HC Deb 02 November 1932 vol 269 cc1803-13

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 11, line 11, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that the Agreements are fulfilled in accordance with the terms of this Act, each of the scheduled Agreements shall remain in force for 20 years from the date fixed by the Treasury for the commencement of the operation as defined in Subsection (2) of Section 14."—[Mr. Doran.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The first Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Doran), is out of order.

Mr. TINKER

I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, at the end, to add the words: Provided that no such order declaring any such Agreement to have teased to be in force shall he made unless the Government of the country have been given three months' notice of the intention of the Treasury to make such order. This Clause deals with the duration of the Agreements and gives power to the Treasury to discontinue any Agreement if they are satisfied that the conditions are not being carried out. Will any notice be given to the country or countries affected before any Agreement is cancelled? Although we object to the nature of the Agreements, we take the view that, if an Agreement has been arrived at, some notice should be given to the countries concerned before the Agreement is completely broken. Sub-section (3) of this Clause says that: if the Treasury, after consultation with any Government Department which appears to them to be interested, are satisfied that the Agreement is not being fulfilled on the part of the country between the Government of which and His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom the Agreement was made, they may make an order cancelling the Agreement. It then proceeds to say that if subsequently they are satisfied that the Agreement is being fulfilled, it can be renewed. That Sub-section appears to us to be difficult of interpretation and our Amendment has been put down for the purpose of finding out what is really meant by the determination of an Agreement. Will sufficient time be given to the other country concerned to realise that the Agreement is being cancelled?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha)

This Clause, as the hon. Member has pointed out, provides for the determination of any Agreement if it has been broken by one of the parties to it. If the Agreement has been broken, the Agreement has lapsed, and there would seem to be no reason why the duties should be kept on. My hon. Friend asks that when another country has broken its Agreement we should give them three months' notice. Surely, my hon. Friend will see that that is hardly a reasonable proposal to make. The other party is the offending party, the breach of the Agreement is a fact, and there would seem to be no reason why that other country should continue to enjoy the benefits of the Agreement. All that would result from the Amendment would he that the duties would be kept on for a longer period than necessary. I am sure that the hon. Member would he the last person, in view of his opposition to these duties, to desire that.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

The Financial Secretary's explanation does not deal with the question at all. The position that is apparently contemplated here is that some other country, one of the Dominions, may be considered by the Treasury, after consultation with some other Government Department, not to be fulfilling the Agreement. That is obviously a question which may be liable to different interpretations by the two sides to the Agreement. What we are most anxious to avoid is such action being taken in this case as was taken in the case of another Dominion, namely, that on the very day when it is alleged the Agreement has been broken, some punitive action may be put into force. The revocation of an order under this Agreement would be a punitive action. We are anxious that there should be full opportunity to discuss the alleged breach before such action is taken. The Financial Secretary says: "If they have broken their Agreement." It is obvious that in those circumstances the question would arise, have they broken their Agree- ment? These Agreements may be undesirable, but if we are going to have Agreements with the Dominions, surely it is necessary to have some means of deciding first, before you take action as if they have broken the Agreement, whether they have actually broken it. There is no provision for referring the matter to arbitration or getting the dispute settled in any way.

This Clause gives the Government of this country, through the Treasury, power immediately to step in and say: "We think you have broken the Agreement and we intend to revoke the duties." That would be a most undesirable state of affairs, in view of inter-Dominion feeling. The Financial Secretary has appealed to my hon. Friend by saying: "Would you not be very glad to see the duties taken off?" We should he very glad to see the duties taken off, but not if the price is to be fresh trouble with a Dominion—an accusation against this country of unfairness in the treatment of a Dominion. Three months longer period of duties might he far less harmful than getting into such a position, say, in regard to Canada. As the matter stands, the Treasury might say: "We have consulted the Board of Trade, and we are of opinion that something that you are doing in Canada is not in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. We are not going to write to you and say that we think your Agreement is being broken and to ask you to explain. We are not going to give you any time." The Treasury can thereupon make an order revoking the Agreement immediately they have come to their conclusion. Surely, the Financial Secretary does not desire that that should be the case, or to give the impression in the Dominions that that will be the case. It may be that he will say: "We shall never do that. Of course, we shall wait three months." I expected him to say that, and I was surprised that he did not say it. Of course we should wait.

We must give the other side an opportunity of explaining their case, whether they are right or wrong, and if necessary we must go to arbitration to decide who is right and who is wrong before we take action. If the Clause passes in its present form one must inevitably think that the Treasury are going to act as the final judge, exactly as the Government have done in another case with another Dominion. Therefore, I beg that the hon. Member will make it perfectly clear that should any dispute of this sort arise it will not be dealt with by the Treasury out of hand, but that proper time will be given for the matter to be discussed with the Dominion concerned and explanations given which may possibly get rid of the trouble. We have suggested three months as a convenient term. Some period of time ought to be allowed after the alleged breach has been communicated to the Dominions, during which nothing will be done pending the receipt of the explanation.

I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree with the reasonableness of what I am saying. He may take the view that it is not necessary to put such a provision into the Act, but I think he will agree that ours is a reasonable attitude. Although we are opposed to these Agreements, we are anxious that no more harm than necessary should be done to Imperial relations. We believe that, without altering the Agreement, some provision might be made to make it plain that proper and due time will be allowed for the discussion of alleged breaches before any action of the kind suggested is taken by the Government in this country.

Sir PERCY HARRIS

The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) has made a substantial point. I want to look at the reverse side of the shield. The Canadian Government are passing similar legislation to that which we are passing through this House, and the Australian Government are also passing similar proposals although they have been delayed through the illness of the Treasurer. They too will have some arrangements for withdrawing the preferences in the case of an alleged breach. Let me give one example of the kind of difficulties which might arise in regard to the interpretation of the Agreements. Important powers are vested in the Government for arranging a meat agreement. If there is a suspicion in Australia or in New Zealand that we are not carrying out our side of the Agreement an Australian or a New Zealand Government might withdraw the preferences. If we give this power to the Treasury here and there is an equivalent power in Australia or in Canada, I can understand that there may be causes of irritation and friction. The procedure we are making. here must be followed by the Dominions. I know how sensitive they are to any action taken by the British House of Commons sand how easily they misunderstand things which we do. It is wise when we are legislating for a period of five years, during which there may be a change of Government in this country and in one of the Dominions, to draft a Clause which is foolproof and friction proof.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

When an hon. Member on, this side of the House moved an Amendment with reference to iron and steel, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs gave him a lecture on trade union practice in order to show him that he was wrong. I propose to give an illustration from trade union practice in order to support the Amendment. In the iron and steel trade we have a joint industrial council, and the two most important points in the constitution are that the men are not permitted to down tools and the employers are not permitted to close down the works without first referring the dispute to the joint industrial council. We had a dispute the other day in a works in which eight mills operated. There was a dispute in one of the mills. The employers closed down the other seven mills. The men said that the employers had broken the constitution, and the employers claimed that they had not. The matter was referred to the joint industrial council. The same thing can happen politically. We may say that one of the Dominions have broken the Agreement, and they may say that they have not. The proposition here is that some time should elapse in order that the matter may be discussed and settled amicably between the two parties. If there is any dispute the matter should be settled amicably, before there is any proposal to revoke the Agreement in any way.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain)

The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in moving the Amendment, simply invited an explanation from the Financial Secretary, and my hon. Friend gave the explanation. It did not satisfy the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). If he had put his questions before my hon. Friend spoke, they would have been answered by the Financial Secretary. I am responding to the invitation addressed directly to me by the hon. and learned Member to say whether the Amendment is a reasonable one or not. I do not think it is; but that does not say that the considerations adduced by the hon. and learned Member were not reasonable considerations. Let us see what possible alternative conditions there are under which the Amendment might become operative. You have here a series of Agreements between various Dominions and the United Kingdom, and it is perfectly clear that in the interpretation of these Agreements there may from time to time arise perfectly innocent differences of opinion between the two Governments. What would be the procedure on the part of the British Government if such a difference of opinion should arise? I am not speaking for any British Government except the present Administration, but, as far as this Government is concerned, I say without hesitation that we who have gone through so much trouble to try and make these Agreements with the Dominions are not likely to upset and wreck them by any premature, hasty or ill-tempered treatment of any innocent difference, or reasonable difference, of opinion which may arise between us. Of course, we should not straightway say that we are satisfied that the Agreement has been broken and ceases to be in force. That is not the way we should go about it. We should exhaust all possible means of coming to an agreement with the Dominion Government concerned before we took such action as that.

But one must contemplate the possibility that the Government, with which we have concluded these Agreements is replaced by some other Government which takes an entirely different view, and which sad s: "We did not agree at the time. We declared that we would not be bound by the Agreements that were made. Now we have come into office we are not going to be bound, and we cease to fulfil our side of the Agreement." What would be the result of the Amendment in such circumstances as those I One side would have refused to fulfil its obligations, and the other side would be compelled to fulfil its obligations for another three months. That is not a reasonable position, and that is the reason why I say that, while I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. and learned Member that we should not hastily take action of the kind open to us under this Clause, yet, at the same time, I do not think that we should be bound to give the three months' notice which the Amendment proposes.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

I gather now that this Sub-section was put in in intelligent anticipation by the right hon. Gentleman that before very long he would be turned out, and a party would come in in this country, as in other countries, which is not pledged to carry out these Agreements. Of course, we have not had that explanation before, but, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly understands that that may happen in this country and in some of the Dominions, it seems to be very remiss that in making the Agreements they did not provide that both parties to them should give reasonable notice, because now the right hon. Gentleman says that if one of the Dominions declares at a moment's notice that the Agreement may come to an end, we shall have to follow suit; that as we have not provided at all for any notice from the Dominions to set aside the Agreement and upset all our trade, we shall merely have to do the same. It seems to me that something very curious happened at Ottawa, because although surrounded by a crowd of witnesses and business experts, no one seems to have suggested that this might happen. I should have thought that the least that should have been done would have been to provide for these Agreements to be terminated at reasonable notice.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL

The observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer are of very great importance. He contemplates, I will not say the probability, but the possibility that in one or other of the Dominions a party may come into power which has in advance

declared it would not be bound by the Agreement, and that that party, having formed a Government, would thereupon break the Agreement, because there is no provision in the Agreements themselves to allow them to be terminated on short notice being given, except in the case of the Indian Agreement, which has a Clause in it that the Government of India may give six months' notice of termination. Consequently, if there is a change of Government in Canada, Australia or any of the other Dominions, and the mandate from the electors of those countries is that the Agreement should no longer be observed, the only course (he Government leaves open to the Dominions is that the Agreement should be broken in defiance of the signature of the previous Government, and in defiance of any statutory sanction.

This is another illustration of the contention which we have repeatedly pressed upon the House as to the great danger which is embodied in these Agreements, for in our similar case, if a General Election is fought upon this issue—and it must be an issue at the General Election—and if another Parliament comes in with another policy from this, the Government dependent on the confidence of that Parliament can do nothing except break the Agreement and repudiate it, although the term of five years has not elapsed. This illustrates more clearly than ever the strength of the contention we have pressed upon the House, but which has received no response from any quarter, that it would be most desirable in the general interests of this country, of the Dominions and the Empire, that there should be a proper provision for termination at the end of six months' notice.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 249.

Division No. 346.] AYES [4.4 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar. South) Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Hicks, Ernest George
Aske, Sir Robert William Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Hirst, George Henry
Attlee, Clement Richard Edwards, Charles Holdsworth, Herbert
Banfield, John William Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen) Jenkins, Sir William
Batey, Joseph Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Buchanan, George Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Cape, Thomas Grithffis, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) Kirkwood, David
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Grundy, Thomas W. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Cove, William G. Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Leonard, William
Cripps, Sir Stafford Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Logan, David Gilbert
Curry, A. C. Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Lunn, William
Daggar, George Harris, Sir Percy Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
McEntee, Valentine L. Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)
Maxton, James Thorne, William James Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Parkinson, John Allen Tinker, John Joseph Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Price, Gabriel White, Henry Graham
Rea, Walter Russell Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.
NOES
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Everard, W. Lindsay Marsden, Commander Arthur
Albery, Irving James Falls, Sir Bertram G. Martin, Thomas B.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.) Fermoy, Lord Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Fleming, Edward Lascelles Millar, Sir James Duncan
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Forestier-Walker, Sir Leollin Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Fox, Sir Gifford Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Fuller, Captain A. G. Milne, Charles
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Ganzonl, Sir John Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Atholl, Duchess of Gillett, Sir George Masterman Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Moreing, Adrian C.
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Glossop, C. W. H. Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. Gluckstein, Louis Halle Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey Glyn, Major Ralph G. C. Moss, Captain H. J.
Bateman, A. L. Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Muirhead, Major A. J.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Munro, Patrick
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Graves, Marjorie Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) Grimston, R. V. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Gunston, Captain D. W. Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersfl'ld)
Blindell, James Guy, J. C. Morrison North, Captain Edward T.
Borodale, Viscount Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Nunn, William
Boulton, W. W. Hanley, Dennis A. Palmer, Francis Noel
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Patrick, Colin M.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Harbord, Arthur Pearson, William G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Hartington, Marquess of Penny, Sir George
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald Hartland, George A. Perkins, Walter R. D.
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks. E. R.) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes) Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Headlam, Lieut,-Col. Cuthbert M. Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Broadbent, Colonel John Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bliston)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Pike, Cecil F.
Browne, Captain A. C. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Powell Lieut,-Col. Evlyn G. H.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hornby, Frank Pownall, Sir Assheton
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie Horsbrugh, Florence Procter, Major Henry Adam
Burnett, John George Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Ramsden, E.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Ratcliffe, Arthur
Carver, Major William H. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Rawson, Sir Cooper
Castlereagh, Viscount James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Jamieson, Douglas Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Chalmers, John Rutherford Jennings, Roland Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) Jesson, Major Thomas E. Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Charlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Christie, James Archibald Ker, J. Campbell Rosbotham, S. T.
Clarke, Frank Kerr, Hamilton W. Ross, Ronald D.
Clayton, Dr. George C. Kimball, Lawrence Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cobb, Sir Cyril Kirkpatrick, William M. Runge, Norah Cecil
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Colfax, Major William Philip Knight, Holford Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Knox, Sir Alfred Rutherford. Sir John Hugo
Cooke, Douglas Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Salmon, Major Isidore
Cooper, A. Duff Law, Sir Alfred Salt, Edward W.
Copeland, Ida Lees-Jones, John Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Leighton. Major B. E. P. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Cranborne, Viscount Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Craven-Ellis, William Levy, Thomas Savery, Samuel Servington
Crooke, J. Smedley Lewis, Oswald Scone, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle) Lindsay, Noel Ker Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Crossley, A. C. Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Llewellin, Major John J. Sheppereon, Sir Ernest W.
Davison, Sir William Henry Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Loder, Captain J. de Vere Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Dickle, John P. Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Doran, Edward MacAndrew, Lieut.-col.C.G. (Partick) Smith-Carinqton, Neville W.
Drewe, Cedric MacAndrew, Capt. J.O. (Ayr) Smithers, Waldron
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Duggan, Hubert John MacDonald, Capt. P.D. (I. of W.) Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Douglass, Lord McEwen, Captain J.H.F. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Edmondson, Major A. J. McLean, Major Alan Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey McLean, Dr. W.H. (Tradeston) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Elmley, Viscount Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Emmott, Charles E.G.C. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Sutcliffe, Harold Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) Wallace, John (Dunfermline) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George
Thompson, Luke Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Wells, Sydney Richard Worthington, Dr. John V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of Weymouth, Viscount Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Todd, A. L. S (Kingswinford) Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement Whyte, Jardine Bell TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Turton, Robert Hugh Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) Major George Davies and Lord
Erskine.

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