CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of amount of loans which may be guaranteed under 11 & 12 Geo. 5. c, 65, and extension of period for giving guarantees.) (Hansard, 10 March 1926)

§ Mr. LAWSON
I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words Provided that the guarantee given in respect of a loan for the development of Kentish coalfields shall be withdrawn.

§ Captain BOURNE
On a point of Order. May I respectfully submit that this Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
This Amendment is out of order, as being outside the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. LAWSON
This is an amending Bill, and my Amendment deals with the operations of the principal Act. This is the only opportunity we shall have of dealing with the amount granted under the Trade Facilities Act for this purpose.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
This particular Bill is to increase the limits of the guarantee and obviously this Amendment would restrict the limits of the guarantee.

§ Mr. LAWSON
Do I understand that after we have agreed to a grant of £5,000,000 on this occasion, there will be 2399 no opportunity of dealing with the method by which that sum is to be administered? Since this large amount was granted for the Kent coalfield, there has not been any opportunity of dealing with the matter in the House of Commons and if we are not to have an opportunity now, all one can say is that we have no control at all over this matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
This Bill has nothing to do with what has taken place in the past, or with the withdrawal of any guarantee. The Amendment as framed is outside the scope of the Bill, but I do not say that the hon. Member cannot raise this same question on some other issue.

§ Mr. MARDY JONES
We had an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade the other day when I raised this very point that matters of detail would be considered on the Committee stage, and the question of public policy as then raised was this: whether it was wise in the national interests to encourage the developments of a new coalfield at a time when 200,000 miners were out of work, and when it is a known fact that there is no prospect of new markets to absorb the coal produced under this scheme. Is not that in order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I see the point which the hon. Member is raising, but I would draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has an Amendment later on the Paper, and I think we might discuss this question on the second Amendment.

§ Mr. RUNCIMAN
For the guidance of the Committee, may I ask whether the increase of the total sum from £70,000,000 to £75,000,000 is not brought about by the fact that certain guarantees have been given or are in process of being given, of which this is one, but for which the extra £5,000,000 would not be required? In these circumstances, if the grant for the Kent coalfield is included in the £5,000,000, surely it is in order to discuss what my hon. Friends regard as a necessary proviso limiting the guarantee to such schemes as will not act detrimentally to other grave and large interests.

§ Mr. D. HERBERT
May I submit that although the right hon. Gentleman's point might be an argument for voting 2400 against the Bill as a whole, yet it does not bring within the scope of the Bill the Amendment on the Paper.

§ Mr. LAWSON
May I ask your advice, Sir. Under what conditions can we have an opportunity of discussing the amount guaranteed to the Kent coalfield? Are we to understand that we will not be able to discuss that matter in any circumstances?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have pointed out that the hon. Member can raise this question again on a later Amendment, and possibly the argument would be more suitable to that Amendment. We cannot, however, discuss the question now. It is out of order to move to withdraw a guarantee which has already been given.

§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
May I ask for a ruling as to this suggestion which may possibly meet the wishes of my hon. Friends behind me. On reaching the further Amendment which you have indicated, Sir, might there not be an understanding that we should discuss, first, the general principle of guarantees and existing industrial conditions, and, secondly, back up our arguments by illustrations, and if the use of the illustration of the Kent coalfield were permitted, I think our case would be met.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
"Illustration" is a rather wide term, but I shall be glad to consider the question when it comes up on the further Amendment.

§ Mr. RUNCIMAN
May I have an answer to my question which, with all respect, was addressed to you, Sir—whether the additional sum, required has not been necessitated by the grant which has been made for the Kent coalfield and whether it does not come within the purview of the Committee as a fit and proper subject for discussion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think that particular point would have been relevant on the Second Reading, but it certainly does not arise on this Amendment.

§ Mr. STEPHEN
May I ask if a manuscript Amendment would be in order in these terms: Provided that no guarantee shall be given in respect of a loan, similar to that for the development of the Kentish coalfield.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have not seen any manuscript Amendment to that effect. If the hon. Member hands in an Amendment, of course it will be considered, but I think I have already given a hint to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street that this question might possibly be raised on a later Amendment.

§ Mr. DALTON
I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words Provided that any further guarantees given under the said Section 1 shall be subject to such conditions as shall ensure the participation by the public in the value of the assets created. This Amendment raises an important principle which cannot be adequately discussed in the few minutes that remain before a Quarter past Eight o'clock. I shall, however, indicate to the Committee the main point underlying it. Under this Bill the community increases by £5,000,000 the guarantee which it is giving to certain private enterprises. The community gives a very valuable guarantee, a guarantee which is costly to the community, and depressing to the national credit, as I hope to argue in due course.

§ Captain BOURNE
On a point of Order. Is it in Order on a Bill which has been authorised by a Financial Resolution to introduce a principle which is not in the Bill or in the main Act which the Bill seeks to amend?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am not prepared at this moment to give a ruling that this is an amending or extending Bill to the original Act. It is clearly within the powers of the Committee to modify it so long as it is within the terms of the Money Resolution recently passed by this House.

§ Mr. DALTON
I was contending that the community receives no quid pro quo for the guarantee which is given under this Bill and the purpose of the Amendment is to enforce the principle that, where public credit is employed at a cost to the community, some public asset, some share to the public in the assets created under the guarantee, ought to be assigned. The detailed way in which these assets might be provided is a matter on which we do not express any definite opinion. If the Amendment is accepted, as we hope it may be, we are quite willing to leave to the Government 2402 the detailed manner of applying the principle. During the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill the hon. Member for Darwen (Sir F. Sanderson) suggested that the Government might form a fund by charging a certain percentage upon every guarantee given under this Bill. That fund, I think, he proposed should be constituted on the basis of 1 per cent. of every guarantee made to a private concern under this Bill. Such fund would, of course, constitute a liquid asset to the community, and might be employed in varied ways. It would, at any rate, be—in a limited way—a quid pro quo such as we are contending for in this Amendment.