§ MR. CHURCHILL'S STATEMENT.
§ 54. Mr. GEORGE HARVEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer inasmuch as the dumping of foreign motorcars and parts appears to have been excessive since the new duties were proposed, if he anticipates making such duties retrospective?
§ 55. Sir JOHN MARRIOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the large quantities of cheap foreign motorcars imported during the last few weeks in anticipation of the re-imposition of the duties; and whether, to avoid loss of revenue, he proposes to make these duties retrospective in respect of such imports?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLAs the House is aware, the present state of the law does not enable new duties to be collected on the authority of Resolutions. We were therefore confronted with the alternatives, either of waiting till the Budget was passed before enforcing the new duties or introducing a new separate Bill, in advance of the Finance Bill, authorising the collection of the new 220 duties from the date of the passage of that new Bill. The additional legislation would have been strenuously opposed, and would have probably affected a week of Parliamentary time. For this reason we decided to follow the ordinary practice, but to accelarate as much as possible the passage of the Budget into law.
During the first month after the Budget announcement the importations were not more than had been anticipated, and it was not until the early days of June that a large expansion of imports became evident. This continued during the whole month; and I regret to say that on the average nearly four months' importations have been forestalled, entailing a loss to the Revenue, above what has been allowed for, of possibly a million on the McKenna Duties.
In these circumstances the Government have had to decide whether or not to introduce retrospective legislation making the duties payable from the date (i. e., 6th May) on which I gave notice that I should hold myself free to do so if the importations were excessive-There are, of course, serious considerations attaching to such a course, and we have come to the conclusion that at this period in the Session we cannot ask the House to spare the time involved, which might well prolong our proceedings by an additional Parliamentary week. The loss and inconvenience must therefore be accepted, and the question of amending our general legislation will be considered before another Budget is introduced.
§ Sir WILFRID SUGDENIs it not more important to deal with retrospective legislation in this matter and save the taxpayers' pocket and enable our manufacturers to compete with foreigners, rather than to save another week of Parliamentary time?
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERAm I to understand from the last part of the answer that it is anticipated that the proposed amendment to general legislation will be made next year?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI do not think that that at all arises necessarily out of the answer which I gave, but obviously if duties are to be imposed at any time it is absurd that a period of nearly two months of delay should be enforced by our existing Parliamentary procedure, which 221 enables the will of Parliament to be seriously deflected. We shall certainly consider whether next year the question of altering the procedure must be taken in hand. With regard to the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden), I stated also that serious considerations attach to the question of retrospective duties. Although in certain circumstances I think we ought to be perfectly free to assert ourselves in that matter, nevertheless the relation of any such action to the existing commercial conventions with different countries would require very careful consideration and would have to be gravely weighed against the disadvantages of the existing system.
§ Colonel GRETTONWhat was the amount of revenue lost by the anticipation of the duties?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI am not sure that I carry the figure in my memory. I should say that about one month's loss was allowed for by the Government, whereas the importations which developed in the last few weeks probably entailed an average four months' loss. That would be about the proportion, but I am speaking without an opportunity of making an exact calculation.
Captain BENNHas the right hon. Gentleman the intention of introducing soon this legislation which will enable a tariff to be imposed simply by one resolution of the House of Commons?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, Sir; no such legislation will enable a tariff to be imposed by one resolution of the House of Commons. The process of financial procedure will have to be gone through in all cases, but the question whether, when a resolution has been passed by the House, the duties should be collected or the assumption that the Budget would actually be passed, is a question on which further legislation must be considered. It is not proposed, so far as I am aware, to add to the labours of the present period of the Session, but questions as to this must be addressed to the Leader of the House
§ Sir W. SUGDEN rose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think we had better get on with Questions.