Sir HENRY DALZIEL (by Private Notice)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the statement made by the Leader of the House on Thursday that a new Order in Council would be substituted for the recent Order in Council affecting issues of capital and other commercial transactions, business and commercial men may proceed with their contracts to deliver, pay and deal in like manner as if the Order in Council above mentioned had not been promulgated as an Order having to any extent retrospective effect?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI am now reconsidering the terms of the Order in Council referred to by my right, hon. Friend with a view to the issue without delay of a new Order, and in the meantime it is not proposed to take any action to enforce the prohibition contained in sub-paragraph (e) of Article 1 of the Order in Council of the 24th February, 1919. That is the paragraph of the Order which was referred to in the Debate the other day as having retrospective effect. The Order in Council is in force and cannot be repealed except by an Order in Council, but no action will be taken under that provision.
Sir H. DALZIELIn view of the altered circumstances of this matter, will my right 225 hon. Friend in framing his Order consider favourably the question whether the Stock Exchange will be permitted to deal in these securities?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThat is provided for in the old Order. The Stock Exchanges of the country will be allowed to deal in whatever is allowed to be dealt in at all. It is essential that there should be equality of treatment.
Sir H. DALZIELIs my right hon. Friend aware that the opposite is the case, and that the Stock Exchange has been prohibited from dealing in these securities?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINWhat happened was that prior to the Order which gave rise to this discussion, the Stock Exchange voluntarily agreed not to deal in issues which were not licensed by the Committee.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThere was no legal prohibition on dealing, but they agreed voluntarily not to deal. They represented to me, and I think it was only common justice, that if they were not to deal in them other people must not deal in them either. There must be one law for everyone. Very well, under the Order, as I first framed it, it was intended that these issues which had been made without licences should, if they were under the altered circumstances of to-day eligible for licence, obtain their licence, and then be dealt with in the Stock Exchanges if the Stock Exchanges wished, as well as outside. In the now Order which will be issued in place of the one that was issued the other day and criticised in this House last Thursday, whatever is permitted to be dealt with it will be open to the Stock Exchanges to deal in just as much as anyone else. Therefore these issues which have already been made without licence will not be prohibited at all, and it will be open to the Stock Exchanges to deal with them as well as to outsiders.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHWill the right hon. Gentleman undertake that there shall be no further interference with the formation of private limited companies, where the public are not being asked to subscribe?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIn considering the terms of the new Order we are trying 226 to give the largest facilities for the development of business that we can. I do not think I can go further than that.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHAs the object of the setting up of this Committee is to conserve national resources and to prevent money being put into ventures which might be required for public purposes, what business has that Committee interfering in cases where the public are not subscribing? Can we have an undertaking about that?
Sir H. DALZIELCan the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes to issue this thing, and will he see that it is issued as a Parliamentary Paper, and that Members do not have to go to the newspapers in order to get it?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI certainly will give directions that it is to be issued as a Parliamentary Paper, and it will be issued as soon as possible. At the moment I am only anxious to get the terms exact, so that we shall have no further trouble about it, and it requires a little adjustment to find the right words.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHWill he undertake that there will be no interference where the public are not being asked to subscribe money?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI am not quite certain as to the scope of an undertaking of that sort. If a private subscription of money is subsequently to be dealt in, it has all the effect of a public issue.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHI am referring to the question of private companies being formed for family purposes, which this Committee has refused again and again to permit to proceed. What right have they to interfere in a matter of that kind where no money is being subscribed by anybody?
§ Mr. MacVEAGHThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I know myself of a dozen cases in which they have interfered, and I now want to know whether that will cease?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI tell the hon. Member that my object is to facilitate business development in this country. If the hon. Member will come to me afterwards 227 and explain exactly what is the condition he has in view, I will do my best to meet him.
§ Sir E. CARSONMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not consider that the time has come to take off all restrictions except those which prevent money from being invested abroad?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINNo. I should like to do nothing better, but I am afraid I could not do that. I want to give a much greater latitude for the issue of new capital for business development at home, but I do not think I could take off all restrictions.
An HON. MEMBERWill the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that what is permissible for two or three individuals to do in their private capacity they will be permitted to do in their corporate capacity?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI think the House will see the extreme difficulty of dealing with a matter of this delicacy and complexity by question and answer. I am doing my best to put the Order in a form which will meet the criticisms of substance which have been raised and which will facilitate the recommencement and development of business as much as possible, and I hope the House will be content to wait in the matter to see the terms of the new Order.