HC Deb 01 October 1931 vol 257 cc595-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


I should like to ask the Financial Secretary a question with regard to this Clause. We had last night a short discussion on Clause 10, and Clause 16 seems to me to cover very nearly the same ground. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would explain wherein the difference lies between the two Clauses. I confess that they appear to be almost identical, but no doubt there is an explanation of the difference.


Yes. It is true that these Clauses are, practically speaking, identical, and it is simply for technical reasons that it is necessary to put in these provisions again. The point is that though in substance the continuance of a 5 per cent. holding at, say, 4 per cent. is the same thing as the exchange of a 5 per cent. holding, in form it is different. For in the case of a continuance, in form the investor will have the same security at the time, whereas in an ordinary conversion he will have surrendered his security and got a new one in its place. That is a difference in form, and it was found impossible to devise a formula which would cover both cases. Complicated as are the two Clauses separately, that is nothing compared with the complications which would have occurred if we had tried to turn both into one, and that is the only reason for the occurrence of this Clause once more.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 17 (Provision for incidental expenses), 18 (Saving for statutory powers with respect to National Debt, including powers of Treasury as to arrangements with non-residents) and 19 (Interpretation), ordered to stand part of the Bill.