HC Deb 02 April 1930 vol 237 cc1365-70
Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES

I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, to leave out the word "thirty-three" and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-two."

I should like to pay a tribute to the President of the Board of Trade, not only for his amazing industry and great ability and the unflagging courtesy with which he has put the Bill before the House, but also for his sincere and conscientious belief that Part I of the Bill will bring untold benefit to certain coal-owners. Many of us cannot share in that belief. We are agreed that it is an experiment and time, and time alone, will show whether the beliefs of the right hon. Gentleman are right or whether the fears which we have expressed on this side of the House are justified. In these circumstances, I hope that the time will be limited to the year 1932; that the Act will not be continued for another year when certain disasters which we foreshadowed may eventuate.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS

I beg to Second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies) has said, this Bill is certainly experimental in this sense, that nobody can forecast what the result will be. Al- though, taking as reasonable a forecast as we can, we believe that Part I of the Bill will be extremely advantageous, we shall be in a better position to say whether it is so or not at some time in the future. We think that by the end of 1932, when two years will have elapsed, it will be a sufficient period to enable us to judge of the working of these schemes. It is plain to every Member of the House that this does not necessarily mean that the Act will come to an end at the end of December, 1932—manifestly it may be, and, if it is working well, it will be continued under the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act—but it means that the House will have an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation at the end of 1932. We feel so confident that this Measure will by that time justify itself that we are quite prepared rather to welcome the opportunity of bringing it to the House again at that stage in order that it may be continued.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER

I am sure that the House will join in the tribute which has been paid to the courtesy and the industry of the President of the Board of Trade. I feel that this Amendment deserves more than a passing reference to the characteristic courtesy of the President of the Board of Trade. The Attorney-General has said, with almost pointed truth, that it is difficult to forecast what will happen in the future. This is a modest and an interesting Amendment, and it would have been difficult for anyone who heard the speechs delivered from the Liberal benches on the Second Reading of this Bill to have forecast with certainty that this Amendment would have been moved at this stage. I call it a modest Amendment. because it seems to be a singularly modest conclusion to those speeches. We were told by the leader of that party, who, I regret, is not here to support this Amendment, that this was an incredibly bad Bill. We were told that it was a weed to be cut down, and we were told that the time was now, and that anyone who took a different view would find it very difficult to answer to his constituents. It is a very modest follow up of these protests to move an Amendment which merely alters the period from three years to two years. It is not only modest, but it is interesting. What is this mysterious period of two years? We thought that originally it was to be three. A period of two years has been selected not with a view to seeing how the amalgamation clauses are going to work, but clearly two years has been selected to see how the amalgamation of those two parties is going to work. I do not know whether at the end of two years that amalgamation is going to be continued by the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Act, or what will be the precise modus operandi. I understood that if an Amendment was moved, it would be moved to the effect that it should go on for the duration of the Naval Conference. I presume that neither the most optimistic nor the most pessimistic would put that at two years. I am not sure whether we ought not to suggest moving an Amendment to the proposed Amendment. Would it not be giving more effect to what is in the mind and to what is the intention of the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment if we said for a period of two years or until a Measure of electoral reform has been passed, whichever shall first happen?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM

I want to make my contribution to the references to the Liberal party. I want to draw the attention of the Mover of the Amendment to some very stringent remarks which were made by his Leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) on this subject about five weeks ago. I am afraid that the hon. Member overlooked these remarks, but to add interest to the story I am going to remind him of those words. This is what the Leader of the Liberal party said: The right hon. Gentleman (the President of the Board of Trade) does not realise that this is a scheme which is only for the limitation of output for three years. At the end of that time this machinery goes. And we are to upset the whole of the trade by setting up elaborate machinery, for arranging quotas, and buying quotas—because that is what it really means—and all for three years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1930; col. 2479, Vol. 235.] These were moderate, temperate, but strong words. There would have been a good deal more astonishment expressed had it been only for two years. I am convinced that the Mover of this Amendment overlooked this remarkable passage when putting the Amendment down and when moving it to-night. It is true that there was a Naval Conference sitting five weeks ago. It is also possibly true that on the day that these words were spoken there was a hoar frost, but five weeks later there is sunny weather, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party flits about like a butterfly, and forgets that winter will come again.

Sir H. SAMUEL

The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who have paid such flattering attention to those of us who sit on these benches and have done us the honour to quote certain speeches have omitted to quote one reference in speeches made both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and myself on the Second Reading. There was at that time no time limit of any sort in the Bill, and one of the points which we raised specifically, and on which we made a strong appeal to the Government, was that if the Bill was to pass into law a time limit should be inserted. That was done by Amendment on the Committee stage limiting the duration of the Bill to three years. Thinking as we do that there ought to be the shortest opportunity for any evils that may occur to take place, we have urged that the period should be still shorter. That has been agreed to by the Government and the Amendment which has now been moved has been accepted. Consequently, this particular Amendment is precisely in accordance with all for which we have asked since the first stages of this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 15, line 24, at the end, to insert the words Provided that the expiration of this Part of this Act shall not—

  1. (a) affect the previous operation of, or anything duly done or suffered under, this Part of this Act; or
  2. (b) affect any right, privilege, exemption, obligation, or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred under this Part of this Act; or
  3. (c) affect any penalty or punishment incurred under this Part of this Act; or
  4. (d) affect any investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, or punishment as aforesaid;
and any such investigation, legal proceeding, or remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced, and any such penalty or punishment may be imposed as if this Part of this Act had not expired. (2) The provisions of this Part of this Act making it an offence to act in contravention of a declaration of secrecy shall continue in force notwithstanding the expiration of this Part of this Act. This Amendment at first sight looks rather formidable, but it is in truth and in fact little more than a drafting Amendment. The proviso here inserted Provided that the expiration of this Part of this Act shall not (a)…(b)…(c)…and (d)… affecting various matters is taken almost verbatim from the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1889. Whenever a Statute is repealed these consequences automatically follow by the law of this country. The repeal of the Statute does not affect anything done while the Statute is in force, and, if a person committed an offence against the Statute while it was in force, notwithstanding the repeal of the Statute, he might be proceeded against or prosecuted for the commission of an offence. When the Statute has come to an end, it goes without saying, except in the case of an express provision to the contrary, that there can be no question of committing any fresh offence. Why we have to insert this matter here instead of leaving it to the general law of the land is that it has been decided, in the courts of this country, that there is a distinction in this case between a Statute which is repealed and a Statute which comes to an end automatically in the passing of time by virtue of its own provisions. Where a Statute is repealed this result always follows by reason of the Interpretation Act, but where a Statute comes to an end automatically—when it is provided that it shall last only for a certain time, and when that length of time comes to an end—it has been decided in the first courts that these consequences do not follow.

We have inserted a provision that this statute shall come to an end at a certain time, but we do not want by so doing, to take it out of the ordinary category. We desire to make the ordinary provision of the law apply; and therefore, we expressly provide that that provision of the law which applies to any statute which is repealed shall apply also in this case. What I have said as to the Interpretation Act only applies to (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the proviso. Sub-section (2) of the Amendment is not part of the Interpretation Act at all. We put in Sub-section (2) for this reason—and I am sure that we shall have the support of the whole House—that we must in this respect make an exception to the ordinary rule. We must make a certain thing continue to be an offence notwithstanding the fact that the Act has come to an end. If hon. Members will turn to page 14 of the Bill, they will see in the course of clause 8, between lines 25 and 30, that members of the committee of investigation have to make a declaration of secrecy. That is very desirable, because they will, in the course of their investigations, acquire all sorts of secrets which otherwise they would not get. It would be most improper, if because we repealed this Act, we relieved those people from the obligation which they had undertaken, and laid it open for them to pass on the information which they only received in return for a declaration of secrecy. I am sure that the whole House will agree that we must be careful to see that that obligation of secrecy is maintained, notwithstanding the fact that this Bill comes to an end at a certain time. After that explanation, I hope that the House will agree that this Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment and one which commands universal consent.

Amendment agreed to.