HC Deb 10 June 1936 vol 313 cc219-38

3.34 p.m.


I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, to leave out from "they," to "make," in line 36, and to insert "shall."

'Under this Clause the Import Duties Advisory Committee are given discretionary powers as to the admission into this country of goods intended to be used in scientific research or for the purpose of advancing any branch of learning or art. The Amendment is quite consistent with the idea of the Clause, because in paragraph (b) the words are goods are not intended to be sold. I cannot understand how any discretionary question can arise. Let me give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an experience of my own with regard to the difficulty which some people have in bringing into this country articles which may be deemed to be necessary for the advancement of learning or art. The Import Duties Advisory Committee must be a wonderful body. They have to make decisions on all sorts of circumstances relating to industry, and here they are to decide on matters appertaining to the advancement of learning or art. There is a school at Rome, subsidised by His Majesty's Government—the British School of Art at Rome. There was a very brilliant student in London who won his scholarships and went to Rome, where he was an outstanding figure in the school. One of the most remarkable pieces of sculpture that I have seen was produced by this student, and he was anxious that the work which he had accomplished at the school in Rome should come to London. He approached the authorities here, but when it came to this country it was immediately put in bond. He wished this specimen of his work to arrive at the Royal Academy, but the authorities had great trouble in getting the figure taken to the exhibition, and immediately the exhibition was over it was put again in bond. He could neither take it home nor do anything with it, and this dear lady lay in the cellars of the Royal Academy under bond. He wrote to the proper authority to ask what could be done to release Venus, and was told that he had either to pay the tariff on this lady or re-export her to Italy, which would mean that the moment she was put on board ship and got to Italy, she would have to pay another tariff. She was therefore at sea. She could neither go to Italy nor come back home.

After much trouble and using all the influence we possessed we discovered that it was necessary to exclude the importation of sculptured works from abroad because there was a tariff against tombstones, and the difficulty was to know whether a genuine work of art was a tombstone or not. The lady was anything but a tombstone. It was one of the most beautiful things I have seen coming from British hands, but here she was in bondage at home, and her only hope of escape was to get to sea. Finally, we won a great concession and at last she arrived in this country and is living in London at the moment. I give this case to show how farcical the whole thing is. It is one of the most comical stories I know, and shows to what a farce this kind of procedure can reduce any country.

It is very necessary for the Government to take cognisance of the fact that we have schools abroad in which we are encouraging the study of art and that there should be no impediments standing between this country and the results of the work and research of those who go to those schools. If it is a matter of wishing to put up a tariff against foreign art, I can assure you that Mr. Epstein would have a heavy tariff against him so far as I am concerned, because what he is doing has nothing to do with the life of this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense!"] That might be a very good description of his works of art. It really becomes ridiculous when tariffs operate in such a way as to impede the free flow of anything that is for the advancement of learning in any shape or form. I should have thought that the Amendment we are moving would have been commendable to the Government, and that there would have been no question about the matter. These articles are not coming in to compete against the production of anybody else. They are articles for the advancement of the intelligence of the community, and there should be no discretionary power left to any advisory committee. After what I have said, I hope the Government will consider making it a direct mandate from the House that what seems to be useful for the advancement of art and learning shall come freely into the country.

3.42 p.m.


I support the Amendment. As the Government in the Bill admit the case for these goods being duty free, why should they not accept our Amendment and use the word "shall" instead of "may"? The word "may" is far too indefinite, too permissive, and always leaves loopholes for escaping from any obligation. Surely the Committee ought to agree that these goods, which are not for sale, should be allowed to enter the country duty free? Every Government ought to encourage scientific research, because it is most important to us as a nation. Learning and art ought to be encouraged. Education ought not to be viewed as a luxury to be taxed, but as a necessity which should be made as free as possible. Sport is also mentioned in the Clause; we ought to encourage manly sport, particularly health-giving sport. If we believe that such things are beneficial to us as a nation, then let there be no obstacle placed in the way of their free entry into this country.

3.44 p.m.


I venture to hope that the Minister may be able to accept the Amendment. If one looks at the wording of the Clause as it stands, and compares it with the wording of the Clause as we wish to amend it, I think it will be clear that there is no difference in principle. As it stands, the Clause provides: (1) If the Import Duties Advisory Committee are satisfied, on the application of the importer of any goods, that—

  1. (a) the goods are intended to be used in scientific research, or for a purpose connected with the advancement of any branch of learning or art or with the promotion of any sport; and
  2. (b) the goods are rot intended to be sold, or to be used for any purpose which is substantially a commercial purpose;"
the principle of the Clause being
  1. "(i) that the goods should be allowed to be imported without payment of any duty to which this section applies; or
  2. (ii) that, if any such duty has been paid in respect of the goods, it should be repaid on the exportation of the goods, or should be repaid whether the goods are exported or not;"
Looking at the Clause, it is difficult to see why the extra safeguard is necessary. In the first place the importer of the goods has to satisfy the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the conditions are complied with. The Import Duties Advisory Committee are then made judges, as it were, in their own case. If the Clause be passed without amendment, there will be the very curious result that after the importer of the goods has satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the goods come within the conditions stipulated in the Clause, the Committee will not be obliged to do anything. First they are made judges in their own case, and then they are allowed to decide for themselves whether the conditions are satisfied or not; but when the importer of the goods has proved his case up to the hilt, he has no right whatever under the Clause, except that, after the Committee have satisfied themselves that the conditions apply, they may, if in view of all the circumstances of the case they deem it expedient so to do, make a recommendation to the Treasury.… There is not anywhere in the Clause or in the Bill so far as I have been able to discover anything which defines what are the circumstances which ought to lead the Committee to "deem it expedient so to do." What the Amendment suggests is not that the decision should be taken out of the hands of the Import Duties Advisory Committee—for we are content that the decision shall be left to them—but that when the decision is left to them and they are satisfied, the principle adumbrated in the Clause shall be applied without any further saving Clause. There seems very little reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. I think that all the purposes which the Minister had in mind in drafting the Clause would be just as well served with the Amendment as without it, and with the Amendment people would at any rate have some idea as to what it is they have to prove in order to claim the privilege in the end.

Before I sit down I would like to tell the Committee of one instance within my own knowledge. I think hon. Members were interested in the instance given by the Mover of the Amendment about Venus, who found it so difficult to rise from the sea, and perhaps they will be equally interested in the instance which came to my knowledge, and about which I ventured to write to the Financial Secretary. It is the case of a refugee from Germany, a, man with a medical qualification in Germany who was prevented under the existing régime from pursuing his professional activities there, and who sought some kind of refuge, temporary if not permanent, in this country. He was allowed to come in with a temporary visa which, unless it be extended, will expire next week. When he entered the country six months ago he brought with him certain instruments. I need not specify precisely what they were, and there may indeed be some slight shadow of doubt as to whether or not they come within the Clause, but I think that the decision ought in the end to be that they do come within the Clause.

When he came, he was quite properly challenged by the Customs authorities about the instruments and he asked, "Do I or do I not have to pay duty on them?" The Customs authorities said, "We are not quite sure, and would like to consider the point." He said, "What can I do in order to have the use of them in the meantime?" He was told, "You may take them in, provided you deposit what the revenue authorities deem sufficient to cover the eventual duty, if duty is to be levied." He agreed to do so, and £150 was fixed as the amount of the deposit. He deposited that sum six months ago. I have made inquiries since and I am led to believe that the maximum duty which would, in any event, be payable on the instruments is £100, so that the amount of the deposit was amply sufficient to cover any charge which might eventually be made. The Committee may find it 'difficult to believe, but I assure them that the authorities have not yet made up their mind now, within a week of the expiry of the visa, whether duty is leviable or not on these articles, and, if leviable, to what amount. Refugees from Germany do not usually come here blessed with a superabundance of wealth, and probably a sum which is 50 per cent. more than any duty which could properly be chargeable—


Even if this Amendment were carried, I fail to see how it would meet the situation described by the hon. Member.


I suggest, with respect, that the whole difficulty arises owing to the fact that the Clause as it stands is discretionary, whereas the Clause as we propose to amend it would not be discretionary, and people would then have certain rights in this matter. Under the Clause, as amended, if a man, in those circumstances, satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee that his goods came within the description set out in the Clause he would be entitled to something, whereas, under the Clause as drafted, he is not entitled to anything. Even if he satisfies the Import. Duties Advisory Committee up to the hilt, then, over and above that, the Committee in view of all the circumstances of the case has to "deem it expedient" to exercise a discretion in his favour.


Will the hon. Member say what the instruments are? That seems to be relevant to his point.


I thought I had described what they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I will come back to that point in a moment.


On a, point of Order. It is relevant to the discussion to know what the instruments are. If they are not such as would conic within the provisions of this Clause, surely a discussion on them is out of order?


I said that the whole point about the delay was that the Customs authorities themselves held that the instruments might come within the Clause.


Not this Clause.


Well, the corresponding section in last year's Finance Act. The whole point is that in this Clause, which we are seeking to amend and which is a repetition of the corresponding section of last year's Act, the whole thing is discretionary. If the importer has satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the facts and as to the articles being within the section, then he has no right at all unless the committee decide that it is expedient to exercise a discretion in his favour. We want to abolish that discretion. We do not want to take away the power of judgment from the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It is a very proper committee in the circumstances, to exercise it, but we say that in exercising it, they ought to test the evidence and ought not to do anything unless they are completely satisfied. Once they have been completely satisfied let us not add on some vague general discretion about the meaning of which there can never be any certainty.

3.55 p.m.


In support of the Amendment I would like to give another illustration. It appears from a report which appeared in the "Times" a couple of days ago that certain people in this country who are interested in storks, wished to get some birds or birds' eggs from Germany. It may be that the illustration already given by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) will not have any effect on the Chancellor, but if the right hon. Gentleman is impervious to the charms of Venus, he will perhaps listen with sympathy to the story about storks which appeared in the "Times." Whatever the motive may have been for the imposition of the duty, these scientific gentlemen were unable to obtain the storks or the storks' eggs without paying a duty of 50s. per stork, or 1s. per egg. They had to pay that at the Customs office at Croydon before either the storks or the eggs could be released. We do not wish to unbalance the Budget or to put, extra taxation on something else, but we do wish to try to cut the red tape which at present prevents people concerned in scientific development in this country from importing necessary articles or materials without duty. I take it that the whole purpose of the Clause is to allow scientific instruments or commodities to be brought into this country without heavy duties. The importation of the storks may, for all I know, have some scientific effect in the raising of the birth rate which I understand is falling, and I hope that my illustration may produce some good results in a favourable reply either from the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

3.57 p.m.


I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to give some further information concerning the words "promotion of any sport."


I think that point could better be raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


If I am ruled out of order I shall, of course, attempt to raise the matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but the point I wish to bring out may have an effect on this Debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to proceed, and if I am found to be out of order I can raise the matter later. The question with which I am concerned relates to the international sport of yachting. When a large yacht sails from English waters to take part in an international regatta it has no difficulty whatever—


I still fail to see what effect this Amendment would have on the question which the hon. Member seeks to raise.


In that case I shall endeavour to raise it later.

3.59 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain)

I gather that the hon. Member who moved this Amendment founded his case upon, a particular instance which came under his notice when his attention was favourably enlisted on behalf of a lady of unusual charms. I do not know sufficient of the circumstances of the case to be able to comment upon it, but I am glad to hear that the story had a happy ending. One of the maxims upon which I was brought up was that it is unsafe to generalise upon less than two instances, and I think that is the difficulty into which the hon. Member has fallen. As a matter of fact his Amendment, if carried, would go a great deal further than I think he intends. The effect of the Amendment would be that an importer having established to the satisfaction of the Import Duties Advisory Committee that he had fulfilled the two conditions set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) would at once be able to demand the right of importation of these articles free of duty. That would be inconsistent with the provisions of the original Import Duties Act, and the duties which were laid upon the Import Duties Advisory Committee in considering any application that might be made to them. They are not concerned solely with the two conditions which are laid down: here. The Import Duties Committee have to consider the general interests of British industry and the other circumstances that they think relevant. It is quite possible, if the Amendment were carried, that many articles which would fulfil these two conditions could be imported without paying any duty, although they could be equally well made at home. That would be contrary to the spirit of the Act.

Arising out of the interrupted speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery), on the question of the promotion of sport, it is quite conceivable that the promoters of some sporting event might import the whole of the prizes and trophies they required, to the detriment of British manufacturers. Surely that is a matter which ought to come within the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. Although it is impossible to operate an extensive tariff like ours without occasionally having cases which give rise to grievances, and sometimes perhaps to hardships, on the whole I think we may trust the Import Duties Advisory Committee to exercise their functions impartially and with due regard to the considerations that are laid down in this Clause, without leaving out of their consideration other matters which affect British industry as a whole. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.

4.3 p.m.


The Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly kept in his mind the two provisions mentioned in the Clause. At least he has said that the Import Duties Committee must be satisfied with regard to the two conditions. But respectfully I would draw his attention to Sub-section (1, b), which contains the words "not intended to be sold." There is no commercial advantage involved. The particular instance which I gave is only one of many. I could give the right hon. Gentleman quite a, number of cases similar to it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the words "not intended to be sold." If these articles were to enter the market the case would be different.


That is quite irrelevant to the point. It is true that the goods are not to be sold in the particular instance given, but they had to be bought, and that is where the point comes in. The question is, from whom are they to be bought? I do not see why they should be bought from a foreign manufacturer when a British manufacturer can produce the same article.

4.5 p.m.


In this very special market it surely should be possible for people to buy scientific instruments where they wish. It is not desirable that we should hand over a monopoly for the making of scientific instruments to anyone in this country. Why start nationalising the sources of scientific investigation? To do that is surely to go back to the dark ages. I should have thought it desirable that people should be allowed to buy instruments in any part of the world. It is a very good thing that the makers of instruments here should have to compete with manufacturers in other parts of the world, in order that our own scientific progress might be kept abreast of the rest of the world. This concession would not be extensively abused, as there is the protection of Sub-section (1, b), which provides that the articles cannot be sold and cannot be used for any purpose which is substantially a commercial purpose. That provision limits their use very considerably. The articles can be used only in colleges or technical schools. In regard to prizes for sports, I should have thought that here was an instance where the Chancellor of the Exchequer might easily have responded to the application of those who support the Amendment.

4.7 p.m.


The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Amendment would have a serious effect on British industry, whereas in reality it is a very small matter. So far as the instance that he gave, on the question of sport, is concerned, we on this side are not worrying very much about the inclusion or exclusion of sport from the Clause. We are far more concerned with the scientific problem. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was no reason why any one in this country should import from abroad an article which could be made here. Normally a person is not likely to do that. The importer who is importing for commercial purposes has his machinery for importing from abroad, but any normal individual, if he wants to buy a certain article, will buy it in the handiest place. The scientific man will have his British lists and will write to London for the lists of the firms making the particular things he requires, and he will get the articles from London, other things being equal, because that will be so much simpler; but the occasion arises when he feels that the particular article supplied in this country may not be just what he wants. In that case, if he feels that in the interests of the particular scientific experiment he is making, he must have the foreign article, he has to pay a duty upon it.

Let me give an example of what I mean. Take the case of certain drugs, particularly the organic drugs. The products of two firms may, so far as can be ascertained, be identical in quality, yet it may be known that they have quite different physical and theoretical effects. If an experimenter in this country decided that he wanted to experiment with a German drug, or if he felt that the German drug gave a better result, he would go to the Advisory Committee and ask for permission to import, explaining that the drug was for purely scientific investigation, and then under the second part of their instructions they would have to decide whether the import was expedient. A point that would arise would be exactly the point mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is this drug made in England? The British drug manufacturer would say "Yes, of course it is made in England," for he would not admit that his drug was inferior to any other. The only person capable of judging a point like that is the importer himself.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the Import Duties Advisory Committee are capable of coming to a, decision on matters of scientific experiment with the accuracy and precision that an experimenter can exercise. It is for these reasons that we want to make it imperative that once the importer has established the fact that he proposes to use the imported article for the various purposes described in this Clause, that article shall come in free of duty automatically. In his reference to sports prizes the Chancellor did not deal with the gravamen of our Amendment. He certainly did not satisfy us when he said that the same articles could be made in this country. The whole point of having to buy abroad is the fact that in certain circumstances, and possibly in important circumstances, the particular article cannot be bought in this country, that it is not made in this country, and that if it is to be used at all it must be imported.

4.13 p.m.


I was amazed to hear the Chancellor's reply to the appeal that has been made to him. I have never heard him reply to worse effect. I am sure that his supporters were astonished at the weak case that he made, particularly as it came from such an authority on these questions. The case that was made for the Amendment was that when our students go abroad and have produced there works of art, pictures or sculpture, and they bring home that work, it should not be taxed. To tax it we think is a scandal. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to reply to that point. He tried to side-track the essential issue. We seek to defend our own young men and women who are considered the better for having gone abroad in order to get experience and to come in contact with those who are supposed to possess something greater than our local talent here. After all that expense has been incurred we put a tariff on their works. They are not foreign, works at all, but the works of Britishers.

The right hon. Gentleman side-tracked the issue by saying that a football team or an athletic club might be induced to buy pups or prizes of one kind or another in Germany or elsewhere abroad, instead of in Birmingham. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention Birmingham, but I knew quite well what was in his mind. In all my years' experience in this House I have never seen such a scientific side-tracking of a sound case made from the Labour benches. Why should clubs do anything of the kind? I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that the last people in this country who would think of trading with foreigners are the sportsmen of this country, and it ill-becomes the right hon. Gentleman to try to get round in this way a difficult point that he was not able to answer. I have never seen him flounder so much as he did on this question. It is not a big point, but a small point, a slight concession that would be beneficial not only to the working class but to the entire British people. He knew very well that it would be difficult to answer, and so he side-tracked the question. Before we divide on the matter I want to ask him this question: Will he allow these works of art that are executed by our own kith and kin, who go to Rome and to Athens and bring their works back here, to come into this country without any tariff or anything else? I want his reply to that direct question.


It has nothing to do with the Amendment.


The right hon. Gentleman must not keep his seat and answer like that. Let him get up like an ordinary Member of the House of Commons and give me a reply.

4.17 p.m.


I want briefly to support the Amendment. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman about the dangers to the Revenue and the tariff structure if importers were given a piece of machinery by which, on proving certain facts, they would have a right to a reduction of the tariff, and I think that that argument would be a strong one if the individuals who were going to take advantage of this Clause were individuals who could be described as professional importers of foreign produce, but the initiative under this Clause must be taken by an ordinary private individual, a man, in 99 cases out of 100, who has had no previous connection with trade, or the Board of Trade, or the Import Duties Advisory Committee—in this case an ordinary man in the street. The initiative must in fact, because of Sub-section (2, b), be taken by the ultimate user or consumer of the goods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out the need of safeguarding the whole tariff structure, but surely you have a sufficient safeguard in this, that the average man in the street is not likely to go to all the fuss and bother of an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee unless it is a case in which he feels that he desperately needs goods from abroad for scientific research or for purposes connected, with learning or art, and that that fuss and bother are worth while to him.

The example of purchasing prizes for a sports gala or something of that sort is not worth considering, if you take it out of the House of Commons into a meeting of a gala committee. Are they really going to make this application, which has to be made before the goods are delivered to them for a set of cups and trophies, which they will have to base upon a circular or catalogue sent to them from some Berlin house? Never in this world will such an application come forward. Applications will only come from men who are in desperate need of the goods set out in Sub-section (1, a), and in those cases I feel that there can be no risk to the tariff structure by granting this concession, that men of that kind, subject to such a need, should make out their case and should be given the concession, not as a matter of discretion by the Treasury, but as a matter of right. I therefore support the Amendment.

4.20 p.m.


I am very keen about this matter. I know it is difficult for the Government, having once made up their mind at the beginning of the discussion, to give way now, but I would put this point to them: I see the Minister of Education sitting on the Treasury Bench, and I know I have his sympathy here. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter, and if the hon. Member who laughs were a poor, wretched student, he would not laugh. May I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the principle embodied in this point?


Exactly what articles would these students propose to bring in? That is what is bothering me. Would it be notebooks and books of that sort?


It is a question of students going abroad to the British School in Rome, for example, producing their works there, and then, when they bring them back here, being barred.

4.22 p.m.


As the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has appealed to me, let me assure him that I regard this matter quite seriously, but I cannot help thinking there is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of hon. Members opposite on it. This is not a Clause to prohibit the importation of articles from abroad. It is a Clause to enable articles which are imported into this country for certain scientific or research purposes, and which are not to be sold, to be imported free of duty. It is a Clause, therefore, to permit the entry, free of duty, of just such articles as those to which the hon. Member refers, but if you ask that students or artists who produce works abroad should be allowed to bring them in here free of duty, and sell them in this country—




Well, here I am referring to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), and I would point out that the carrying of the Amendment would not effect that at all. The object of the Clause is to admit bona fide cases such as the one he gave to the Committee, and I have no reason to suppose that the Import Duties Advisory Committee will put any obstacle in the way of such importation as he has suggested. But to give that Committee no discretion to say that the duty shall not be remitted in cases where conditions are obviously quite different, would be going much too far.

4.24 p.m.


When you give the Advisory Committee the power of deciding for themselves whether certain conditions are satisfied, why is it

necessary, after they have so decided, to add the phrase, which must always be open to dispute: in view of all the circumstances of the case they deem it expedient so to do"? It is an absolutely unlimited, unfettered discretion, under which this permissive Clause could become a purely prohibitive Clause. Why is it necessary to leave them such absolute discretion?


There is no question of prohibition in any case. The only question is whether or not duty shall be paid on an article.


I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is meeting my point. If you give the Import Duties Advisory Committee first the right to satisfy themselves that certain conditions have been complied with, and then you add that after they are satisfied they need only grant permission if they deem it expedient so to do, and you do not define the circumstances in any way, that, I contend, could be made to operate as a, prohibition.


Surely the discretion of the Import Duties Advisory Committee is unlimited so as to enable the Committee to take into account all those considerations to which hon. Members have referred.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217;Noes, 135.

Division No. 226.] AYES. [4.27 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Davison, Sir W. H.
Adams. S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Bullock, Capt. M. De Chair, S. S.
Albery, J. J. Burghley, Lord De la Bere, R.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Burton, Col. H. W. Denman, Hon. R. D.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Cary, R. A. Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Cautley, Sir H. S. Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Aske, Sir R. W. Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Assheton, R. Cazalet, Capt V. A. (Chlppenham) Dugdale, Major T. L.
Atholl, Duchess of Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.) Duggan, H. J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n) Duncan, J. A. L.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Channon, H. Dunglass, Lord
Balneil, Lord Chapman, A. (Ruthergien) Dunne, P. R. R.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.) Eckersley, P. T.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Chorlton, A. E. L. Emery, J. F.
Beaumont, Hon R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Christie, J. A. Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. Colfox, Major W. P. Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Bernays, R. H. Colman, N. C. D. Erskine Hill, A. G.
Bird, Sir R. B. Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Fildes, Sir H.
Blair, Sir R. Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Findlay, Sir E.
Blindell, Sir J. Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Fleming, E. L.
Boothby, R. J. G. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.) Furness, S. N.
Bossom, A. C. Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Ganzonl, Sir J.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Gibson, C. G.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G Crookshank, Capt. R. F. C. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Crossley, A. C. Gluckstein, L. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Crowder, J. F. E. Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Goodman Col. A. W. MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot U.) Samuej, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Granville, E. L. McKie, J. H. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Selley, H. R.
Gridley, Sir A. B. Macquisten, F. A. Shakespeare, G. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Maitland, A. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Grimston, R. V. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Gunston, Capt. D. W. Markham, S. F. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Guy, J. C. M. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Smithers, Sir W.
Hamilton, Sir G. C. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Somerset, T.
Hannah, I. C. Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Harbord, A. Morgan, R. H. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Spens, W. P.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'l'd)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester) Storey, S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)
Holmes, J. S. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L. Palmer, G. E. H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Horsbrugh, Florence Patrick, C. M. Sutcliffe, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Peake, O. Tate, Mavis C.
Hulbert, N. J. Penny, Sir G. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Hume, Sir G. H. Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Perkins, W. R. D. Titchfield, Marquess of
James, Wing-Commander A. W. Petherick, M. Touche, G. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Keeling, E. H. Plugge, L. F. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Pownall, Sir Assheton Turton, R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Radford, E. A. Wakefield, W. W.
Kirkpatrick, W. M. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G, Ramsden, Sir E. Wallace, Captain Euan
Latham, Sir P. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Ward, Lieut.-Col, Sir A. L. (Hull)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Rayner, Major R. H. Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Leech, Dr. J. W. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Williams, H. G. (Crcydon, S.)
Lees-Jones, J. Reid, W. Allen (Derby) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Withers, Sir J. J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Ropner, Colonel L. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Lewis, O. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Liddall, W. S. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Lloyd, G. W. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Loftus, P. C. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Major George Davies and Captain.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Salmon, Sir I. Hope
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Salt, E. W.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales) Kirby, B. V.
Adams, D. (Consett) Foot, D. M. Kirkwood, D.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Gallacher, W. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Adamson, W. M. Gardner, B. W. Lathan, G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Garro Jones, G. M. Lee, F.
Ammon, C. G. George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Leonard, W.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Gibbins, J Leslie, J. R.
Banfield, J. W. Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Logan, D. G.
Barnes, A. J. Green, W. H. (Deptford) Lunn, W.
Batey, J. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Bellenger, F. Grenfell, D. R. McEntee, V. La T.
Benson, G. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) McGhee, H. G.
Bevan, A. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) MacLaren, A.
Broad, F. A. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Maclean, N.
Bromfield, W. Groves, T. E. MacNeill, Weir, L.
Brooke, W. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Mander, G. le M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Marklew, E.
Burke, W. A. Hardie, G. D. Marshall, F.
Cape, T. Harris, Sir P. A. Maxton, J.
Charleton, H. C. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Messer, F.
Chater, D. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Milner, Major J.
Cluse, W. S. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Montague, F.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Compton, J. Holland, A. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Cove, W. G. Hopkin, D. Naylor, T. E.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Jagger, J. Oliver, G. H.
Daggar, G. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Owen, Major G.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Paling, W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Parker, J.
Day, H. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Parkinson J. A.
Dobble, W. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Potts, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Kelly, W. T. Pritt, D. N.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Quibell, D. J. K.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.) Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) Watkins, F. C.
Riley, B. Smith, T. (Normanton) Watson, W. McL.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Sorensen, R. W. Westwood, J
Rowson, G. Stephen, C. White, H. Graham
Salter, Dr. A. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Whiteley, W.
Seely, Sir H. M. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Shinwell, E. Thorne, W. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Short, A. Thurtle, E. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Silverman, S. S. Tinker, J. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Simpson, F. B. Viant, S. P.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Walkden, A. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Walker, J. Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.

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

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

4.36 p.m.


I should like to ask a question as to the effect of this Clause on international regattas held in this country. Large sailing yachts coming to this country to take part in international races have no difficulty with Customs officials. Small craft, however, are put on board a steamer and shipped to this country, and in such cases there appears to be a considerable amount of hindrance. There have recently been complaints made by foreign sportsmen who want to bring small sailing craft over to this country to take part in international regattas. I am sure that the Chancellor and everyone would desire them to receive from this country for such sporting events as good facilities as they give to our yachting men when they go to foreign countries. I understand that that does not appear to be the case, and I want to know whether the effect of this Clause will be to facilitate that matter. I want to ask, for instance, whether a yachting club which happens to be conducting an international regatta in this country would place itself in the position of an importer and be responsible for the small sailing craft which come from foreign countries to take part in such a regatta? The boats in no case come over to be sold. They come merely for the sporting event and then return to their countries. It is easy to keep track of them, for they are all mainly registered boats, pedigree boats as it were, like pedigree horses or dogs, and they cannot take part in races without people knowing what they are and where they come from. Will this Clause help in any way to facilitate those boats coming to this country?

4.38 p.m.


I never like to give a definite assurance on a matter which I have not had an opportunity of examining. My hon. Friend, I thinks, is in as good a position as I am to see what the effect of this Clause is, and to see that it must facilitate the operations he has in mind. If he will give me fuller particulars in writing, I shall be glad to look into the matter for him and to tell him whether there is any difficulty in advancing what he seeks under the operation of this law.


If the matter is not covered by the Clause, will my right hon. Friend favourably consider an Amendment at a later stage?