that advice would be I think it is only fair to the Committee that. we should look a little behind the scenes of that Committee. Of whom does that Committee consist? It consists of the very men who are going to find the money and going to form the syndicate which wants the protection of this Bill and who told the Government that they would not find this money unless this Bill becomes law. It is the same scandal as that which we had in the trading bank. This Bill is recommended by the men who will directly benefit themselves. They are going to form this new metal company—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Donald Maclean)As far as I can gather from w hat the hon. Member is now saying, he is making a Second Reading speech.
§ Mr. STRAUSSWith all due respect, I am arguing as to whose advice the President of the Board of Trade is going to take, and I think it is very essential for the Committee to know whether that advice is likely to be a pure or tainted one. I am sure that the only advice they can get or are likely to get is a tainted one, and so I have tried to show to the Committee one of the means he has already established.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe real point of the Amendment before the Com- 200 mittee is whether the assumption is to be that the licence is to be granted or is the assumption to be that it shall not.
§ Sir C. HENRYIf the hon. Member pursues this point about the composition of this Committee, may I ask are other hon. Members not entitled to answer him?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIt is out of order.
§ Sir C. HENRYThe hon. Member has made an indictment against certain members of the Committee which was appointed by the Board of Trade. He practically accused them of drafting this Bill in their own interests. May I ask whether that is to be allowed to pass unanswered?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANAs soon as I gathered what the hon. Gentleman was really saying I called him to order. The hon. Baronet, in raising the point of Order, has called attention to what has been said, but I cannot allow the subject to be pursued further.
§ Mr. STRAUSSI follow your ruling, and will riot go further into the matter on this occasion. The question now arises how far the Government will follow the recommendation of the members of the Metal Exchange in giving licences to everybody who is not suspect, but refusing licences to those who are likely to have dealings with that combination against which this Bill is more particularly directed. I should imagine that the members of the Metal Exchange are far better able to judge, because they have recommended the principles of the Bill.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is not the point.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESI do not suggest that this Amendment has been moved for the purpose of wrecking the Bill, but I am satisfied that that is the effect of it. As the Bill stands, it provides that if a firm comes within the conditions of the Schedule that is primâ facie a reason for their not having a licence, and that reason has got to be got rid of, and the Board of Trade have got to have some special reason why they should give a licence. The Amendment provides the opposite. It provides that if a firm comes within these conditions that should be a primâ facie case why it should have a licence. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] With great respect, I think I am right, as the Clause 201 would then be that if a company came within these conditions a licence should be granted. It is a primâ facie case for granting it a licence unless the Board of Trade for some special reason think the grant of a licence is not expedient.
§ Mr. L. JONESThe point my hon. Friend makes is quite good, but he must recognise that I was limited by the drafting of the Bill. Of course this Clause would read much better if, should my Amendment be accepted, it were altogether reworded. My object is shortly this, that everybody should be given a licence to trade in metals unless the Board of Trade has some reason to suspect the firm or individual.
§ Mr. GLYN-JONESIf that were done, I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leif Jones), and those who oppose this Bill, would say that you are giving to the Board of Trade the right to grant or not grant licences, and I think it is infinitely preferable that the House of Commons should set out conditions which, in the opinion of the House of Commons, if they apply to a company that company should not have a licence. It is taking a certain amount of discretion from the Board of Trade and putting it in an Act of Parliament. At any rate, it is quite clear that the Amendment cannot be accepted without wrecking the Bill. I may be stupid, but I do not quite appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. Member for Bristol (Sir C. Hobhouse). He asks at what stage does the question arise whether the conditions exist or not, and how is a firm to know? As I understand it, the Bill says that if you do certain things you must apply for a licence; if you do not come within the conditions, you get your licence; if the Board of Trade think you do come within the conditions, they refuse the licence; and if you still think you are entitled to a licence, you may go to a Court and the Court may decide between you. I understand the right hon. Gentleman said that does not get rid of the difficulty as to how a person is to know before entering into transactions whether they come within the conditions or not. As I understand it, it seems to me it is the business of any firm to know whether the transactions they are going to carry out are of a character to bring them within the Bill. If they have doubts, their business is to apply for a licence. If they chose to take the risk they may be prosecuted for carrying out those transactions without applying for a licence, but surely 202 that is exactly what happens in regard to every matter for which a person is required to be licensed. That is the inevitable result of licensing. If people chose to take the risk of doing things without being licensed on the assumption that no licence is required, that is a risk they take and is inevitable. The House, on Second Reading, decided that licences were required for this purpose, and, therefore, I for one cannot see any great. difficulty in the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman; and as to this Amendment it is quite clear that, unless the Bill is to be wrecked, the Amendment cannot be accepted.
§ Mr. D. MASONI think the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment has raised a most important point of principle, because the actual wording, which he himself stated would have to be altered, could easily be altered on Report, provided the principle is agreed to, namely, that a licence shall be granted unless it can be shown to the Board of Trade that it should not be granted. While many object to this Bill, all are agreed that if it is to come it should come with the minimum of inconvenience. In the Clause it states "unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant of a licence is expedient," they are to have the decision if the Bill remains as at present. If my right lion. Friend's Amendment is carried it will still have the decision, but the main point is, as he pointed out, that you would have licences granted easily and without any difficulty, and it would not alter the character of the Bill, as the President of the Board of Trade pointed out, because the power would still remain with the President of the Board of Trade to refuse these licences. But what would be an immense advantage to the general trade would be that traders would not have to ransack their brains and go through their business to find out whether they come within the Schedule or not, but the Board of Trade would look into any case that was undesirable and refuse such a licence. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will press his Amendment, which, I think, is a most important one. If we could get the Bill turned round, as he proposes, so as to reduce the friction and the trouble and inconvenience to traders in having to go before the Board of Trade, and in having to employ people to make their applications to show cause why they should have a licence, and, instead, the licence should be granted freely, unless the 203 Board of Trade thought fit to refuse it, I think my right hon. Friend would have achieved a great advantage, and I hope he will press his Amendment to a Division. It seems to me to go to the very root of the Bill in the sense, not of altering the Bill, but of altering the machinery of the Bill.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI think that the Government might yield to this. The intention of my right hon. Friend is a presumption in favour of the applicant. As a matter of fact, when you look at the Bill further you see that what the President of the Board of Trade says about granting a licence if none of these conditions apply is very much restricted, because it says here:
"but save as aforesaid any company, firm, or individual carrying on or proposing to carry on such business as aforesaid shall on making application in the prescribed manner, and on furnishing such information and allowing inspection of such books and documents as may be reasonably required, and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to a licence under this Act."
So that you see, whether it is in the positive or the negative, an ordinary innocent trader will not get his licence as a matter of course unless he allows inspection of his books and discloses documents and so forth. That shows that in either case, whether he is an innocent person or whether he is suspected of German control, he has got to produce the evidence according to this Bill. I hope to alter it in Amendments, but there it is, and my view is, having regard to the Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) and myself with regard to statutory declarations coming later on, there ought to be a presumption that he is an innocent man if he makes a statutory declaration that he has no enemy influence.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now arguing an Amendment which I think is subsequently on the Paper. We really must have a discussion on something which is definite, and the point, as I have already said, is whether the presumption is that a person is to have a licence or not. It is quite simple.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI was only referring to this indirectly to show it was a protection, but I think the presumption ought to 204 be in favour of the man, and a licence should be given until it is shown in subsequent investigation that he is not entitled to it, because in any case, licence or no licence, you have to make an inspection according to your own Bill.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI quite sympathise with the objection of the Government to the actual wording of the Amendment, and I think that the Amendment that is down in my name, and that of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, would get rid of some of the objections, and I would like to know whether the Government would be prepared to consider that slight change. The Clause will then read—it is a very slight difference in wording, but I think it is of very considerable importance—
"In the case of a company, firm, or individual with respect to which any of the conditions set forth in the Schedule to this Act apply, no licence shall be granted if the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant of a licence is inexpedient."
That avoids the difficulty of the suggestion that the Clause is almost mandatory for granting licences.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member is now arguing a subsequent Amendment on the Paper down in his own name. I must assume that the Minister in charge of the Bill had that m his mind when speaking on this Amendment. We must have some decision on the Amendment.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEAs a matter of fact, the two things were so alike I did not imagine we wanted to have two arguments on these two Amendments, and I did not wish to waste time but to save it, because I am quite sure my right hon. Friend would be willing, if the Government showed the slightest indication of accepting, to withdraw his Amendment at once. If I may address myself to the Amendment now before the Committee, I just want to draw the President's attention to what, I think, is the grave importance of the issue now raised upon this question—the question really, as you said, of the burden of proof in this case. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say I think this goes to the root of the whole Bill. Far from being put forward with the idea of wrecking the Bill, it seems to me to raise a most important and vital point of principle. I cannot see what is meant by the assertion that, merely because one suggests 205 that the Board of Trade should have to show a special reason for not granting a licence, one is wrecking the Bill. When you look at the conditions, just think what it is you are doing! You are doing for the first time what has never been attempted in the history of this country, and when you have done it you tell the man, who is. the victim of the process, that the burden of proof is on him to show why he should not be treated in that way. You are actually going to say here that, although a man may have left an enemy country just after he was born and came to this country, is a naturalised citizen, has lived his whole life in this country, and perhaps married a British wife and has sons who are British citizens, and the whole of his interests are British—you are going to say that, merely because a man like that is a director of a company, or partner in a firm, or otherwise employed in one of those firms, no licence shall be granted to any firm with which that man is connected, unless the Board of Trade are of opinion for some special reason that the grant of the licence is expedient. It may be the Bill, but I think it is not only a grave injustice, but a travesty on the notion of English fair play. It seems to me that if you are going—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not know how many times I shall have to draw attention to the fact that this is not a general discussion. I have already indicated twice that the point at issue is much smaller than that to which some hon. Members are desirous of directing their remarks.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEOn that point of Order, Sir Donald, I do not want to go beyond your ruling, but how can one argue the question as to whom the burden of proof shall lie on without examining the question as to what it is that has to be proved? I am trying—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have had three such speeches on that point, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was present and was listening to those speeches. If he wants any idea as to how he can keep to the point, he may follow those lines.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI hope I shall not transgress your ruling in drawing attention to the conditions again, because it seems to me—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANIf the hon. and learned Gentleman pursues that line, I am afraid I shall have to ask him to bring his remarks to a close.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI am sure that would not in any way willingly transgress your ruling. I rather gathered that your ruling was that one must not go into the conditions at any length, but that one may, at any rate, point out what were the conditions; otherwise there would be no question of deciding or arguing upon whom the burden of proof would lie. I want, however, to appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. Is it not possible to conserve every useful object in this Bill by saying that if these conditions—very drastic conditions—apply, a licence shall not be granted if the Board of Trade consider it inexpedient, instead of saying that a man who has happened to be under these drastic conditions shall satisfy the Board of Trade? As was pointed out before, the effect of these words, which follow very nearly, indeed exactly, the wording of the Trading With the Enemy Act, is that you are actually going to make it—if you keep in these words "for any special reason"—practically mandatory on the Board of Trade in every case where any of these conditions apply—even conditions as to enemy capital of any sort—to disallow the licence. I suggest to the President that that is absolutely unnecessary for the purpose. The Board of Trade can keep entire control of the situation without putting any such burden upon the man at all. It seems to me to be simply raising absolutely unnecessary obstacles in the case. I ask the President, if he cannot consider the exact form of words in this Amendment, to give sympathetic considerasion either to a similar form of words which really conserve every object he has in this Bill, without at the same time throwing this burden of proof upon the people who are going to be subject to such very novel conditions.
§ The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart)I appeal to the Committee to come now to a decision upon this Amendment. I should like to suggest that the best way in which my right hon. Friend. can deal with this matter, after the illuminating discussion we have had. is to withdraw his Amendment. I would also venture upon the suggestion that we should cease to anticipate later Amendments which are upon the Paper. If I rightly understood my hon. and learned Friend, 207 whatever the effect his observations may have been intended to have, his speech was one directed against the Amendment which is now before the Committee. May I ask, in a sentence, what is the object of this Bill? It is to give the Government, for reasons which have been amply explored in the Debate on the Second Reading, control of a certain kind of industry. For that purpose there is to be a licence issued by the Board of Trade to the. persons who are to be permitted to carry on that business. It follows that a test, a criterion, must be set up. That test and that criterion are to be found in the conditions contained in the Schedule of the Bill. The scheme of the Bill is this: If a company, firm, or individual comes under the conditions in the Schedule, no licence is to be granted, but a licence may be granted if for special reasons the Board of Trade think it expedient. that there should be one. One of my hon. Friends used an expression which I venture to think was correct, that the object. of this Amendment was to turn the Bill the other way round. That is so. The Bill sets up a certain test or criterion upon satisfaction of which a person is excluded from the carrying on of this business. This Amendment proposes that once that test is satisfied the person shall carry on this business. It turns the Bill the other way round in what I venture to say is a perfectly grotesque fashion. What does it mean? The Bill having set up this test, which, if it is fulfilled, is to exclude a person from carrying on a certain business, that person is not to be excluded unless something else also is found to exist, something not defined; therefore the seal test and criterion would become a matter not set out in the Schedule at. all.
§ Sir G. HEWARTI say that whatever the object of this Amendment, the effect of it is to turn this Bill inside out and upside down. As the Bill stands, if these conditions are fulfilled, or if any of them is fulfilled, a company, firm, or individual is not to have a licence unless upon the considerations particular to the case the Board of Trade thinks that the licence should be granted. If the test and criterion is right that, I submit, is a businesslike procedure. To set up this test to exclude, and then to say that the person satisfying the terms of the test is to have a licence seems to me to be a mistake. May I suggest the withdrawal of the Amend- 208 ment, and the raising of the real point upon some one of the many later Amendments which do raise an important question?
§ Sir C. HOBHOUSEThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the question which I put earlier in this discussion, and I shall be much obliged to him if lie will do so. A statement coming from the Back Benches, however good is the knowledge of law of the hon. Member making it, does not carry the same weight as a statement made from the Front Bench opposite. I have constituents who are engaged in commercial operations which will be affected by the passage of this Bill, and they desire to know, and I want an explicit statement from the Government, whether before they engage in any transactions in non-ferrous metals, they have to make an application to the Board of Trade for a licence, or, failing to make such application, whether they run the risk of being brought. before the Courts? It is dear under the Bill that if they make an application to the Board of Trade so as to protect themselves from ulterior consequences they must furnish certain information and allow certain books and documents to be inspected before they can get their licence. This will probably prevent small habitual transactions, perhaps even primary ones, because of the delay that will be involved by the presentation of these documents.
§ Sir G. HEWARTIt seems to me that under the terms of the Bill the matter is plain. The hypothesis of the Bill is that either the case will be an isolated transaction, or, if not that, the first transaction, to be followed by a series of transactions not yet disclosed. It would be a. question of fact in each case whether that which was being done was carrying on a business. No doubt it is easy to imagine difficult cases, but in the particular case to which attention is directed I should have thought that everything depended upon whether what was being done could fairly, in all the circumstances of the case, be described as carrying on a business. An isolated transaction per se could hardly be so called, but as a beginning of other transactions it would be carrying on a business.
§ Mr. HOLTThe learned Solicitor-General in his previous speech refused to accept this Amendment and declared that he considered this class of Amendment would in effect turn the Bill upside down and inside out. The Amend- 209 meat aims at establishing this: that a person in the position the Schedule specifies shall have a licence unless the Board of Trade decide to the contrary. That is the presumption. The Amendment aims at making it the presumption that a person in the Schedule shall have a licence. The Solicitor-General says, "No; the presumption must be that persons in the Schedule are not to have a licence." I cannot help thinking that the Solicitor-General, when he takes that line, must have entirely forgotten what the case is that has been made for the Bill. From start to finish of the Second Reading Debate there was never any suggestion that there was more than one person whom it was proposed to treat under the provisions of this Bill. There must be many scores of persons to whom the provisions of this Schedule will apply. Nobody has ever said that any one of them was a bad fellow except the Metallgesellschaft and the persons connected with that company, and the whole case for the Bill is that there is one particular person who is endeavouring to capture British trade. There has never been any suggestion that the trading of these people has ever done any harm or that it is necessary they should be prevented from carrying on trade in this country. When you bring in an Act in the most general terms with the object of hitting one person, and one person only, it is a monstrous thing that it should be allowed to be directed against a large number of other innocent persons—
§ The DEPUTY -CHAIRMANSurely that is a point which has already been dealt with.
§ Mr. HOLTI did not understand that the point that the Bill is aimed at one person only has already been dealt with. I hope, however, my hon. Friend will not withdraw his Amendment, but that we shall go to a Division to decide the question upon whom the onus of proof is to lie.
§ Mr. L. JONESI want to say a word or two upon a point which was raised by the Solicitor-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman appealed to me to withdraw my Amendment, and he took full advantage of the verbal difficulty in which I am placed by the form in which I have been obliged to put down my Amendment. I admit that the Bill would read very awkwardly by the insertion of the words I propose, but it would read a good deal better if the 210 Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me were accepted in its place. The Solicitor-General says you are going to turn the Bill upside down, and the Schedule means that there must be a prima facie case against any person who comes under it, and unless that case can be upset he is not to have a licence. I wish to upset that on the ground that I believe that the Schedule is far too stiff and autocratic a proposal for dealing with such delicate questions as those which will have to be decided in order to control these matters in the way the Board of Trade desires. It is because I think that by a guillotine Schedule of this kind, which falls upon a certain set of conditions, you will hit people who ought not to be hit, and you will hit innocent people who cught to be allowed to trade here that I am opposed to this provision. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept my method, I would give automatically a licence to everybody, unless the Board of Trade had positive reasons to allege against such licence being given. You could set out certain primâ facie reasons in the Schedule. I am going to ask leave to withdraw the. Amendment, because I admit that verbally it is not in the form which the Committee might well accept, but I do not withdraw the substance. I am fighting for the principle that, as far as possible, people shall be allowed to trade in these metals, the same as in everything else in this country, with as little interference as possible from the Board of Trade. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"]
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "shall" ["shall be granted"], to insert the words "(subject as in this Section hereinafter provided)."
The object of this Amendment is to cover certain words which are to be subsequently inserted dealing with the question of a statutory declaration. This I admit is rather an inconvenient time to discuss the words of this Amendment, because it raises the whole question of the proviso which has to be inserted as to the necessity of furnishing information in respect of books and documents. If the President of the Board of Trade has considered this Amendment he will see that it is moved simply to save certain provisos and Amendments that follow on the Paper. The Clause, including the whole of the 211 Amendments to which I had referred, would read in this way:
"No licence shall (subject as in this Section hereinafter provided) be granted if the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant of a licence is inexpedient, but save as aforesaid any company, firm, or individual carrying on or proposing to carry on such business as aforesaid shall, on making application in the prescribed manner, and on furnishing a statutory declaration to be made by all the directors of the company or all the members of the firm or the individual, as the case may be, that none of the said conditions apply to such company, firm, or individual, and on supplying such information as may be ordered in pursuance of the provision in that behalf in this Subsection hereinafter contained."
Then the proviso follows. The object of putting in these Amendments is to limit the extremely objectionable feature of the general examination of books and inspection provided for by the Act. The object which my Friends and I have in putting down this series of Amendments is to substitute for what is provided for in the Bill a statutory declaration by all the persons concerned that none of the conditions in the Act apply, and to provide that in case the Board of Trade were not satisfied with the declaration that is made they could apply by a short process to the High Court and give sufficient reason to order any firm or individual to furnish the information they require. I have had to take this Amendment somewhat out of order in order to put these words in at this particular moment, but I suggest that it would save a great deal of trouble to the officials if instead of the inspection or the furnishing of documents at such a time we were content with a statutory declaration with a right to apply to the High Court for inspection of all documents if necessary.
My object is to make the High Court the ultimate arbiter in all cases. Without going into any details, I may say that it is necessary to point out that this Amendment is part of a series of Amendments which deal with giving an appeal to the High Court and allowing them discretion in a number of cases. The Act already gives an appeal to the High Court in cases where there is a difference between the individual and the Board of Trade as to whether he does or does not come within the Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman 212 will find Amendments down suggesting that there should be an appeal to the High Court also upon questions of discretion, and I suggest also that there should also be an appeal to the High Court to prevent this unnecessary inspection of books, which all business men object to very strongly, and that you should be content, as the Inland Revenue authorities are content, with a statutory declaration, subject to a right to apply to the High Court in cases where there are good grounds for doing so. An appeal of this nature would give a very great deal of relief to the public, because they would feel that in legislation of this exceptional nature there was going to be the fullest possible protection for the individual, and that he would not lose any rights that have been given to him. I do not want to labour that point, and I have already pointed out that this Amendment I am now proposing is only part of a series of other Amendments dealing with the question of the High Court.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Sir A. STANLEYThere may be no special objection to the acceptance of this particular Amendment provided that it stood by itself, and if subsequent Amendments were not dependent upon its acceptance. It is precisely because we must presume that there are other Amendments to follow that we cannot accept this particular proposal. Obviously the object of these Amendments is to make it unnecessary to inspect all these books and documents in order to decide whether a case does or does not come within the Schedule. I cannot believe that any business man can really object to a reasonable inspection of these books and documents. I have been in business for a long time myself, and I cannot feel that in the very short time I have been in this House and since I have entered the political arena I have forgotten all about my business career. I say without the slightest hesitation that if I were in this particular trade I would not raise the slightest objection to the Clauses which are now proposed. After all, supposing that the Board of Trade did take a very arbitrary line and tried to interfere unnecessarily with any business and endeavoured to delve into documents and look into books that had no relation to the point at issue, what is the remedy? This Clause only allows the Board of Trade to take such steps as are reasonably required, and no more, and if those affected make an appeal to the Court then it will be for the Court to determine 213 whether the Board are attempting to unwisely exercise these powers. I cannot feel myself that there is any real foundation for any fear by those interested in the trade that any Government Department is going to take steps under this Bill which would be prejudicial to their case. It is suggested that a declaration by an applicant that he does not come within the Schedule ought in itself to be sufficient without any investigation, and that if the Board of Trade are not satisfied with the declaration, or are not satisfied that it is an honest declaration they can appeal to the Courts and the Courts can determine whether under these circumstances the Board of Trade shall be entitled to make an investigation of the documents or not. My view is that if anybody desires to evade the conditions of the Schedule he will not hesitate for a moment to make a false declaration. We do not in the least object to having this declaration made, and we should be quite willing that words to that effect should be introduced into the Bill, but it cannot stand by itself and exclude from the Board of Trade the right to make reasonable inspection of documents and of hooks solely with the object of determining whether the applicant does or does not come within the Schedule. We agree, as I said at the commencement of the Debate, that there should be some modificatoin in Sub-section (5) of Clause 1. It has been suggested that the burden of proof should be removed from the applicant, and I have said that we are willing to consider some alteration in the Sub-clause later on. In view of our being willing to modify that particular part of the Bill, it must be quite clear that the Board of Trade must have the power to make a reasonable, and only a reasonable, inspection of the books and papers of the firm, individual, or company making the application, so that it may establish the fact whether or not the applicant does or does not come within the Schedule. It seems to me that it would be almost impossible to work this Act in any other way. Surely the Board of Trade, using its powers of discretion, must determine as best it can whether a licence shall be issued or not, and in order to establish that fact it is absolutely necessary that there shall be an opportunity afforded for a reasonable inspection of the conduct of that particular firm. It is because we feel it is really necessary that we should have 214 this right of inspection, and because we are willing to qualify Sub-clause 5 that we must resist this Amendment.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI am not in the least impressed by what my right lion. Friend says about this inspection. He says he has been in business himself, but did he ever have a Board of Trade inspection in his office? Does he know what they do? Is there a single case in the Statutes giving power to any Government Department before the War to inspect a man's books? The Income Tax Commissioners have Lot the right to inspect books, and the Income Tax is the most important thing with which we have got to deal. Surely it should be sufficient if a man makes a statutory declaration. My right hon. Friend says that lie would be very likely to make that declaration if he wanted to get a licence. Would he? Would he not be subject to a penalty greater than that in the Bill, the penalty for perjury? Is he likely to perjure himself for the sake of getting a guinea licence to trade? What is going to happen? If the Board of Trade have any reasons to suspect a man's bona fides it will be open to them under a subsequent Amendment to go to the Courts and ask them for leave, and the Courts will grant it, but they will indicate what sort of documents are to be examined. There is a very grave objection to leaving this discretion to the Board of Trade. There is to be established a British Metallgesellschaft, and it will be anxious to find out what business is being done. We live in times when there are no illusions about us. We, know exactly what people are trying to find out, and I am perfectly certain that the Board of Trade inspector will go into things that have no relation whatever to the object that he wants to discover. If the Board of Trade went before the Courts the Courts would say "Yes, you may inspect the sale book, the purchase book, and the foreign correspondence, but there you are limited." You give here a general power of inspection to the Board of Trade. There is no limit to it. It is a monstrous thing. Remember, it is not a war measure at all. This does not come into operation until after the War. You will have a public Department with the right to do something which has never been done before.
I assure my right hon. Friend that the commercial community are just about as sick as they can be of control. One of the greatest of joys when peace comes will be 215 to get rid of these controls. Now, after the war, you are going to give us this control. It is a monstrous thing. A man gets a broker's licence on making a declaration. Why should you go beyond that here, unless you have some grounds for suspicion? Offer to let the man satisfy you by the production of books, if you like, but if you are going to search the books and make an adverse search, then you ought to go to the Courts and do it by order of the Courts. I cannot believe the view the right lion. Gentleman takes about the smallness of this inspection. It is an irksome and troublesome thing and a thing to which we British commercial men have never hitherto been subjected. We have resisted it even in the case of the Income Tax, and we shall continue to resist it as far as we can. It is a wrong thing for the purpose you have got in view to load a bother and trouble and an irksomeness on the commercial community by an inspection at your discretion. I trust the discretion of no public Department.
§ Mr. D. MASONThe President of the Board of Trade has said that if an applicant were to appeal to the Courts then the Courts would listen to his protest, but does he really seriously suggest that anybody who was being subjected to this inspection by the Board of Trade would protest, when upon that investigation depended whether he was to get his licence or not?
Mr. RUNCIMANOn a point of Order. We are getting on to rather a general discussion of a nature that does not appear to arise strictly on this Amendment, and I would ask you whether it is convenient. that on this Amendment we should be discussing the Amendment which will be moved by my hon. and learned Friend later. I have followed the discussion with as much care as possible, and we appear to have before us the most inconvenient Amendment for this discussion. If we can have the whole discussion upon this Amendment, well and good; but it would be a difficult thing if the Committee were to adopt a practice which has not been the usual practice of the House, and were to have a discussion simply upon a proviso. I would ask you whether it would not be more convenient if my hon. and learned Friend were to withdraw this Amendment and if we were to postpone the further discussion on the statutory declaration as an alternative' to the inspection by the 216 Board of Trade till we reach his substantive Motion? That course would appear to me to be more convenient, and if you gave your consent I would recommend my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his Amendment at once and to let us have the full discussion on the wider point.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEThis Amendment. has rather escaped my vigilance, and I do not now think that it is in the least necessary. It was necessary, but I have altered my subsequent Amendment, and I do not think it is now necessary. I would therefore ask leave to withdraw.
§ The CHAIRMANI might point out that the discussion has proceeded for nearly half-an-hour and the Government reply has been given. The hon. and learned Member opened with a considerable speech, in which he claimed that the Amendment was part. of his subsequent proposals, and I had of course marked those Amendments to come out if the present Amendment failed. It really is not right to take up so much time and then to ask leave to withdraw it.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI think the words are perfectly relevant, but I do not now think that they are necessary. I wish to assist the Committee by withdrawing words which I thought were necessary, but which now I do not think are necessary, although they are quite relevant. I think it would be very much more convenient if I withdrew, and we proceeded with the next Amendment.
Mr. RUNCIMANMight I also suggest that these words, as they are down on the Paper, will open the Clause to all manner of Amendments. One of the objections taken by the President of the Board of Trade was that the Amendment was of a very wide nature, much wider than that suggested in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend. It is only for the convenience of the Committee that I ask that we might be allowed to have this Amendment withdrawn and to have the discussion on the substantive Motion which comes a little further down on the Paper. If we have to continue the discussion on this Amendment we can do so, but with your permission it would be more convenient to adopt that course.
§ The CHAIRMANAs I conceive it, it would not be my duty to allow a repetition of the speeches already made when we come to the later point. I am always in favour 217 of taking the real specific point, but I cannot allow an Amendment to be discussed at some length and then withdrawn and the same thing brought up at a later stage. If it is the understanding of the Committee that there will not be any repetition, then I think the procedure will be businesslike.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI beg to move to leave out the word "unless" ["unless the Board are of opinion"], and to insert instead thereof the word "if."
I rather understood from the Government that, although they were not at all prepared to consider the form of words suggested by my right hon. Friend who sits below me (Mr. Leif Jones), there was less objection to these words. They did not suggest that they would accept them, but I would like to urge upon the President of the Board of Trade that there is really no objection whatever from his point of view to doing so. I can put my point quite shortly because I tried to argue it on the other Amendment but was stopped, as I was out of order. I only want to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that it "cannot possibly be said that this Amendment is going in any way to diminish his powers under the Bill. You are putting -very grave disabilities upon certain people for the first time. I suggest that when you are going to put a man who has been naturalised for many years under disabilities for the first time, the burden of proof should be with the Board of Trade, just as the President suggested the Government are ready to allow under Sub-section (5). T understand that the present position of the Government is that when it is a question whether or not a certain individual or firm comes within the Schedule, although the Bill as originally drafted says that where there is a question the burden -of proof should lie upon the person, the Government are now prepared to leave out certain words throwing the burden of proof in that case on the Board of Trade.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI wish to correct the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. In the case of Sub-section (5) what we propose is to delete the words after the word "determination" in line 16 down to and including the word "apply" in line 18.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI do not think the right hon. Gentleman will quarrel with me when I say that the Government upon that 218 Sub-section are prepared to accept a certain deletion which means that the burden of prof is no longer to be upon the person questioning the decision of the Board of Trade. Why cannot he give the person applying for a licence the wine privilege in this particular case? When you are practically putting penalties upon British subjects, it ought to lie on the Government Department to establish their case and not for a British subject to establish his case. The whole objection to this Sub-section comes from the bureaucratic idea which has arisen during this War that Departments simply wish to have an uncontrolled discretion in these matters. I suggest that in peace time we ought to watch with the greatest possible care any attempt by Government Departments to get any sort of unfettered control over the lives and the livings of British subjects. For the first time you are going to limit the rights to trade of a man who is a full British subject, and you say you will not give him a licence, not if the Board are of opinion that for any special reason the grant is inexpedient, but unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant of a licence is expedient. Why should you say we will limit for the first time the rights of a British subject and we will put the burden of proof upon him to satisfy a Government Department that we are doing it rightly? In what way will you diminish your efforts to control German penetration, or whatever the object of the Bill may be, by saying, when you are making these exceptional inroads upon the full citizenship of certain of our citizens, "We will not do it unless we, for special reasons, think it inexpedient to grant him a licence"? It is the only fair thing to do. If you look at all these conditions, you are really doing the most extreme thing. You are going much further than I am sure this House would ever dream of doing except under the stress of a great war. You are simply saying that the Department which is going to undo the present rights of these individuals—some of these individuals have actually, after being naturalised and de-nationalised, married English women and had English' children—shall say to these persons, "You shall not get your living in the future as you got it in the past, and you shall not do so unless the Board of Trade can establish that it is expedient for you to do so." So determined are the Government to carry on in peace tune these exceptional privileges granted under 219 the stress of war that upon this simple question of the burden of proof, where you are making these novel and unheard-of inroads upon the rights of individuals, they are not even prepared to concede that the burden of proof should lie upon the Government. I would urge the President to consider the very strong feeling that exists with regard to this Bill in this House and in the country, to make this small concession, which will not in any way limit his powers of controlling the trade, and to say that the burden of proof shall lie upon the Government Department which seeks to interfere with the full right of citizenship.
§ Sir C. CORYThis series of Amendments, of which the one under discussion is the first, give the Government every protection which they can reasonably require. The Clause as it stands will put all those in this class of trade to the inconvenience of having to apply for a licence and to subject them to the most obnoxious and inquisitorial procedure of having their books examined by the Board of Trade, a procedure to which they are not liable in the case of the Income Tax. It is an extraordinary procedure to which every business man strongly objects. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hemmerde) desires that everybody should be granted a licence on making a statutory declaration, and if the Board have any suspicion that he has not conformed to the Regulations laid down in the Schedule they can obtain, by procedure before the Courts, all the information and inspection of books they require. That is all they can reasonably require. I cannot for the life of me understand who is the person at the Board of Trade at the back of this legislation. I can hardly conceive that it is the right hon. Gentleman the President, because he appears in this House to be a more or less reasonable man. But he is in the unfortunate position—
§ The CHAIRMANThat is rather a general discussion. We are now only on the Question whether the words should be "unless it is inexpedient" or "if it is expedient."
§ Sir C. CORYI will bow to your ruling at once, Sir. I thought we we permitted to discuss now the whole series of Amendments.
§ The CHAIRMANNo.
§ Sir C. CORYIf that is not so, I must reserve what remarks I have to make for future Amendments. I can only reiterate the request made by other hon. Members that the Government should accept this most reasonable Amendment. It is in the interests of the Board of Trade that they should do so and show that reasonableness which I think they desire to show and which will help them in the Committee stage of this Bill.
§ Mr. A. STRAUSSI would only remind the President of one or two sentences he used on the Second Reading on this Bill. He said:
I desire to reassure the House on both these points. The Bill does not automatically exclude from licence any concern that falls within any of the provisions of the Schedule. The Schedule only enumerates the conditions which may bring an undertaking under review by the licensing authority."—[0FFICIAL REPORT. 3rd December, 1917, col. 171, Vol. C.]If he acts up to the spirit of those words, he will accept the Amendment, and not insist on the wording of the Bill, which is. contrary to that spirit.
§ Mr. BRUNNERI do not know much about Scottish law, and as there is no-English Law Officer here at present we must apply to the Lord Advocate to guide us. It is a maxim of English law that you are innocent until you are proved guilty. This Bill offends against that maxim. If this Amendment is not accepted the scheme of the Bill is that you are guilty until you have proved yourself innocent. wish the Solicitor-General was here to deal with that point. This is an extremely reasonable Amendment from that point of view. So far as I have heard, there is only one firm against which there is any complaint. I should be glad to hear from the Board of Trade if there are any others. If that is so, why should we not simply say that in that particular case they must stop trading, lose their business, and that anybody else can trade? If this Amendment is carried that will be achieved.
§ Mr. CLYDEThe hon. Member would be as right in saying that as he has no knowledge of the Scottish law so I have no knowledge of the English law. Perhaps I may comfort him with the assurance that the maxim which he says occupies such an honoured place in English law occupies a similar place in the law of Scotland. The complaint he mates has not only no foundation, but has already been fully met. He was quite right, in saying that as the Bill originally stood the burden of proving that a particular com- 221 pany, firm, or individual would not fall within the terms of the Schedule did rest on that company, firm, or individual. Therefore, his complaint would have been quite. understandable that it was making you prove yourself innocent before you had been proved guilty. It is precisely to take away that complaint that my right hon. Friend has promised to alter Subsection (5) by taking out the words which put that onus on the company, firm, or individual. Those are to go. Those having gone, would the hon. Member observe what is the point to which he applied his observation? I cannot think he realises how the matter stands. In the Sub-section with which we are now dealing, we deal with the case of a company which does come under the conditions of the Schedule. How can it come under it? It comes in in the usual way, the burden being upon the Board of Trade and not upon it. That is the onus question and the guilty matter, and therefore that satisfies his principle. That being so, in the case of a company with respect to which the conditions of the Schedule do apply, the burden of proof is on the Government Department which wants to enforce the Bill. Once you have got the company in that position, then the Subsection goes on to say that there may none the less be a licence granted. Here is where the hon. and learned Member for North-West Norfolk makes his proposition. Where the case is that a company, firm, or individual does come under one or other of the conditions of the Schedule, what is to happen? No licence shall be granted to it unless the Board of Trade thinks it is expedient to do so. "No," says the hon. and learned Gentleman, "you ought to say if the Board thinks it is inexpedient." The question of onus is gone. The only question in the matter of guilt or innocence is whether the company, firm, or individual is under German influence or German associations, and it is on that that his right to get a licence or the refusal of it depends. That is the crucial point to be established. It is not a question of the examination of books. The point on the question of guilt or innocence is, do you come within this Schedule or not? If that is established, prima facie you do not get your licence, the Board of Trade say, unless we find it expedient to do so. What is the real difference between that and saying it ought not to be given if you find it inexpedient? There is no difference of 222 onus at all. It is really nothing in the world out two forms of words which, so far as I can see, put exactly the same question in different ways. Is it worth while spending more time on this question?
§ Mr. HEMMERDEIf I really agreed with the right hon. Gentleman I should not waste one moment more upon it, but I disagree from him absolutely. I think he is quite wrong, and I think he forgets, in using these words, "guilt or innocence," where the real pinch of the Statute is going to come. Does anyone really think it is going to be difficult to establish certain of these conditions? When it comes to a question of a company being enemy controlled there is nothing I would not support to strengthen any provisions for dealing with companies which are enemy controlled in any way, but under Condition 1 you have this position, that a company has one director, who has once, perhaps fifty years ago, been an enemy subject, even though his father may have been in arms against that country—because I can give cases where men have actually left the country where their fathers fought against the Prussians, and still have to give up their rights of citizenship. It is perfectly easy to prove where Condition 1 applies. In the question of Condition 4, as to whether a company in this country has a certain holding of one-fifth in a concern in which there is also an enemy holding, that is a question of fact, and it is all very well to say we are going to give an appeal to, the High Court to decide as to whether or not people come within this, but the only case where an appeal would be of any value it all practically is under Condition 5. The other conditions are simply questions of fact upon which the burden of proof is of no importance whatsoever. Where the burden of proof becomes important is where you get a firm which for years has carried on business in this country and happens to have one or two directors who have not only been naturalised, but denaturalised, years ago, and whose sons are now British subjects in this country married to British wives. The pinch really comes not on the question as to whether you establish whether they come within the conditions or not, but having established that, which cannot be denied, as to whether you are then going to deprive these people of the right of trading, and the form, of words which the Government has chosen is going to make 223 it practically mandatory on the Board of Trade to deprive a firm in that position of the right of trading.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI do not know whether all the decisions I am alluding to are familiar to the right hon. Gentleman, but I believe the general effect of them is that a form of words exactly the same as in this Bill has been held to make it practically mandatory on the Board of Trade, unless they can show some absolutely special reason for disregarding it, to take away the right to trade in all cases where they come under any one of these conditions. It is the most vital point in the whole of this Bill on which side the burden of proof shall he in this case. It seems to me that every tenet of fair play is involved and the right hon. Gentleman, knowing the strong feeling that there is upon this question, says there is no difference. I think there is the whole difference in the world. He incidentally suggests that the really important point, the crux of the whole of this position, is whether the people come within the conditions or not. The conditions will generally be very easy to prove except Condition 5, and the Board of Trade does itself less than justice in putting upon these people an intolerable burden where it is suggested that the burden should be upon the Board of Trade, and my hon. Friend is perfectly right in saying you are reversing every rule of English and Scottish law, and the law of every civilised country in the world, when you suddenly alter the rights which a man for fifty years or more has enjoyed and say that upon him is to be the burden of showing why he should continue to enjoy them.
§ Mr. D. MASONI hope the hon. Member who moved this Amendment will press it to a Division, because I think it is really much better than the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sanders). It is complete in itself, and goes to the very root of the question, and there is no doubt in my mind as to the mandatory character of the provision in this ease. "Shall be granted" is unquestionably a mandatory provision. The insertion of words throwing the onus of proof on the Board of Trade seems to me to go to the very root of the question, which is why the Bill will he unpopular in its working 224 with the commercial community. If the Bill is to become law, why should not the President of the Board of Trade meet us in a sympathetic spirit, as the Solicitor-General did when he asked my right hon. Friend to withdraw his original Amendment taking out the word "no" and putting in "a licence shall be granted." I admit, and the Committee was inclined to agree with the Solicitor-General, that that would have been an awkward Amendment to carry, but this Amendment gives us what we all desire, namely, that the onus of proof should be thrown upon the Board of Trade. To suggest that this mandatory provision should go through, that no licence shall be granted unless the Board of Trade for any special reason thinks it expedient, seems to me to be entirely contrary to the whole spirit of either Scottish or English law and the traditions of this House. We desire to reduce friction to a minimum, and here is an opportunity which I hope the Lord Advocate will seize. He is an accomplished ornament of the law. He must understand that it is hound to lead to a great deal of friction and litigation and unnecessary trouble on the part of applicants who will be compelled to take action.
§ Mr. BRUNNERI do not think the Lord Advocate saw the point of the Amendment. I hope he does after the speech of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Hemmerde). The point is this. In our opinion everyone should be allowed to trade unless there is a good reason why he should not. As the Bill is drawn now, a great many people are prevented from trading unless the Board of Trade sees a good reason why they should trade. That is the distinction. That is what we want to avoid. We say every man ought to be presumed innocent until, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, he is guilty. The Board of Trade says every man who comes under the Schedule is guilty unless it thinks for some special reason that he should be deemed innocent. That is the difference between us. It is not a question whether they come under the Schedule or not.. That is not the point at all. The question we are discussing now as to the people who come under the Schedule is whether they shall be allowed to trade, and in our opinion they should be allowed unless the Board of Trade sees some particular reason why they should not.
§ Question put, "That the word 'unless' stand part of the Clause."
| Division No. 139.] | AYES. | [7.44 p.m. |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Gelder, Sir W. A. | O'Neill, Captain Hon. (Antrim, Mid) |
| Agg Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gibbs, Col. George Abraham | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Archdale, Lieut. Edward M. | Greig, Col. J. W. | Pennefather, Do Fonblanque |
| Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin | Gretton, Col. John | Perkins, Walter F. |
| Baird. John Lawrence | Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich) | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Prothero, Rt. Hon. Roland Edmund |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Hanson, Charles Augustin | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. |
| Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, South | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Rees, G. C. (Carnarvon, Arfon) |
| Barnett, Capt. R. W. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Richardson, Arthur (Rotherham) |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. George H. (Norwich) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Haslam, Lewis | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| .Bellairs, Commander C. W | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Robinson, Sidney |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Henry, Sir Charles (Shropshire) | Rowlands, James |
| Bigland, Alfred | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Rutherford, Sir W. (L'pool, W. Derby) |
| Bird, Alfred | Hewins William Albert Samuel | Shaw, Hon. A. |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Hibbert, Sir Henry F. | Smith, Capt. Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Bowden, Major G. R. Harland | Hinds, John | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Stanley,Rt.Hon.Sir A.H.(Asht'n-[...] Lyne) |
| Boyton, Sir James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Stanton, Charles Butt |
| Brace, Rt. Hon. William | Horne, E. | Swift, Rigby |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hudson, Walter | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hunt, Major Rowland | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Burn, Col. C. R. | Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. | Tickler, T. G. |
| Carew, C. R. S. | Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H. | Tootill, Robert |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Jones, 1. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Touche, Sir George Alexander |
| Cave, Rt Hon. Sir George | Jones, W. Kennedy (Hornsey) | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Jones, William S. Glyn (Stepney) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Clyde, J. Avon | Kenyon, Barnet | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Cochrane, Cecil Algernon | Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Coote, William | Layland-Barratt, Sir F. | Wardle, George J. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Cory, James Herbert (Cardiff) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Wheler, Major Granville C. H. |
| Coate, Colin R. | Lowe, Sir F. W. | White, Col. G. D. (Lancs, Southport) |
| Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, E.) | McCalmont, Brig.-Gen. Robert C. A. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeag[...] | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Henry Page | Mackinder, Haltord J. | Williams, Thomas J. (Swansea) |
| Crooks, Rt. Hon. William | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) | Wills, Major Sir Gilbert |
| Currie, George W. | Macpherson, James Ian | Wilson, Col. Leslie C. (Reading) |
| Dalrymple, Hon. H. H. | Marks, Sir George Croydon | Winfrey, Sir Richard |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Wood, Sir John (Stalybridge) |
| Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward | Morton, Sir Alpheus Cleophas | Worthington Evans, Major Sir L. |
| Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray | Mount, William Arthur | Yeo, Sir Alfred William |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert | Younger, Sir George |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam) | Neville, Reginald J. N. | |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham) | Nield. Sir Herbert | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Norman. Rt. Hon. Major Sir H. | Edmund Talbot and Capt. Guest. |
| NOES | ||
| Bliss, Joseph | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Maden, Sir John Henry | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Buxton, Noel | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, N.) |
| Cory. Sir Clifford John (St. Ives) | Millar, James Duncan | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Morrell, Philip | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nuttall, Harry | Wiles, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Notts, Fiushcliffe) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Jewett, Frederick William | Pringle, William M. R. | |
| King, Joseph | Raffan, Peter Wilson | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rendall, Athelstan | Holt and Mr. Brunner. |
§ The CHAIRMANThe next Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) [to leave out the words, "unless the Board of Trade are of opinion that for any special reason the grant of a licence is expedient"] cannot now be taken, as it has been cut out by the decision just arrived at.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 30.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am afraid that is so, as really my Amendment ought to have been taken before the one on which the Committee has divided.
§ Mr. HOLTI beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words, "for any special reason." I hope the President of the Board of Trade will meet me by accepting this Amendment.
§ Sir A. STANLEYYes, I accept it. Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. L. JONESI beg to move, in the same Sub-section, to leave out the words, "and on furnishing such information and allowing inspection of such books and documents as may be reasonably required and on payment of the prescribed fee."
I move this Amendment partly in order to enable the President of the Board of Trade to fulfil the promise he made in dealing with the first Amendment moved in Committee on this Bill. He then said that persons who did not come under the Schedule of the Bill, who made application, as a matter of right were entitled to a licence, and later on he added that they would automatically be entitled to receive a licence. These statements taken by themselves are very reassuring, and if I were confident that that was how the Bill was going to be worked, a great part of my objection would be removed. My anxiety is entirely on behalf of traders who are helping the country in which they are trading. If you leave in these words there is no proof to my mind of anything automatic or that anyone has a right to receive a licence. The Board of Trade is going to call on the trader apparently to produce his books and furnish any information that may be reasonably required, and I suppose the question whether or not such information is reasonably required will have to be determined by process of law. It will involve a good deal of trouble. In any case even the reasonable production of books must mean the giving of information to the Board of Trade which many traders may object to give, and which ought not to he demanded unless there is some imperative necessity for it. Then, again, the applicant is to be called on to pay a fee. I do not see why you should make the British trader pay a fee in order that he may carry on his business. It is not that you are going to confer any benefit on the trader. The Bill is not introduced on his behalf; it is brought forward solely, we are told, in the interests of the nation, and, that being so, what right have you to put a charge on the trader? Why should you put the expense of working this Act upon the men who happen to be engaged in these particular industries? They have done nothing wrong, and why impose any charge upon them? Any such charge ought to be borne by the nation which 228 requires that these regulations should be laid down, and I put it in all seriousness to the President of the Board of Trade—I do not expect him to accept my Amendment—that any fee charged for the licence should be purely a nominal fee and— not one intended to meet the expenses of the working of the Act. I press this point very strongly on the President of the Board of Trade. I urge him to accept my Amendment. There is also another point which may be perhaps a drafting matter. If my Amendment were accepted, the provision would read "on making application. in the prescribed manner be entitled to a licence under the Act." It will be for the Board of Trade to prescribe the manner in which the application should be made, and I do not. think this is the place to lay the particular conditions down. My argument is that you should leave the trader as free as possible. Do not interfere with him. My Amendment, if carried, would entitle the trader not within the Schedule to receive his licence automatically and as a matter of right, as was promised by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Sir A. STANLEYIn saying that I cannot accept the Amendment I anticipate I shall not be putting any disappointment on the right hon. Gentleman who has moved it. I am quite sure that the words. I used, and which he has quoted, do not really admit of any misinterpretation. On the occasion referred to I made it quite clear that all traders who come without the Schedule are as a matter of right automatically entitled to a licence, and the object of the words which it is now proposed to omit is solely to establish. the fact as to whether or not a trader comes within the Schedule,. It must be quite plain that there must be some inspection, some investigation, in order that we may determine that particular fact, and that is all we are proposing to do. If you take out these words, how are you going to do it? How are you going to establish the fact as to whether the applicant does not come within the Schedule, and, not coming in the Schedule, is entitled as a matter of right to a. licence? I am quite prepared to agree with hon. Members in saying that the trade of this country should be left as free as possible, and with just as little interference by any Government Department as is possible. That is, I venture to say, exactly what we are trying to do here. I 229 do not think it would be quite correct to say that those who are trading in these non-ferrous metals in this country will not secure any benefits whatever from this Bill. I think they will secure benefits from this Bill. Surely if we can deal with the German combination in this country, and can assist in making the British traders in this country more prosperous and able to carry on the business, we have conferred some benefit upon them, and I think that is a right and a proper thing for the Board of Trade to do. I think I am entitled to ask the members of this Committee to support me in my efforts to make this trade a real success. I believe this Bill will do it., and I cannot myself think that those who do require and make application for a licence to trade would really object to being asked to pay a nominal fee, because that is what it is, to cover the cost of administering this Act.
§ Mr. HOLTI hope my, right hon. Friend will stick to his point about this Amendment. I cannot see why the Board of Trade should begin by asking to see people's books. Surely it is quite time to ask for power to inspect books when the Board of Trade commences to proceed under Sub-section (5) of Clause 1. If the Board of Trade were to say, "Whenever we think fit to allege that you are not a person who ought to receive a licence, and you contest our allegation, you must produce books," I think that would be a reasonable proposal to make. But to say in advance, "You cannot have a licence at all without producing such books and documents as can be reasonably required," is an entirely wrong attitude for the Board of Trade to take up, and the effect will be that it will deter people who only deal in these articles to a small extent from taking out licences. That is the effect it will have, and if the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in doing that he will indeed have conferred on the people who get licences something for which they might properly pay a large fee. This provision that persons are to give all this information and produce all these books will do far more to confer a benefit on the traders in this particular class of article than anything else the Government can think of. That is not conferring a benefit on the country. What, in fact, it is going to do is to get this into a narrow little 230 ridge of persons who will make a fortune out of the trade, not by keeping the Germans out but by squeezing their English customers. I cannot see why the Government should hesitate to withdraw this demand, and to substitute for it a demand that whenever they think fit to contest a claim the books should be produced before the Law Courts. I think that would be reasonable. As to the fee, surely what the right hon. Gentleman said is very ominous. He said that by this system of licensing he is going to confer a, benefit on the trade. Does not that come near a vested interest, the very thing we are so frightened of? I hope the Government will still consider accepting this Amendment.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI am not impressed by what the President of the Board of Trade has said about benefiting the trade, nor with his arguments. When a man who is perfectly innocent, we will say, not tainted by the Schedule or any part of it, comes to the Board of Trade and asks for a licence he is immediately asked to produce his books, and to satisfy the Board of Trade representative that he does not come under any of these disabilities. I want to ask the Lord Advocate what is the necessity for producing the books to satisfy the Board of Trade on those points? The first is:
"That any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager or other principal officer employed by the company, firm, or individual is a person who is or has been an enemy."
What book is going to show that? The ledger? I do not know how you are going to get that information from a book. Then the second requirement is:
"That, in the case of a company, any capital of the company is or was at any time after the 12th day of November, 1917, held by or on behalf of an enemy."
How are you going to find that out, except by going to Somerset House?
§ Mr. HENDERSONVery well. What book are you going to search? You do not want to have a roving commission to find cut whether a man is such a person or not. That is surely much better met by the 231 Amendment which comes later where a man has to make a statutory declaration. Then the third requirement is
"That the company, firm, or individual is or was at any time after the 12th day of November; 1917, party to any agreement, arrangement or understanding which enables or enabled an enemy to influence the policy or conduct of the business."
What book is going to show that? I do not know. The understanding may not be recorded at all, and there comes my remedy, which is a statutory declaration. Then No. 4, I believe, you are going to strike out. If you are not, you are very foolish, because No. 4 will just go the whole way to defeat the proposed object of this Bill. I support my right hon. Friend's case. It is only right that we ought to be satisfied, the same as you are with any other licences, with a statutory declaration that a man, company, or firm do not come under any of these disabilities. You get no harm, and as for your inspection of books, I think it is a very wrong thing when a man comes and asks for a licence for you to say, "Make an appointment where I can go and inspect your books."
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now discussing the Amendment he wants to move later.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI will not say anything about the statutory declaration, then. My right hon. Friend moved this Amendment, which I thought was part of my Amendment, and it was with that that I was dealing.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is spiking his own guns. I took care to try and preserve his Amendment, but I cannot allow that to stand if he wants to debate it on this occasion.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI will not proceed further.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI think it would be extremely unfortunate if the Debate terminated so abruptly. I have hesitated to rise because I had hoped that the Lord Advocate was taking note of the objections in order to reply to them. I am at least unconvinced by the defence of these particular words put up recently by the President of the Board of Trade. There is no dispute as to the sincerity of his desire to safeguard and protect the interests of English traders, but where 232 some of us are inclined to join issue with him is as to the appropriateness of the method by which he and some of his colleagues in recent legislative proposals seek to achieve that object. It is certainly opposed to anything I have understood as a form of help to display your disposition to help them by hampering and hindering them on every opportunity, and calling on them for a very serious interference with their domestic methods of trade. I confess that in the light of the experience of the last two or three years I am very averse from giving any Department the power to call for the inspection of the books of particular business firms. There is no natural right, and certainly no right created by present circumstances of the War, to justify any Government Department in so infringing upon the privacy of business methods. I do not know why the Government obstinately persist in retaining these particular words. They are most offensive, they are quite unprecedented, and they only have for their sanction certain arbitrary executive acts which have happened in the last few years. They are certainly not a provision which ought to be retained as a part of our legislative machinery, and I think with my hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson)—add I shall be prepared to support his Amendment when is reached—that there is a far better way of securing the object the President of the Board of Trade says the Government have in view than the way provided by the insertion of these particular words. I still hope the Government will realise the reasonableness of the objection which is taken to these words and will reconsider their decision to retain them in the Bill
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The CHAIRMANWith regard to the next Amendment, which I understand the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. Henderson) wishes to move, providing for a statutory declaration, he will recollect that an hour ago I said we must not have a repetition of speeches. We have occupied half an hour on that question. I understand the hon. Member wishes to move his Amendment in this form: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "such information and allowing inspection of such books and documents as may be reasonably required," in order to insert instead thereof the words "a statutory declaration made by all the directors of the company, or members of the firm, or individual, as the 233 case may be, that in the case of such company, firm, or individual none of the said conditions apply."
§ Mr. HENDERSONI beg to move in that form, and I will follow your advice, Mr. Whitley, and say very little about this Amendment. I consider it a far more satisfactory method of satisfying the Board of Trade than that of the inspection and the method they propose. I cannot see what more they should want than what is customary for brokers and others who apply for licences, and who have to make a statutory declaration, and why you should require something that is quite unusual.
§ Mr. CLYDEOn the general question of interference with business I fully appreciate everything that hon. Members have said, but I do most sincerely say that they are exaggerating the point. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, for example, spoke of the inexpediency of forcing disclosures of domestic methods of trading and business methods. This Bill permits or authorises nothing of the sort, unless, indeed, the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe means that that would involve the disclosure of trading with the enemy associations. If he does not mean that, then I think I can satisfy him that he also is doing what I think other Members are doing, namely, unwittingly making a great. deal out of a very little. I suppose we cannot complain of that, because that is done frequently in opposing a Bill. What is it that this disclosure is required to perform? It is assumed by hon. Members that this disclosure is always to be made. That supposition is unfounded. It depends entirely upon whether the Board of Trade is satisfied or not whether any disclosure of the kind is asked. In a great many cases nothing of the kind would be asked or could be reasonably asked, and if it could not be reasonably asked the Board of Trade will not be entitled to ask for it. What is "reasonable"? We do not want to act unreasonably. [An HON. MEURER: "Government Departments do!"] A Government Department certainly ought to be reasonable. I want to get rid of the opinion that has been repeated over and ovr again, that this. is a demand to be made in every case as a condition of getting a licence. That is not so. It is not a demand which can be made in every case, but only where. it is reasonably required.
§ Mr. L. JONESI am very anxious to be convinced upon this point, but does the 234 right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me that this demand will not be put to every trader who applies for a licence? Am I wrong in supposing that questions will be prepared by the Board of Trade and will be sent to every applicant for a licence and he will be expected to answer them straight away? As to so far from this demand not being made by the Board of Trade, my opinion is that the procedure will be largely stereotyped and that every trader will be expected to submit to a series of questions which lie will have to answer, and that the officers entrusted by the Board of Trade with getting these answers and considering them will feel that they are mandatory, and that these answers must be considered in detail before any licence is granted.
§ Mr. CLYDESurely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to confuse the issue, but on reflection I think he will see that he is confusing it. The point with which I was endeavouring to deal was the suggestion that this proposal means that no licence can be granted without this demand for disclosure being made by the Government Department. It is no answer to say that certain information must be given, and that certain questions will be asked. The point is whether the disclosure of books and documents is essential in every case. It is not. More than that, it cannot reasonably be asked unless it is reasonably required. Look at. the words:
"shall, on making application in the prescribed manner, and on furnishing such information and allowing inspection of such books and documents as may be reasonably required."
Is the imagination of the right hon. Member so dull—I am sure it is not—that he cannot imagine any case in which the information either already available or supplied in answer to questions would be enough? Do not let us have it said again that the disclosure of books and documents and the revelation of business methods is a preliminary necessity to the granting of a licence. It is not.
§ Mr. JONESMy impression is that the Beard of Trade is empowered to get this information, and is empowered to inspect these books and documents, and whatever the right hon. and learned Member may say I believe that the Board of Trade Will exercise their powers. I do not in the least agree with him that they will be shy in exercising that power.
§ Mr. CLYDEThe difference between us is that I assume the Board of Trade will act reasonably on the whole, and my right hon. Friend thinks they will not. We shall never get any nearer than that. Where the Board of Trade are not satisfied with the information that is already available, or that is given in answer to questions, they will be entitled to get the information otherwise by the examination of books and documents, and I think they should do so. But inspection of this kind is not a necessary procedure. Is it so formidable as the hon. Member for Huddersfield seems to think, and are the criticisms of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire on the relation between the, conditions in the Schedule and the books and documents very well founded or made with sufficient consideration? First of all, the things which are to be established if they cannot be taken as proved on the information primâ facie before the Board of Trade is, according to the Schedule,
"any director of the company or any partner of the firm, or the individual, or any manager or other principal officer employed by the company, firm or individual, is a person who is or has been an enemy."
The records even of a limited company do not contain a precise account of a director. The conditions set forth in the Schedule is retrospective before the date of this Act. It dates back to any time before the 4th August, 1914. Of course, with regard to directors, managers, or principal officers, the written records of hooks and documents—
§ Mr. HENDERSONWhat books and documents? There should be some sort of definition as to what books you want to see. You should not give a general roving commission over books.
§ Mr. CLYDEThe hon. Member has used that expression "roving commission," and with all deference he has no right to use it. A roving commission is granted if you allow anybody to look at books without defining strictly what it is they shall do. A general roving commission is not given here, and I think the hon. Member's complaint about examination has very little foundation. The second condition set forth in the Schedule relates to the case of a company where any capital of the company is or was at any time after the 12th day of November, 1917, held by or on behalf of the enemy. The hon. Member 236 said that in the ease of a limited company we need riot go to the company's private records at all but that we could go to Somerset House. But suppose we cannot get the information we require at Somerset House.
§ Mr. HENDERSONMy point is, that in this Schedule you should describe or define the books from which you want to get any information. If you would say the minute books, or if you could restrict it? I know what official documents are.
§ Mr. CLYDEI should never dream of doing so, I am afraid, because I am too much of a lawyer. Accordingly what is wanted is whatever information is obtainable with regard to capital account should be got from the capital account. Take 3, "That the company, firm, or individual is or was at any time after 12th of November, 1917, a party to any agreement, arrangement, or understanding which enables or enabled any enemy to influence the policy or conduct of the business." Where do you expect to get that, if not from the company?
§ Mr. HENDERSONNot from a book.
§ Mr. CLYDEThe hon. Member is mistaken. Look at the Bill—"books or documents." If it is not in a book he should get it from a document. 4. "That the company or firm or individual is or was at any time after the 12th November, 1917, interested directly or indirectly to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital in any undertaking to which this Act applies in which enemies are interested directly or indirectly to the extent of one-fifth or more of the capital." The books will never do more than show that he had in fact a block of shares or capital placed in a firm or company, of which the books of the company would not contain any record at all. What is the objection to that from the point of view of the trader who does not want his business to be known? In everyday litigation for the purpose of establishing ordinary civil rights traders have to submit to disclosures a thousand times more inconvenient than these.
§ Mr. HENDERSONThat is under order of the Court.
§ Mr. CLYDEIt is an order to assert their ordinary civil rights. It is their condition of enforcing these rights, and this is a condition of enforcing these rights. The fact is that when this objection is examined closely, with all respect, 237 there is exceedingly little in it. All that is asked is the disclosure of such books and documents as are relevant to these five matters. If the hon. Member looks at the Bill he will see that, "save as aforesaid, any company, firm, or individual carrying on or proposing to carry on such business shall, on making application in the prescribed manner and on furnishing such information and allowing inspection of such books and documents as may be reasonably required and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to a licence under this Act."
§ Mr. HENDERSONThat is not relevant.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI really must protest against this way of carrying on a Debate. The hon. Member, by indulging in these constant interruptions is making it quite impossible for the reporters to arrive at anything like a consecutive idea of what is going on on the floor of the House.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI am very sorry. My right hon. Friend rather invited it, but, however, I apologise.
§ Mr. CLYDEAs far as I am concerned, the right hon. Member need not be in the least disturbed, but if he looks at the words which I have just read, he will see that the words are for the purpose of ascertaining whether a company comes under any of the conditions in the Schedule and not for the purpose of finding out what the natures of their transactions -are and who the customers are. These can only be asked for if it is reasonable for the purpose of getting the licence. That depends on not falling within any of the conditions, and it is for nothing else that we are asking to see the books and documents. I would ask the Committee to come to a decision on this matter. A great deal more is being made out of the point than would ever arise.
§ Mr. L. JONESThe right hon. Gentleman is most persuasive, and apparently most reasonable, and I feel it most difficult to resist him, but he is a lawyer, and he said just now that in every-day litigation traders have to submit to demands which are much more excessive. Quite so. It is our objection that you are introducing litigation into every business.
§ Mr. JONESIt is the right of every citizen of this country to carry on his trade freely, without the interference of Government or lawyers unless he is infringing some law. The Government do not understand the feeling of traders in this country if they do not realise the objection to setting up this new code of legislation which is going to interfere with the carrying on of business. The remark as to the demands made on traders in litigation throws a flood of light on the attitude of the Government towards the traders of his country: They do not want lawyers, except in exceptional cases, to interfere in their business. My right hon. Friend, to some extent, defended the wording of the Government, and, if he were to interpret the doctrine in the spirit which he has shown in this Debate, perhaps no great harm would come of it. But there is no proof that that is the way in which the Bill will be worked. Though the right hon. Gentleman defended the method of the Bill be did not nearly demolish the alternative method proposed in the Amendment which is very much better. What fault is to be found with the proposal which requires from a trader a declaration which will be a statutory declaration that he does not fall within the Schedule? If he makes a false declaration he becomes liable to the very heavy penalties provided in the Bill, and this would prevent practically any of the British traders from exposing themselves to the very great danger of a prosecution under the Bill, with the heavy penalties involved. To imagine that, with such a declaration from the trader, there would be any real danger of evasion or false declaration is a much more far-fetched supposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman than is the fear, which we have, as to wrongful meddling by the Board of Trade with particular trades, and I would suggest that if it were required of the traders in these metals to make a declaration that they did not fall within the Schedule I believe that the Board of Trade would thereby get a truthful return from these traders, they would have very little trouble, and they would get all the information required without all these questions being put or the books examined, unless there was a. prima facie case established against the firm when there could be an order of the Court to demand. the information and examine the 239 books. The Amendment is far superior to the method proposed in the Bill, and I will support it.
§ Mr. SHERWELLThe Lord Advocate in his speech just now, I think a little unwittingly, or at all events unconsciously, put forward a very strong argument for the adoption of the Amendment, for he gave us a distinct assurance, limited, of course, by the fact that he is not responsible for the administrative action of the Board of Trade, but subject to that limitation he gave us a definite assurance that the Board of Trade would not demand this access to books and documents unless, from other forms of knowledge or information, they felt it necessary to have additional facts. If that be so, and that being really the attitude of the Board of Trade towards this particular proposal in the Bill, what on earth prevents them from accepting the proposal of my lion. Friend, who says, "Let us make a statutory declaration, and let that declaration be accepted by the Board of Trade in the absence of presumptive evidence that more than that declaration is required"? So by pressing that point of his assurance that the Board of Trade did not contemplate arbitrary, dictatorial, or inquisitorial insistence upon this particular proposal, he really does reinforce the argument of my hon. and learned Friend for the adoption of this particular Amendment. Where we differ very seriously from the. Lord Advocate is that he attaches an importance to the word "reasonable" that some of us are quite incapable of attaching. After all, these matters must be judged in the light of experience. Whatever the Lord Advocate's view as a lawyer may be as to the word "reasonable" or "reasonably," the experience of business men who have come in contact with Government Departments is that they have discovered that the connotation of the word "reasonably" in their minds is not at all to be compared with the very proper and legal view which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just expressed. I think it is in the interests of the Government to allay as far as possible all the disquietude and misgivings which have arisen, and I support the omission of their own words in the Bill, and the acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI am against the view put forward by my right. hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, so very ably expressed, arid I have no doubt that 240 were these matters left in his hands we would find that they would be very reasonably administered; but I am afraid that human nature being what it is, and human feelings what they are, it will be found that these powers, if granted, will be exercised in a way which will cause the utmost inconvenience. During time of war we are all ready to suffer a great deal of inconvenience, but the bureaucrats put us to the maximum of inconvenience. I was told by a friend of mine the other day that he was importing a road sweeper, but it was treated as being a motor car, and. therefore could not be imported. For nine months that point of view was officially maintained by the Board, until finally it was acknowledged that by no stretch of imagination, even of official imagination or want of imagination, could a road sweeper be regarded as a motor car. That is an illustration of what arises upon giving powers such as these to bureaucrats. I know that these restrictions cause a large amount of inconvenience to the public, and I think people will be far better able to carry on their own affairs in their own way than any officials could carry them on for them. I put a question from that point of view which covers almost the whole of this discussion, to the President of the Board of Trade, on the occasion of his opening statement. I said to him, "Do you intend to modify your five years' period?" And he replied, "No, for five years you are to endure it." If we are to endure it for five years surely we are entitled to examine it closely and see whether it cannot be made a good deal less intolerable and burdenless.
What is the reason why we should be refused a modification in a matter of this kind? Why should we have this inquisitorial interference with business? Why should we not have this statutory declaration proposed in the Amendment? We have statutory declarations for many other purposes, and why not for this? Hundreds of millions of pounds now depend on statutory declarations? Why should you have this system of bureaucratic inquisition into affairs of trade? Why continue it after the War? We are suffering inconveniences even willingly during this period of war and great public stress, but why have five years in which we are to be subjected to this official and bureaucratic inquisition? It cannot be unknown to the President of the Board of Trade that the feeling of the commercial community against these restrictions is 241 great. I myself as a private Member am constantly being approached by persons of who I know nothing, begging me as a Member of Parliament to do my best to put an end to this intolerable state of affairs. That being so, why make restrictions of this kind unnecessarily Why not make it as easy as possible for every-body If you give these inquisitorial powers to bureaucrats they will cause the utmost inconvenience to the traders, because if they did not keep busy they would think that they were not earning their fee. For my part, I believe that most people would be inclined to pay a. heavy fee to avoid all these restrictions and inquisitorial examinations. As it is, people engaged in trade have to make an enormous number of returns and declarations of all kinds, and here we are adding to that great number, and adding to them in a way which is most offensive to the freedom-loving character of the people of this country. I trust that the President of the Board of Trade will see the desirability of simplifying the procedure under this Bill. We are asking for no departure from principle at all; we are not asking for a great reversal of principle; we merely ask that the procedure should be reasonable. The Lord Advocate was extremely reasonable in his argument, but we ask that you should be reasonable in your requirements, and that, indeed, you should be merciful to the people of this country, by avoiding what are becoming intolerable restrictions. I think that if we continue on these lines, you are likely to have a very serious uprising of public feeling against the whole of this legislation, which will be entirely swept away the moment that becomes possible.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI just want to put one point in reference to the question of the examination of books, in regard to which there is a very strong feeling outside. Only last week there was a very large meeting of smelters. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has received the resolution which was passed; it was a resolution urging the Government to accept the Amendment limiting the power of the Board of Trade to inspect. books and documents. There were also resolutions passed dealing with other points. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the words "reasonably required" were the key to the whole situation. But suppose the Board of Trade say, "We want certain books and documents," and that the man says he will 242 not supply them, then in that case the Board will not issue a licence unless the applicant takes proceedings by way of mandamus. On the other hand, suppose you accept the Amendment, the position is that in a case where the applicant will not furnish the documents, the Board are obliged to give him a licence unless they apply to the High Court, and if they apply they will get a decision of a judge in chambers at once as to whether the demand is reasonable or not. That method puts the burden of proof upon the Board of Trade, and provides a perfectly simple and reasonable procedure. If yon leave the matter as it is now, the man has to move in the Court, and that is what the whole thing amounts to. It seems to me that if there is to be the trouble of moving the Court, it should be trouble taken by the Government Department and not by the individual, and that is the principle which underlies a great many of the Amendments. It seems to me that the Government Departments, using the fact of the War as an excuse or an example, are trying to shift on to the individual things that ought to be done by them. Therefore, I do urge on the Government to accept these Amendments, which will do something towards restoring confidence amongst business people that they are to be unfettered and to be treated' as they were before the War, except when an application to the Court results in an order that they are to do something.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. A. STRAUSSI beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "fee" to insert the words "which shall not exceed. one guinea."
I had intended to move that the Amendment should not exceed five guineas, but the President, in his opening statement to-day, mentioned one guinea, and therefore I have altered my Amendment to that amount.
§ Mr. L. JONESI should like to support, the appeal to the President that if he does not put in the words "one guinea," at least he should insert some comparatively low limit to the licence. I would remind him that you have quite a large number of small traders who will be affected. For instance, in Cornwall there are very small people working in tin and in searching ore dumps, and to them even two guineas would be a substantial matter. Very often a business of the kind grows into something bigger, 243 and I think it would be a misfortune if you put on a large fee and excluded those small people. The statement of the President that the fee would be somewhere in the region of a guinea will do something to reassure those people, and that feeling would be further increased by the insertion of a limit. There is another reason why I do not like the licence system at all. I am very much afraid of vested interests growing up under the Act. People are apt to say if they pay a large fee, even for only a limited period, -that they paid for the privilege, and that it ought not to be taken from them. Nothing so tends to increase vested interests as large licence fees. In order to prevent the growth of vested interests and the feeling that the Board of Trade is conferring some favour in granting a licence, I want it to be understood that the ordinary British trader has the right to his licence, subject to very small fees necessary to find out whether he has such a right. To avoid vested interests, or the idea that a privilege is being conferred by giving a licence and in order not to interfere with small traders, I hope that the President will consent to put in the Bill some small limit.
§ Sir A. STANLEYAs I stated earlier this afternoon, we do not desire to charge any higher fee than would be involved in the cost of administering the Act. I suggested at that time that the fee would in all probability not exceed one guinea. I think it is better that no actual figures should be inserted in the Bill, but that it should be left open, at the same time accepting from me the statement that it is the view of the Treasury and of the Board of Trade that no higher fee should be charged than is necessary to meet the costs of administering the Act. A maximum figure has been suggested, and while I might be prepared to agree to that, I suggest it will be better to leave the question open based on the fact that no charge will be made beyond what is necessary.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI welcome the statement of the President, but I venture to suggest the object might be attained by putting in the words "not exceeding." I think it would be unfortunate if the small prospector were made to pay so high a fee as a guinea, and that in such cases a -registration fee of 5s. would be sufficient, having regard to the business done. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will 244 accept an upper limit of one guinea, and consider the question of reducing it in proper cases.
§ Mr. ROBERTSONMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has made any attempt at an estimate of the cost? The range of investigation might be considerable, and it is conceivable in such a case that a fairly large sum might be involved. In such an event the cost will be large. I hope he will consider the suggestion which has been made that there ought to be a graduation, and that the big man in the big business should really pay a larger fee than the small man. The licence of the man in the big business covers a much larger trade, and he can much better bear the burden, and if there is any kind of justice in a fee at all it is only fair that it should be according to scale.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEIf there has been no attempt to form an estimate at the present time, can we have the slightest security that the fee is going to be small? I do not myself see the connection between the amount of the licence duty and the cost, because surely this is, as we are given to understand, a temporary expedient for national trade defence. Why are these people to pay this expense? I have an uneasy feeling that you might find the expense considerable, and the apportionment among these people might be very difficult. Therefore I would prefer to have an amount stated now. There seems to be very different opinions as to how many people are to be affected. I have heard highest and lowest estimates, but on the whole it tends rather to the lowest. At any rate, I hope the President will not be led away by the desire of the Treasury to save money upon a matter which affects people who are simply the victims of what the Government regard as a necessary measure of trade defence.
§ Sir A. STANLEYIf it will facilitate matters, I am quite willing to agree that the maximum should be fixed at one guinea.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. TICKLERI beg to move, in Subsection (3), to leave out the words, "until the first day of January following the date of issue of the licence, but shall be renewable annually, and the same provisions shall apply to the renewal of the licence as apply to the grant of a licence," and to insert instead thereof the words, "for the period of the Act."
245 I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. George Terrell). I understand it has already been agreed to, and so I will content myself by formally moving it.
§ Sir C. HENRYMight I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner) and myself to stand? The President has said he will accept it. I do not see the object of putting in the words "for the period of the Act." I think it very necessary that these licences should be in force unless they are revoked.
§ Mr. TICKLERI am agreeable to that.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), leave out the words, "until the first day of January following the date of issue of the licence, but shall be renewable annually, and the same provisions shall apply to the renewal of the licence as apply to the grant of a licence."—[Sir C. Henry.]
§ Mr. BRUNNERI beg to move, in Subsection (5), after the word "individual" ["Board of Trade and any company, firm, or individual"], to insert the words "as to whether the company, firm, or individual is dealing by way of wholesale trade or not or."
9.0 P.M.
This seems to me to be purely drafting. The company, firm, or individual have a right to apply to the Court in a great many matters and the right to apply to get a decision as to whether the company, firm, or individual are dealing by way of wholesale trade or not. They apply to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade may assert they are trading by way of wholesale trade, and then they may assert they are trading by way of retail trade. Who is to decide it? There is nothing in the Bill, and I, therefore, move that these words be put in in order to meet that point.
§ Sir A. STANLEYIt seems to me that these words are really quite unnecessary. They are quite redundant. I think the Bill is clear that if there is any dispute as to whether or not a company, firm, or individual are dealing by way of wholesale trade it is for the Court to determine, and I think it is quite clear without the addition of these words.
§ Mr. BRUNNERWhere is that? I do not find it in the Bill.
§ Mr. A. STRAUSSWhen this question was raised at the beginning of our discussion, the President promised to issue rules showing exactly the demarcation and the various methods of dealing with wholesale and retail, if I understood him rightly. Does he see any objection to issuing those rules while the Committee stage is going on, so that the Committee may be able to judge whether they are really right or not?
§ Mr. BRUNNERI should like to know where the Bill says that it is to be determined by the High Court.
Mr. RUNCIMANThe point which has been made by my hon. Friend has not met with a reply from the President of the Board of Trade. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to point out in the Bill where the provision is made, as there is some doubt about it. I should also like, if possible, to ascertain what is the view of my right hon. Friend as to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Strauss). He asked whether it would be possible to circulate the rules before the House has finished with the discussion of this Bill. It would be rather a serious matter if, under the powers granted by this Bill, rules should be promulgated afterwards which in effect upset some of the decisions or opinions held generally by the Committee. If my right hon. Friend would undertake to have the rules circulated before the House finally disposes of the 13i11, we shall then know much better where we stand on the question of wholesale trade. The definition of "wholesale trade" I understand is to be left entirely to the Board of Trade in their rules. If my right hon. Friend will let us know when the rules will be circulated, and give us some assurance that the House will not part with the Bill until the rules have been circulated, we shall then know more where we stand. The point is of business importance, and if my right hon. Friend could give us that information it would be most helpful to the Committee.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI am not clear whether we shall reach Clause 4 to-night or not, but I will endeavour before we reach Clause 4 to see whether it is possible for us to draft rules which can be submitted to the Committee for consideration.
§ Mr. BRUNNERThis Amendment, then, I suppose, in the meantime will be 247 inserted in the Bill. There is nothing so far as I can see in the Act which would leave the matter to the High Court to determine. The only thing which could happen would be that if a man traded in the metals he would have to assure himself that he was dealing by way of the retail trade. The Board of Trade might bring a prosecution against him, and then, of course, the High Court would have a case with which to deal. But I think it should be settled now, beforehand. A man could be advised to apply for a licence, and then it could be determined beforehand whether he is trading by way of wholesale or retail.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI have tried to make it quite clear that the insertion of these words would really effect nothing at all. If anyone trading in these metals is not satisfied as to whether or not he is included in the Bill, he should apply to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade can inform him whether or not he comes within the provisions of the Act. If, on the other hand, such a person goes on trading independent of any appeal by or to the Board of Trade, and it is found that he comes under the Act, then it will, of course, be for the Board of Trade to take such steps as they consider wise to deal with the matter. The Board of Trade can point out that such persons do come within the provisions of the Act, and they can make the suggestion that they should take out a licence. If they fail to take out a licence and continue to trade it will be for the Board of Trade to prosecute. That condition applies whether these words are inserted or not. Therefore. the words are quite redundant.
§ Mr. BRUNNERNot at all. I do not agree that the question in dispute is whether or not they come under the Schedule. They have a right to go to the High Court if the question in dispute is whether or not they are trading by way of wholesale or retail. I say that this matter ought to go to the High Court. There is absolutely no reason in justice why they should not, and I think we must press this Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEApparently this matter does not follow on the discussion which we had early in the afternoon, when the Board of Trade seemed rather sympathetic. It is rather a mistake to force a prosecution when a matter can perfectly well he settled otherwise. As I understand 248 the object of the Amendment, it is that where there is a dispute between the Board of Trade and an individual as to whether it is necessary or not to apply for a licence, instead of it being left open to. the man to defy the Board of Trade and risk a prosecution as to whether or not he comes within the conditions, he can go to the High Court for it to he determined in the ordinary way. I suggest that a Divisional Court, which the Government are prepared to accept, is a good deal better tribunal to decide a dispute like this than that those concerned should go before a Metropolitan Police Court magistrate or any similar Court. I would suggest that the Government should accept some form of words that will bring this particular case within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
§ Mr. MOLTENOThere seems to be some confusion in this matter. The President seemed quite agreeable that this matter should go before the High Court, but, according to the wording of the Bill, this cannot be done. This is not a general question of dispute between the trader and the Board of Trade. Unless the President intends to put it in some shape or form distinctly this cannot come before the High Court. If he carries out his intention some words must be found to permit of this question coming before the Court.
§ Sir C. HENRYI hope the President of the Board of Trade will adhere to his decision not to accept this Amendment. Once you admit an application to the High Court as to any difficulty in deciding the Schedule you are opening up a very wide area.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI am very anxious to help the Committee, though, as I said, in my opinion these words are quite unnecessary. If, however, it is the view of the Committee that some such words as these should be inserted in the Bill, I am quite willing to consider words with a view to settling the point raised by the hon. Member.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "individual" ["company, firm, or individual"], to insert the words "or as to whether or not the company is controlled by a company, firm, or individual in respect of which any such conditions apply."
249 A previous Amendment having been accepted, this is merely consequential upon it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "individual" ["company, firm, or individual"], to insert the words "or as to the inexpediency of the grant of a licence, or as to the revocation or suspension of a licence."
I mentioned earlier in the evening that this Amendment was on the Paper, though I had not previously and directly referred to it. I desire to urge upon the President of the Board of Trade the great desirability of accepting an Amendment of this sort. There is, as he knows, a very strong feeling in this House, and outside, upon the question of the Board of Trade having absolutely the last word in a matter of this sort. There are ample precedents for such action as allowing a question of discretion upon a point of trading like this to go before a judge of the High Court. suggest that if the Board of Trade would in this matter allow an appeal, in all cases of the expediency or inexpediency of a licence, to go to the High Court, or some specially constituted tribunal like the Railway and Canal Commission, or some similar judicial body, you would get rid of almost half the objection to this measure, because the feeling of uneasiness that there is on all sides about this measure is very largely due to the fact that it gives to a Government Department absolutely uncontrolled power over the whole trading rights of an individual. I venture to point out to the President that this is a most -serious innovation, and I would suggest that any objection that there might be would be met if he gave way on this point. I understood the President to have said today that the reason why the Government could not give way was because it would take too much time—that there would be a waste of time. That is really no sound reason at all. In a case like this there would be not necessarily any waste of time. That is to say, in the ordinary case of any importance that comes before the Board of Trade it would probably mean an inquiry at which each party would be represented under some sort of tribunal acting under the Board of Trade. What objection could there be to the decision of that Committee, or whatever body in the Board of Trade had to decide these matters, being reviewed by the High Court? There would be no waste of time, 250 and I would suggest that this course would very greatly increase the confidence of the public that this Act was going to be quite fairly administered. It has been said many times in this Debate, and I say it with all sincerity, that my main fear is that, the people at present responsible for administering the law will not always be there. We have had cases in the past of persons with no experience of commerce being Presidents of the Board of Trade, and this has happened within our own Parliamentary experience. You may possibly have a Vice-President not well up in commerce, and these people are going to be placed absolutely under the advice of the permanent officials or other people at the Board of Trade. I suggest that in a case where you are going to take away from people their right to trade—it may be a trade to which they have devoted their whole life and in which their sons are entitled to trade—what special hardship would there be, or how would it affect the dignity of any officials, that there should be an appeal to the High Court? Such an appeal would do a. lot to restore public confidence that this Act is going to be fairly administered.
I have tried to keep off making assertions about syndicates which are to follow this Bill, or any assertions that I am not in a position to prove. Hon. Members know that assertions have been made abort the object of this Bill, but would it not at one blow absolutely get rid of all the feeling caused by those assertions if the Government were prepared to let the discretion of the Board of Trade be reviewed by a judge of the High Court? We recognise that that is a temporary matter, but in cases in which the whole livelihood of a man may be wrapt up, and he may be driven out of his business, this is a very serious matter. These people may suddenly find, owing to a decision from which there is no appeal from the Courts given in the privacy of a Government Department, their whole means of livelihood taken away. It would be much better to adopt the course I suggest even if it took a week or two longer. It is much better to get the people upon our side and have. public confidence in this matter. Therefore, I urge the Government to do everything they can to get rid of the feeling 75hat there may be injustice under this Act by allowing this matter to go to an absolutely impartial tribunal before which the decision of the Board of Trade may be reviewed, which tribunal may decide the important question as to whether a person 251 comes within those conditions, or whether it is fair or unfair to take away a man's right to go on trading. For these reasons I ask the Government to give this Amendment the most careful consideration. I am not proposing this Amendment with any idea of impeding or destroying this Bill, but simply to give to individuals in this country the greatest possible protection for the rights they are being asked to sacrifice, rights which should riot be taken away from them without the right of a final appeal to a Court of law against the action of the Board of Trade.
§ Mr. CLYDEMy right lion. Friend appreciates the spirit in which this Amendment has been moved. It is true that if it were possible that some external tribunal might prove the means of avoiding, at any rate, some of the suspicions and doubts which may be entertained with regard to the operation of the Act in some quarters, this proposal might be entertained. But let me come to the real question. After all, the point raised by the hon. Member and the sort of case he has brought forward is not the kind which would or could depend upon the establishment of a certain set of facts, nor yet on the application of any limitation of his rights. It is neither a question of fact or law, but it is purely a question of discretion. The Board of Trade, although they find that the company or person or individual does come within one or other of the five paragraphs of the Schedule they may none the less think it right to allow a licence to be granted. I should imagine that such a case as the hon. Member indicated would not be very likely to arise, and even in that case discretion could be both reasonably and wisely exercised or refused. If you put to the Court a question of discretion, how would they be able to exercise it? They would require to be informed of the whole field of consideration affecting the administration of discretion, and that is an impossibility.
The other suggestion is that some other form of tribunal should deal with the matter admitting that it is possible to have suspicions of all tribunals. What tribunal will you ever get. that is free from them? Would you get anything better than you have now got in the case of the Board of Trade, and would it not be a waste of time to have another tribunal? What is suggested is like providing for the same thing twice over. Therefore, 252 while one can understand that the Department are open to criticism and while many of us—I have had the experience-myself—writhe under some of their decisions, is it not after all on the whole wisest to allow this exercise of discretion to rest with the Board of Trade, who are responsible for the administration of the whole Act? I do not think, unless some model form of tribunal can be produced and which I cannot figure in my own mind at the present moment, that the Committee have the means or any prospect of getting the means of anything better. Therefore I do put it to the Committee that on the whole they would be doing the wisest and the safest thing in leaving this. exercise of pure discretion to the Department that is responsible for the administration of the whole Act.
§ Mr. BRUNNERThe only doubt that we have is whether the Board of Trade is impartial. Is not the Board of Trade in the business? We have not really got anything definite about that, except that in answer to a question we have it that they have lent money to finance or to buy mines in Canada.
§ Sir A. STANLEYLet me correct my hon. Friend. That was a Treasury loan pure and simple.
§ Mr. BRUNNERI am very pleased to. have that statement that it is absolutely a Treasury matter, and that the Board of Trade have never had anything to do with it. Have they had anything to do with. the erection of works adjoining the docks. at Bristol'? That is another matter about which we had an answer, I think, during the Recess. If the Board of Trade are not in the business, a good deal of our objection to them as competitors will be. gone.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI am sure that the hon. Gentleman will desire to have an answer. The Board of Trade are not interested in that particular venture, nor are they in any other.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI quite appreciate the spirit in which this Amendment has been met, but I would very strongly urge upon the Government to accept it. Look at what has happened during this War. Practically every Committee that have had to deal with matters arising out of the War where discretion is absolutely vital has been presided over by some well-known lawyer. One remembers the names of the Committees by the names of the 253 lawyers, and to say that a matter of discretion is better left to the Department is to say that everything we have done during this War was unnecessary and wrong. The Board of Trade is generally recognised as being about the most efficient Department in the Government service, and for its permanent officials we have the greatest respect. I cannot understand why they should want to keep a thing like this to themselves when there is the bitter feeling which has been shown to exist upon this very question. You have the discretion of people of trained intelligence, as, for instance, in appeals from Masters to the High Courts, overruled again and again, and far from it being an appeal from one Board of Trade to another it is nothing of the sort. I make no suggestion that the Board of Trade is in this business. I believe, as long as the Board of Trade are under the present control, that we shall get a perfectly fair decision in the cases which I have in mind at the present time as likely to be cases of grievance and hardship, but whether the decisions that they give are overruled or not I believe, if you adopted a scheme like this, that you would get rid of that burning sense of wrong and injustice that is undoubtedly going to be created amongst a large body of men who have come into this country relying upon our word of honour as a nation and who feel, rightly or wrongly, that we are breaking our word with them for our own advantage just as Germany broke her word when she invaded Belgium. You will, by this very simple expedient, get rid of that burning sense of wrong that undoubtedly exists and that will grow. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman not to shut the door entirely to-day, but to consider with his advisers between now and the Report stage whether he cannot adopt some form of tribunal which will be able to decide not only this question of discretion, but all the other questions of a legal nature that will require to be decided under the Act. It might be possible if the right hon. Gentleman could alter his view, instead of sending any of these questions to a Divisional Court, to have a properly constituted Court, either under a legal president or with assessors, which might decide all the questions under this temporary Act with the general assent of all parties, whether those who approve of it or those who disagree with it. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman not to refuse this at the present time, but to keep it 254 open for possible reconsideration so as to restore public confidence, which has been rather shaken in some quarters.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI should like to support the appeal of the hon. Member. We are by this Bill making a very wide-departure from our rules of public policy and our Constitution in this country. It has never been the rule of the Constitution of this country that the Government itself should be allowed to proceed against an individual and to deprive him of his rights as a Government. It has always been in the power of the individual to appeal to a tribunal independent. of the Government to decide between him and the Government. It has always been recognised that the individual as against a Government, with all its resources, has very little chance. A different view has prevailed upon the Continent. There you have a bureaucratic Government. Bureaucracy has the most absolute power over all the rights and liberties of the subject. We have differed fundamentally from the Continent in our whole development in that respect. We have never allowed the superior authority of the Government to override the rights of the individual. The individual has always been able to appeal to the Courts, and he has there found an impartial tribunal, in whose keeping he has always been content to leave his rights. Would it not be far safer here for the Board of Trade to allow these questions to be relegated to the judicial discretion of the judge? It would relieve them of a very unpleasant and difficult. duty. The decision might deprive a man of all power of getting his. livelihood. He is really entitled to have a trained and impartial mind to deal with the question. I hope that on these very serious grounds the President of the Board. of Trade will take this suggestion into his favourable consideration.
§ Mr. STRAUSSI beg to join in the request made by hon. Members to the Government to give the right of appeal. It has been admitted by all the Ministers. who have spoken in favour of this Bill that one of its objects is to encourage the establishment of a large British metal company, so that the foreign element should be excluded altogether. There is no doubt an impression, and it is a correct impression, that the Government is fathering the establishment of such a combination. It is only natural that it should be so. Cases of hardship or imaginary hardship are 255 certain to arise when licences are refused to foreign-born subjects, and it ought to be a relief to the officers of the Board of Trade that no suspicion should fall upon them that any refusal has been made in consequence of trying to favour the new company which is going to be established in order to help them in their business and to abolish competition which they fear. Although the Board of Trade has not the best reputation as regards expedition and other matters, it certainly has never been accused in the past of partiality. If it,can keep that excellent reputation, it is well worth doing so and to give the people who think they are aggrieved some opportunity of appealing to another Court, so that they should not imagine they have merely to suffer in order to help another establishment that is being patronised by the Government.
§ Mr. HOLTI hope the Government will see their way even now to accept this Amendment, for which there are several important reasons. First, we ought to be able to appeal in this matter to a tribunal which people believe to be free from political influence or newspaper clamour. No Department ought to be free from pressure. A Government Department ought to be amenable to pressure. That is why the Ministers representing the Departments are seated on the Treasury Bench, to carry out the directions of Parliament. But, after all, Parliaments may be wrong. We want to have a tribunal to decide these questions which is not amenable to pressure and certainly J not amenable to the passions of the moment, which shall decide whether a person should or should not trade upon principles, and whose decisions are not capable of being altered merely because at the moment the person in question is unpopular. The Government will not be doing anything that is novel in allowing this Amendment. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer—I often wish I were; I very nearly was—but I believe I am right in saying that when you are dealing with a matter which is somewhat analogous to this, that of the extension of a patent, an appeal is made to the Law Courts. The extension of a patent is not granted by the Board of Trade, but the person has to make an appeal to the Law Courts. I submit that when a man is making an appeal for a licence to carry on trade he is making an appeal which stands on all fours with that of an appeal for the exten- 256 sion of a patent. This is a matter which would be more properly decided by a judicial body than by a body which, however well-meaning, is and ought to be subject to political pressure.
§ Mr. L. JONESWithout going so far as my lion. Friend (Mr. Holt) to say that a Government Department ought to be amenable to pressure, I am prepared to say that they are amenable to pressure, and for that reason I rise to put a little more pressure upon them on this point. I really cannot see what objection the Board of Trade can have to an appeal in this matter. I should very strongly object if you were going to compel an individual trader to go into the Law Courts in order to defend himself against the Board of Trade, but if he wishes to go before the Law Courts and ask the Board of Trade to justify their action there, I cannot see why a public Department should object to that being done. I suppose it might involve them in some comparatively small expense, but that is a much greater terror to the individual trader than it is to a great Government Department, and much more likely therefore to cause him to refrain from taking proceedings in Court than otherwise. If some such possibility were open to the trader, it would remove some sense of unfairness, and it would relieve the Board of Trade of being supposed to exercise tyranny towards traders, and of being supposed to give arbitrary decisions in private, because if they were arbitrary—the trader would know whether or not the decision was in the main just and the Board would not be taken unreasonably to Court—they could be called to account. Under the present arrangement the Board of Trade will always labour under the suspicion that they are being arbitrary in their dealings. The President will probably tell us that the public does not deal very charitably with the Board of Trade or any other Department. But you will have aggrieved traders going about saying that there was no public hearing and that everything was done in private, and the burden may speedily become very heavy for the Board of Trade to bear. In their own defence the Board of Trade ought to be able to say, if the man were really aggrieved, if the decision given by the Department was really so unjust, the man had his remedy and could have taken them before a Court of law. The Board of Trade in its own interest might well allow an appeal on the 257 points suggested. There is this further point. It is not only that they may be unjustly accused, but they may be justly accused. There is nothing in the procedure of the Bill to prevent the whole thing from being done absolutely in private, without any public or formal hearing. That is a very unfair thing for the trader. I do not know whether the President can reassure me on these points: Will there be anything like 'a formal hearing? If a trader thinks that his application for a licence has been unreasonably refused, will there be anything like a formal hearing; will minutes be taken; will he be allowed to be represented by a gentleman learned in the law who can put his case better than himself; is there any security, other than the good-will of the Department, that the applicant will be fairly treated? When we deprive him of an appeal to a Court of law in a matter which affects his livelihood it is very hard that the Board of Trade should say, "In no circumstances will we go behind our decision; we are autocrats in this matter, and we will not give an appeal." Governments are amenable to strong pressure coming from this side of the House. They are strong. Let them be merciful in this matter and let us get on.
§ Mr. J. HENDERSONI should like to draw attention to some facts which I have here, winch indicate the feeling of the consumers of metal, if I may use that expression. We were told on the Second Reading that the metal market has agreed to this Bill. They never saw it before they agreed to it.
§ Mr. HENDERSONThey saw it in a way. There was a meeting of smelters, and they passed a resolution, which expresses their view on this very important point, that Amendments ought to be accepted by the Government allowing an appeal to the High Court on all questions as to the expediency or inexpediency of the grant of a licence or the revocation or suspension of a licence. That shows the feeling of these gentlemen who are in the business. They no doubt would be subject to a licence, but, as their case is quite a simple one, I dare say there would not be much difficulty. But even in the internment of aliens there is an appeal to a judge. This is a very serious business. I do not know if my right hon. Friend recognises that this is a shutting down of the means of livelihood of a man, and 258 surely there is no occasion in a man's life when he requires the protection of a Court more than that on which the whole of his livelihood is dependent. What are you frightened of? A man who has a bad case will not go before a judge. As a rule, in a case like, this, where he knows it can be proved. against him if there is a disclosure, as they would be, he is not likely to go there and be mulcted in costs. Of course, the discretion is riot an absolute discretion. It must he a reasonable discretion, and no one can decide what is reasonable in a discretion but the judge of a Court. That is the ultimate decision, anyhow. You may say at the Board of Trade, "We used our discretion," but that discretion may have been unreasonable. You may say to the Board of Trade, "You are unreasonable." The Board of Trade says, "No, we are not." -The judge must decide, and ultimately it must be left to the decision of the Court. The Britisher is a law-abiding man. He will bear your Acts of Parliament, however foolish, but he will have them translated if need be by a judge, and if the judge decides he will accept the decision. He may grumble, but he will be content. But if the Board of Trade or any other Department makes a discretionary judgment they will never be satisfied, and if you are going to secure the satisfaction and content of the commercial world you have got to get some decision which they will all respect.
Mr. RUNCIMANThere is so much in what has been urged by my hon. Friends that I wish to emphasise their main point—namely, that the Board of Trade should not be left with the whole burden of having to make decisions which may be subject under our political system, such as it is, to great waves of public or popular feeling. I have the greatest possible respect and affection for the Board of Trade, and I would not for a single moment suspect it of doing anything which it regarded as unfair. The President of the Board of Trade is really the creature of this House, and he must be subject, as his party in the House of Commons is subject, to such strong expressions of public opinion as he may find at the moment raging in Fleet Street. The mere expediency or inexpediency of the grant of a licence may be a thing which might be left to a Government Department, but it ought not to be left absolutely there, and for the sake of protect- 259 ing the Department from these waves of popular feeling, which might really induce it or compel it to do what would under other circumstances be regarded as unfair, I think we ought to have some further protection, and it is in the interest of the Board of Trade itself that I would suggest that it should follow the precedent of the Home Office in the matter of the internment of aliens. The Lord Advocate is well aware of the procedure which is now followed. I believe the Commission, which includes Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Younger, has no statutory power, but it was found expedient by the Home Office, in administering the laws which entitle them to the power to determine cases, to fall back on the opinion of Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Younger's Committee. It was a strong Committee, not only of these two judicial authorities, but it had the Deputy - Chairman of this House on it, and I believe one or two other laymen. Without that Committee the Home Office felt greatly embarrassed in having to take decisions which very often might be forced on them by popular clamour. I naturally have no objection to public opinion exercising its influence on the Board of Trade, but I suggest to the Board of Trade that in its own interest it had far better strengthen itself by having behind it something more than mere opinion from day to day. I am not exaggerating when I say that the opinion from day to day would be affected by this Amendment. The revocation or suspension of a licence might be forced on it at any moment. Let me take the case of an imaginary firm, the managing director of which might for the time being take up some unpopular cause. You might find a whole group of newspapers with very great power denouncing him violently and declaring, with all the enthusiasm and zeal of heresy hunters, that the proper thing to do with that man was to choke him off by forcing the Board of Trade to revoke his licence. Feeling might run so high that whatever might be the merits of the firm itself the Board might find itself in a most difficult position actually in this House, but if it had behind it the views of any other authority in addition to its own—I do not much mind what it is; I am sure it would choose an authority which would give it strength—it would find the administration greatly facilitated. It is not only in the interest of protecting the 260 individual but of protecting the Board itself. I hope, therefore, the Government will not dismiss too abruptly the suggestion that it should adopt the procedure of the Home Office but will go further and say by Statute that it will protect itself by having same other authority to support whatever view it may find it necessary to adopt.
§ Mr. HOLTI should like to say something on this before a Division is taken. Let us suppose for a moment that a limited liability company existed, of which the managing director was my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Ponsonby) who has been expressing unpopular views. Let us suppose it was discovered there was in that company one enemy shareholder holding an infinitesimal proportion of the shares of the company. It must be obvious to anybody who knows what is going on that there is a disgusting, objectionable Press in this country which would immediately endeavour to have that company destroyed. A large proportion of that Press, if not the whole of it, is at the moment enthusiastic in support of the Government. What would be the position of the President of the Board of Trade in that case? He might find the "Daily Mail," the "Daily Express," and the. "Daily Dispatch" all clamouring against the company, and it would be, in fact, impossible for him to retain his position on the Front Bench, and at the same time continue the licence to such a firm. If he wanted to do justice, if he wanted to protect himself and his Parliamentary reputation, it would be necessary for him to have somebody to fall back upon, and therefore I do earnestly press the right lion. Gentleman to consider the point and to at least do us the courtesy of giving a reply.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI very much regret that the President of the Board of Trade gives us no sort of encouragement in this matter. I regret it for this reason, that I am perfectly certain it will be but a very short time before he himself will regret it. The Home Office brought in the services of two most distinguished judges to assist in dealing with the alien question, simply and solely to stand between them and an undignified popular clamour of prejudice, and, as a result, a great deal of injustice was prevented by Committees which were presided over by distinguished judges and composed of level- 261 headed men who were prepared to stand against popular' feeling. If it is so easy in a Department like the Board of Trade to get people who are absolutely superior to popular clamour, how is it it did not seem possible to get them at the Home Office? How is it that the Home Secretary found it better to adopt the course he did? Anyone who has followed the Press campaign lately knows what is going to happen sooner or later if power to deal with these people is left with the Board of Trade. Every form of improper prejudice will be brought in, and you will have a disgraceful campaign such as we have again and again gone through, in which names have been brought in absolutely unjustifiably, and all sorts of petty and mean prejudices have been aroused by trade rivals. I have known cases recently where Government Departments have been moved solely by trade rivals and trade competitors. In my professional experience I have had to advise on cases where I have not the slightest doubt that has been so. You are inviting disaster if you are going, at the time when this Bill is passed to meet a temporary emergency, to refuse to hold out any hope of giving way on a matter like this. We are simply asking the Board of Trade to give the public confidence. We have fought for centuries to keep our Executives from interfering with tic administration of our laws. But now we are going to give them a suspending and dispensing power; we are going to restore things which we have prevented kings doing. This is a most retrograde proposal. It is an attempt to take away from British subjects rights for which they have fought for centuries. We want the administration of the Bill to be absolutely independent of the Executive. Our judges are only removable by the Houses of Parliament. You are simply overriding what has been the practice for years, and the worst of it is you are doing it in the case of men who, although not British-born subjects, have surrendered their nationality and have relied on the honour and justice of this country in so doing.
§ Mr. T. DAVIESIt appears to me that the arguments brought forward in favour of this Amendment are very reasonable, and I have come to the conclusion that I ought to vote for it. I cannot understand why, after the speeches we have just listened to, the President of the Board of Trade has given no answer—why he has 262 given no lead to the ordinary Members of this House. If there is a case for not accepting this Amendment, but for passing the Bill as it stands, we ought to have the reasons for it. We have been told by speaker after speaker that this Amendment would be a great advantage even from the view of the Board of Trade. At the present moment there is said to be a, feeling in the country amongst traders that they cannot trust the Government—or rather officials of Government Departments as they did in past years. Whether it is justified or not, I do not know. Perhaps it is because the Government Departments have been interfering too much with traders to the disadvantage not only of the traders but of the Government and of the country. It appears to me this is a reasonable Amendment, which will strengthen the Government and enable the Board of Trade to do what it considers should be done, and therefore if the lion. Gentleman who moved it presses it to a Division I shall vote with him.
§ Mr. CLYDEI should be very sorry if anybody should think it was through any lack of courtesy on the part of the Government that no further reply has been given on this Amendment. But we have had a long series of the same sorts of speeches. Some Members have expressed themselves twice over, and it did not seem necessary after I had already done my best to give an answer to the proposal to repeat the arguments I had advanced. No doubt the object of the speeches was to bring pressure to bear on the Government, but for the reasons I gave as clearly as I could, I repeat is not possible for the Board of Trade to accept the suggestion that by Statute its discretion should be invested in some outside body. While, of course, I do not know the precise machinery by which the Board of Trade will exercise this discretion, it must be obvious that the discretion must be exercised by some form of Committee or group, and whether the Board of Trade may choose to compose that Committee only of certain members of its Department or whether it may make it an Advisory Committee, which I think is exceedingly possible, I cannot at the moment gay; but in any case, whether it was to be an Advisory Committee or whether it was to be a Committee of officials of the Board of Trade, it is obvious that the policy that would lead to the selection of one or the other must be determined very largely by the kind of considerations which hon. 263 Members opposite say might arise in certain circumstances. I agree that people might become suspicious of what was being done. If that be so, it might be necessary for the Board of Trade to put this discretion in the hands of an Advisory Committee, but not to put it into the hands of some composite body such as the Interned Aliens Committee. I hope I have made it clear that the Board of Trade cannot accept this Amendment, certainly not in any form in which it has been put before us. I cannot help saying that, as
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the word "High" ["High Court for determination"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Supreme."
§ far as I am concerned, I think I gave the best answer I could to the arguments that were brought to bear. I have listened. attentively since; I have not heard any new argument propounded, and I do not think, therefore, that I am called upon to repeat those which I brought forward. May I ask that a decision should be come to on this question now?
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 108.
§ I understand that the Government are prepared to accept an appeal to a Divisional Court. I would suggest to them that it might be better to have an appeal' to the Supreme Court, so that there 265 would be a further appeal from the High Court. One would not imagine that there would he any question of appeal to the High Court upon the point whether these conditions apply, unless it is a very difficult point probably arising under Condition 5. I would suggest that it would be more satisfactory in that case to have a further appeal to the Court' of Appeal rather than have the appeal limited to a Court of King's Bench, even though it might be constituted of two or three judges. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to accept my Amendment, but I do not see any objection. I think the Court of Appeal ought not to be excluded in a matter of great importance. I do not see any point in leaving it merely to the discretion of the High Court. There is not the slightest difficulty in facilitating and expediting appeal in such cases to the Supreme Court.
§ Mr. CLYDEAs the President of the Board of Trade said earlier, he realises that there are objections which may be made to the reference to a High Court consisting of a single judge, and in order to take away any idea of imperfection in the reference my right hon. Friend undertook to do what he will do, namely, to substitute a Divisional Court for the High Court. That will mean, if I am not mistaken, that in England there will always be two and sometimes three judges who will hear the case. The hon. and learned Member is now suggesting to go a further stage and to have an appeal from the Divisional Court, I suppose, to the Court of Appeal. He might go wider still in his view and say, "Why not let them have an appeal to the House of Lords"? My right hon. Friend thinks that it is most reasonable and fair to prevent the case from going before one judge of first instance and to let the appeal go to a Divisional Court, which shall be the final Court. It is not denying right or justice to any man to give him a judgment which does not depend upon a single judge. There is great objection in a matter of this kind to allowing a considerable time to be spent in appeals, unless it is really necessary for the sake of justice. The proposal accordingly will be to make the appeal to the Divisional Court, and to let that 266 be final. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to accept that as a not unreasonable appeal.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKWhen Rules of Court are made they will provide that the appeal should go to the Divisional Court, and, if it was desired, there might be five judges or even more sitting upon these cases, the Divisional Court being a part of the High Court. The reason why the appeal as drawn provides that rules shall be made is that the rules provide that the appeal shall go to a part of the High Court, which would be the Divisional Court. The rules might provide that not less than three judges, or even five judges, should sit. Under these rules all that is desired can be carried out. you are to put in the Supreme Court you are altering the phrase quite unnecessarily. We should rely upon the rules giving an ample Court in which five judges or even more would be able to sit, and in certain circumstances five judges do sit in a Divisional Court. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not seek to alter the words as at present drawn, which carry out apparently the meaning and intention of the President.
§ Mr. CLYDEAs the Bill now stands, "the question shall, subject to rules of Court, be referred by the Board of Trade to the High Court for determination." We do not propose to make any Amendment in that. We do propose to take out from "and" to "apply," and to provide that "and the decision of a Divisional Court of the King's Bench Division on any subject shall be final"
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment, but I would like to ask whether, as a compromise, the Government would agree that there shall be no further appeal without leave of the Court. Suppose a case comes before a Divisional Court of no less than three judges, and the Divisional Court themselves think that it is a matter of very great difficulty, in that case, if the Divisional case Court give leave to appeal it should go further, and if the Court of Appeal give leave for it to go further it should go further still, and if it was the case of such intricacy that the parties should be able to take the highest legal opinion in the country it should be 267 allowed to go. Such leave would be given in very few cases, but there are some cases in which it might be necessary to take the opinion of the House of Lords in the matter, and they could be expedited so that no time would be lost.
§ Mr. CLYDEAt the present moment I do not think that I see my way to accept this, but I will undertake, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to look into it if the Committee are satisfied with that course.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEUpon that undertaking I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. HENDERSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words, "and on any such reference it shall rest. with the company, firm or individual to show that none of such conditions as aforesaid apply."
I understand that my right hon. Friend is willing to accept this Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. CLYDEI beg to move, in Subsection (5), to leave out the words, "the High Court" ["decision of the High Court"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "the Divisional Court of the Ring's Bench Division."
I move this in order to give effect to what was said by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury.
§ Sir E. POLLOCKMay I point out that the words are totally unnecessary, and it seems to me that you cannot go further than the Divisional Court unless you go to the Court of Appeal. If you put in those words, I should have thought the Government draftsman would want to consider them. Still, the words being suggested, I suppose they must go.
§ Mr. L. JONESWill there be an appeal to any other Court? I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he would consider whether there should be an appeal to another Court.
§ Amendment agreed to.
268§ Mr. G. TERRELLI beg to move, in Sub-section (6), to leave out the words, "or at any time when a licence expires.
This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment which has already been accepted, but as the Bill now stands the licence remains in force for the period of the Act. Therefore, the words I propose to leave out are unnecessary.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. BRUNNERI beg to move, in Subsection (6), to leave out the word "may" ["the Court may"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
It seems to me to be quite wrong that when a man's case comes before the Court and is under discussion that he should not have an absolute right. to go on trading. It cannot do any harm to anybody that he should trade during the proceedings.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "or as the case may be the duration of the licence." —[Mr. G. Terrell.]
§ Mr. G. TERRELLI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (6), to insert
"(7) The Board or Trade shall publish in the prescribed manner time name of any company, firm, or individual to whom a licence has been granted under this Act or whose licence has been suspended or revoked, but in the latter case such publication shall not take place pending the final decision of the Court."
The object of this Amendment is to secure the publication by the Board of Trade of the list of the firms which have been granted licences. I submit that it is necessary that the community should know who are the firms authorised to deal in these metals. I think there can be no possible objection to the proposal, and that there must be every possible advantage in having such a list.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI think we can accept this Amendment, but that it will be necessary to make some slight drafting alteration afterwards. If the hon. Member will agree to do it in that way, I think we will be able to satisfy him later on.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
269§ Mr. D. MASONI beg to move to leave out the Clause. As was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman), this Clause would be quite futile to carry out the objects for which it was intended to be enacted. I know, of course, that on Second Reading the principle of the Bill was accepted that some form of control should be enacted by this House. I propose to confine my remarks to the particular method embodied in this Clause. I believe that this method of licensing will not in any sense restrict persons from dealing in these metals. The Clause has been amended so as to enable speculation to take place in these metals, and I think that very much widens the whole Bill. I desire, as a Free Trader, that there should be no restrictions whatever in dealing in these metals. The Amendment which has taken place shows that this Clause fails in having any power of restricting enemy aliens because of the wide powers now conferred by that Amendment. Then the licence, which, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire was able to secure from the Government, is a wide licence enabling traders here to trade with agents abroad. Therefore, to imagine you are going to restrict Germans or others through merchant bankers and brokers here getting control of the metals on the market is to delude yourselves that this Bill will in any sense of the word restrict or in any way control the trade in non-ferrous metals. I think the whole discussion has shown the absolute futility of this legislation. Instead of, in any sense of the word, restricting or controlling trading in non-ferrous metals, it really creates a gigantic monopoly for those who get this licence to trade in these metals in this country. It will enable large traders to have this monopoly to the detriment of small people. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wellington (Sir C. Henry) says he has got all out of this Clause he desires, and it has been interesting to most of us to watch his action throughout the whole of the Debate on this first Clause. He is a supporter of the Bill, and then in his Amendments, having got the power of licensing which is embodied in this Clause, he widens, as it were, the action of the Clause, enabling him and other large dealers who have this monopoly still to continue to trade in those metals, and, therefore, as it were, to get the House to confer upon him, his confreres, and others a practical 270 monopoly in trading in these non-ferrous metals. It reduces this House to a nullity. It reduces our Debates to a farce, that we are solemnly asked, as this Bill states, to restrict temporarily the business of people engaged in non-ferrous metals. It does not restrict them, and the Clause as amended gives a monopoly to those large dealers in these non-ferrous metals.
I, for one, hope that, while we may not be able to make much of a demonstration in the Division Lobby, we will steadily vote against these Clauses, voting en every occasion that we can -to show our distrust, as a protest against a Bill which does not carry out the object which it is intended to do, and which, as I say, confer s a monopoly and creates a trust in this country. It might be argued, what remedy have you to offer as an alternative to this scheme of licensing? I admit that is a very fair and proper question to put, and I turn to the United States of America to find how they deal with trusts, You find there that their method is through restrictive legislation; and if you are going to offer an alternative method to that of licensing, I think that possibly it might be to pass a short Bill giving powers to the Board of Trade or to the Government to deal with concrete cases where you find that traders are trading with the enemy. But I confess that I for one have not much faith in these panaceas or methods of restricting trade, because I believe that the other evils far outweigh them, and are far greater as a result of your restrictive legislation, than the advantage you think you are going to obtain by controlling in any way those engaged in that industry. There is no country in the world where trusts flourish more than in the United States of America. Why is it? Because there you have a protective tariff, and you play into the hands of the large monopolists. This country, on the whole, has been comparatively free from trusts and syndicates because we open our doors to all, and therefore have the advantage of all competing. While we may have some evil—an evil in this industry, I believe, largely exaggerated by the Board of Trade and Government—it is largely due, I believe, not so much to German influence, but, if I may say so, to lack of competence and lack of knowledge to smelt these metals. No amount of Bills or protective measures can give you that knowledge if you have not got. it. The way to arrive at this 271 matter is by perfecting our technical education. If we do that and take similar steps, this country will be able to hold its own against Germany or the whole world. And we are being put off by a trumpery measure of this kind It will not carry out the intention of the. Preamble, and its Amendments, as I have said, will create a vast monopoly for those who obtain these licences. It is reducing our legislation to a farce I trust as many as possible will go into the Division Lobby against this measure.
Mr. RUNCIMANNow that we have come to the discussion of the Clause as a whole, I would make an appeal to the President as to whether he can inform the Committee how far he proposes to invite us to proceed to-night? Considerable progress has been made. On the succeeding Clauses there are one or two points of importance which will come up for discussion, and I would suggest that if my right hon. Friend can see his way to end the discussion this evening, when he has secured, as he will I think shortly, Clause 1, we may be able to make some arrangement which will facilitate the proceedings tomorrow.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI stall refer to the matter in a few minutes.
§ Mr. L. JONESThere are three or four points which perhaps may yet be referred to, but I should like to ask how far, following the appeal of my right hon. Friend, we may be expected to go to-night? We have been sitting since three o'clock. In the usual way we should have started at four, but in view of the small number of questions we got the benefit of nearly an hour. The right hon. Gentleman must by now have a very fair idea of how far he would like to go after he gets Clause 1, which I suppose he will now very soon.
§ Mr. JONESWell, you probably will in a short while. We have had a pretty hard time to-day. It is eight hours since we started the Bill, and we are not, I think, asking anything unreasonable that we should get. away after the first Clause has been obtained. Personally I do not propose to say anything further on the merits of Clause 1. Probably by now the right 272 hon. Gentleman has realised that he has made a great mistake in the form of his Bill.
§ Mr. R. McNEILLBefore the right hon. Gentleman makes any definite arrangement such as he is asked to make I trust he will take into consideration the characteristics of the Debate upon this Bill. It really is an important matter. What have been those characteristics? A small, a tiny handful of Members who are opposed to the Bill, on grounds that they are perfectly entitled to oppose it upon, after having taken the time they have to debate this Clause, now ask for an arrangement to bring the proceedings to a. close. I remember a great many occasions when the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the party to which he belongs were told that if they would concentrate on those points some arrangement might be come to, but the opposition was generally met by a drastic time-table. If my right hon. Friend is going to agree to conclude with the first Clause to-night, the rest of the House, who have been waiting here, quite wearied by the constant reiteration of the same arguments by a small group of hon. Members opposite, to take part in the Division, wearied ad nauseam by the way the right hon. Gentleman opposite has argued, should have some undertaking about further opposition to this measure.
§ Mr. McNEILLIf my right hon. Friend accedes to the request which has been made I think he should promise the rest of us that when we resume to-morrow he will use the Closure drastically in order that the opinion of the majority of the House may prevail over the few hon. and I may say gallant Members who are anxious to carry their own particular views into effect. It is not fair that the rest of the House should be held up by a mere handful of hon. Members simply because there seems to be a sort of agreement that the Closure will not be used. I do not see why, when there is so much agreement in regard to this measure, we should be kept up to all hours of the night listening to speeches by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ Mr. HEMMERDENo one here is proposing to keep the hon. Member. The intention of my right hon. Friend was to 273 prevent our staying here. We are pleased to see the hon. and learned Member here so wide awake, because we have missed the words of wisdom that might have fallen like pearls from his lips. If he had been here he would have found that there was no need whatever for the Closure. I do not think this Bill is going to take more than another day. The real fight will come upon the conditions which are being imposed, if the Government do not make concessions. We shall not gain any time by carrying on late to-night. Although some of us have had to make speeches two or three times, I do not think we have made any long speeches. As regards the Closure, I may say that in the last Division there were 39 Members who voted against Clause 1, most of whom had been in the House listening to the Debates, while 108 voted on the other side, most of whom had not been in the House during these Debates. If there is as much enthusiasm in the small group which has been alluded to, there is certainly a good deal of sloth in the rest of the House. A hundred good men and true have to be kept here in case the Closure is wanted.
§ Mr. McNEILLThe lack of interest I alluded to is not in the Bill, but in the speeches of hon. Members opposite.
§ Mr. HEMMERDEI should have been much more impressed with the hon. Member's criticism if he had been present himself during the Debate.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI am anxious to meet the Committee as far as I can, but I think we must make further progress tonight, and we ought to proceed a little bit further with the Bill. I am glad to hear from the hon. Member that he is hopeful that we shall be able to complete the Committee stage of the Bill tomorrow. He has taken a very prominent part in the opposition to this Bill, and I hope we can rely upon that promise. We must make further progress now in order that we may be quite sure that we shall finish the Committee stage to-morrow. If a little later on we may have an assurance that that will be accomplished, then I am quite willing to promise that we will not unduly continue the Debate to-light.
Mr. RUNCIMANIf there is any question about that, I can give the assur- 274 ance at once, and the right hon. Gentleman can let us go home. If he is prepared to terminate our proceedings now, at the end of Clause 1, then, speaking on behalf of my Friends, I can say that we will do everything we can to facilitate the termination of the Committee stage tomorrow. There are no Members, except those in the House, who are likely to take an active interest in the Committee stage, and, speaking on behalf of them, I can say if, on the conclusion of Clause 1, the right hon. Gentleman will move to report Progress, we will do our best to facilitate the termination of the Committee stage to-morrow.
§ Sir A. STANLEYIf I may take that as a definite understanding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, we will agree to that, course.
§ Mr. HOLTI would like to support the appeal of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill), that the Treasury Bench should apply the Closure. I have always detested the Coalition Government, and if they will only take the advice of the hon. Member, and if only we can get a good party feeling going in this House, we shall soon have them out.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sir A. STANLEYI beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
§ The remaining Orders were read and postponed.