Commons Sitting of 5 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o' Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  DAY NURSERIES
  Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health in view of the urgency for increased production, if he will urge local authorities to provide the maximum possible day nursery facilities to enable mothers to take up employment; and it he will consider increasing the grant made to local authorities for this purpose.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Circular 221/45 in which I ask local authorities to give special attention to the demand for married women in essential industry in planning the future of their wartime nursery service. In reply to the second part of the Question, the grant now paid is already additional to the block grant, and I see no justification for increasing it.
  Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that in some areas there is a long waiting list of children for admission to day nurseries, and that some local authorities have gone to their financial limit to provide this accommodation?
  Mr. Bevan: Financial difficulties are not the real cause of the lack of accommodation. It is the lack of buildings.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I ask my right hon. Friend also to remember the considerable danger that exists in the association of large numbers of small children together under supervision which is not too complete?
  Mr. Sidney Shephard: Would the Minister be prepared to make grants similar to those he makes to local authorities, to others who are prepared to provide nursery facilities on their premises?
  Mr. Bevan: That is another question.
  Mr. Marples: Is the Minister aware that some local authorities have closed down day nurseries because this Government reduced the grant given to local authorities?
  Mr. Bevan: A grant of 55 per cent. in addition to the block grant is generous. Any higher grant would produce a degree of financial irresponsibility in administration
  Sir Waldron Smithers: Would it not be better if the Minister dismissed half his civil servants and put them into productive employment and let the mothers stay at home and look after their homes and children?
  Mr. Bevan: We would not then have sufficient to answer the hon. Member's numerous questions.

  HOUSING

    Residences (Business Use)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to enable local authorities, in areas where the housing problem is acute, to enforce the vacation of housing accommodation occupied for business and storage purposes prior to 1943.
    Mr. Bevan: It is hardly practicable to take general action of this kind, but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particular cases he has in mind, I will look into them.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that many vacant residential properties were used in the early stages of the war by business firms for office and other accommodation, and that if they were so used before 1943 local authorities, in many cases, have no power to compel their vacation?
    Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend will give me instances, I will have them examined.

    Russian Methods
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in an English language broadcast from Moscow, on Monday, 18th November, it was claimed that hundreds of thousands of low-priced modern houses for collective farmers, to be paid for by the owners in easy instalments over a period of five or six years, have been built in the Ukraine since the end of the war in spite of transport and production difficulties; and if he will take immediate steps to send a delegation to the U.S.S.R. to study the methods by which this programme has been achieved.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. I am, however, having inquiries made and will communicate further with the hon. and gallant Member.
    Major Beamish: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the wholly unmerited suggestion which he made during the war that some of our great commanders in the field should be replaced by foreigners and does he not think it is about time he applied his own medicine?
    Mr. Bevan: I am delighted to see the enthusiasm of the party opposite for the Soviet Union.
    Miss Bacon: While welcoming the unusual interest in Russia from a Member of the Opposition party, is my right hon. Friend aware that one result of a delegation from this country to Russia would be that the members of the delegation would return full of praise for the superior progress which is being made here?
    Sir W. Smithers: They would all be shot.

    Steel Sinks
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Health if, owing to the shortage of steel for other purposes, he will prohibit the installation of steel sinks in houses.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. Pressed steel sinks are required in order to supplement the supply of fireclay ware. The production is however comparatively small.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that there are plenty of substitutes for
    480
    even the small quantity of steel used in the manufacture of these sinks when other industries are crying out for steel?
    Mr. Bevan: I am very well aware of that. On the other hand, I am accused by hon. Members opposite of not providing substitutes, and when I do they complain.

    Black Market Activities
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health, in view of the disquieting features revealed at the recent meeting of the Building Industries Congress in London, what proposals are being considered for ending black-market building practices and augmenting the building labour force engaged on permanent housing construction in the London and Greater London areas.
    Mr. Bevan: Steps have already been taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to deal with black market activities within the London region. In addition, I am discussing with local authorities the delegation to them of power to institute proceedings under Defence Regulation 56A. Conferences with local authorities have recently been held in London with the object of securing drastic cuts in the volume of licensing and the consequent transfer of as many building workers as possible to work on permanent housing.
    Mr. Marples: Is it not a fact that black market practices are increasing owing to the action of the Minister of Works in not allowing builders to pay their men a bonus under Defence Regulation 56A?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not see the relevance of that.

    Wroughton, Swindon
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Minister of Health what is the proposed cost of each of the permanent houses to be built at Wroughton, near Swindon.
    Mr. Bevan: The proposed cost of these houses cannot be stated as an acceptable tender has not yet been obtained.
    Mr. Reid: Is it intended to proceed quickly with these badly needed houses?
    Mr. Bevan: I am not prepared to accept tenders which are too high.

    Evacuated Persons
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many

    481
    people who were forced to move from their home towns during the war are now finding it impossible to obtain accommodation in the towns to which they have been evacuated and that local councils are refusing to include them in their priority waiting lists for houses, so that many are separated from their families with no prospect of reunion; and whether he has any proposals for meeting this situation.
    Mr. Bevan: The attention of local authorities has already been directed to the need for reviewing the conditions of any residential qualification laid down for their district in the light of circumstances such as those described by my hon. Friend. If she will let me have particulars of any specific cases she has in mind, I will be glad to look into them.
    Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have already sent his Department a case of this kind where a man has to be separated because he has been evacuated and, although sympathy is expressed by the Department, it is said there can be no solution to this problem? Will my right hon. Friend make more stringent representation on the matter?
    Mr. Bevan: In this matter the local authorities are self-governing bodies and I cannot accept, all the while, suggestions made by the House that I should give instructions to local authorities on matters that lie within their own purview. However, I am asking them to be a little more elastic in the interpretation of their powers.

    1947 Programme
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a table showing the number of permanent houses, including those to be prefabricated, separately, that each local authority is hoping to build during 1947.
    Mr. Bevan: I hope to be able to announce shortly a national housing programme for 1947. It will, however, be some time before each local authority's share can be estimated and it will in any event be necessary to leave some elasticity.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: How is it that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to announce a national housing programme for 1946?
    Mr. Bevan: The fact is that we are now able to predict with a much greater certainty the supply of labour and material and, as soon as we are able to do so, I will place before the House a programme which they will be able to examine and, I am sure, applaud.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Does that apply to the programme for the completion of houses by the end of this year announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works?
    Mr. Bevan: I am able to announce with complete certitude that the 1947 programme will not be retrospective to 1946.
    Colonel Ponsonby: Does that mean that many local authorities have already got their plans made for 1947?
    Mr. Bevan: It is the fact, as was not anticipated by hon. Members opposite, that local authorities already have got more houses under contract than the building industry can build in 1947.
    Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister say whether it is intended to publish this statement before the end of the year?
    Mr. Bevan: I hope to be able to let the House know what the proposals are before the Christmas Recess, but there may be some difficulty.

    Cost Limit
    Mr. J. H. Hareasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider raising the figure of £1,200 which private individuals are now permitted to spend on the construction of a new house.
    Mr. Bevan: This, along with other relevant matters, will be considered in connection with the housing programme for 1947.
    Mr. Hare: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view' of the very considerable rise in the cost of building materials during the last nine months, and in view of the fact that, as far as local authorities are concerned, he is prepared to raise his own ceiling figures, it is an injustice, and that something should be done as soon as possible to enable private builders to build?
    Mr. Bevan: In the case of houses for sale in 1946, private builders have already had a disproportionate share of the houses completed.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the possibility and desirability of reducing building costs by eliminating bad distribution of materials and returning, as far as possible, to the 1938 standards of output?
    Mr. Bevan: I should like to have examples of bad distribution. I would remind hon. Members that distribution is now in the hands of private enterprise.

    Conversion
    Mr. Hareasked the Minister of Health if he will state the average number of men engaged on the conversion and adaptation of existing premises during the periods October, 1945, to March, 1946, and April, 1946, to September, 1946, respectively; and the number of man-hours per new unit of family accommodation provided by this means during the same periods.
    Mr. Bevan: I regret that sufficiently accurate information is not available on which a reliable estimate can be based.
    Mr. Hare: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will investigate the matter. I would ask him to satisfy himself that we are getting a sufficient result from the building labour employed on this particular form of work and, having investigated it, to give an assurance that he will take the necessary action.
    Mr. Bevan: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I are not satisfied that the existing classifications are giving us accurate returns, and we are having them amended.

    Rural Workers
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent eviction of a family from a tied cottage in Swanmore, Hampshire, under conditions of extreme distress; and whether he proposes to take any action to bring security of tenure to rural workers.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir, and inquiries have been made. The general question of security for rural workers must depend on the forthcoming review of the Rent Restrictions Acts. As I have already stated, there is no prospect of early legislation.
    Mr. Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this question of tied cottages
    484
    in rural areas is becoming a greater scandal month by month, with a greater number of evictions, and cannot he do something to expedite action?
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware that there is very great resentment at a practice which arouses general indignation, but, at the moment, we have no opportunity for further legislation.
    Major Guy Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the absence of sufficient cottages in rural areas is a far bigger scandal?
    Mr. Bevan: I accept that entirely: it is a scandal of very long duration.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest scandal of all is his failure to build new cottages?
    Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more rural authorities building houses at the present time than for the last 30 years?

    Municipal Houses (Allocation)
    Mr. Kingasked the Minister of Health what proposals he has to ease the lot of those who are being refused a house by local authorities on the ground that they have not lived long enough in the district; to what office these men should apply; and if he is aware that men who have done long service in the Armed Forces are being penalised for that reason because, on account of their service, they could have had no fixed place of residence.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the general statement made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of my Department on the Motion for the Adjournment on 21st November, and to Circulars 109/45 and 176/45 issued to local authorities, copies of which I am sending to him.
    Mr. King: Is not the present position that we must all go and live where we lived in 1939? Would the Minister not agree that, in order to ease our economic problem, the correct answer is that a man must live where he works, and would the Minister draw the attention of local authorities to that fact?
    Mr. Bevan: I have already answered that by saying that I have called the attention of local authorities to it, but, obviously, local authorities are able to

    485
    provide houses in accordance with need in these circumstances, far better than if there were only houses for sale.
    Mr. Marples: If details of hardship are sent to the right hon. Gentleman, will he bring a little pressure to bear on local authorities to try and remedy such hardships?
    Mr. Bevan: Certainly, Sir.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Will my right hon. Friend look at this question, again because it is a matter of many people going back to areas—such as West Ham —and upsetting the whole planning of the areas because they cannot get houses where they want to get them?
    Mr. Bevan: I realise that there are difficulties. Attempts are being made to bring about cooperation with the London authorities in order to reduce them, and discussions are now proceeding.

    Seaton
    Mr. Robensasked the Minister of Health when he will be able to supply the 52 aluminium houses for delivery to the Seaton Valley Urban District Council for their Park Estate site, promised originally for October, then subsequently deferred.
    Mr. Bevan: I anticipate that delivery will begin on or about 14th December.

  BIRTH CERTIFICATES (REFORM)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether he will appoint a committee to inquire whether any alteration should be made in the form of birth certificate, to conceal the fact that the holder may be illegitimate or a foundling.
  Mr. John Morrisonasked the Minister of Health if he will take action to provide an abbreviated birth certificate to establish identity and certify age without the necessity of disclosing illegitimacy and the consequent handicap through life as at present.
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to make arrangements for the issue of a simplified form of birth certificate.
  Mr. Burdenasked the Minister of Health if he will give consideration to the amendment of Clause 11 of the Adoption of Children Act, 1926, to provide for the issue of a short form of certificate from the Adopted Children Register, which would give only the name, sex and date of birth and contain no reference to adoption.
  Sir Charles Edwardsasked the Minister of Health if he will look into the case of adopted children who, on leaving school and applying for work, have to produce their birth certificates, which is, in most cases, the first intimation that they are not the children of those who had brought them up and had been looked upon as their parents; and whether, as this disturbs the relationship which up to then existed and that only proof of age is required, he will consider adopting some method forgoing this which will leave the relationship as heretofore.
  Brigadier Petoasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the advisability of an alteration to the present form of birth certificate which is the cause of much unnecessary pain to young and old who happen to be illegitimately born.
  Mr. Bevan: I hope to introduce this Session a short Bill making it possible, as in Scotland, to issue, at a reduced fee, shortened birth certificates and also shortened extracts from the Adopted Children Register which will contain no reference to parentage or adoption.
  Mr. Keeling: Would not there be a tendency for someone who is legitimate to get the complete certificate to show that he is legitimate, and would not the purpose of the shortened certificate then be defeated?
  Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. Member, and, I hope, the whole House, will agree, when they see the nature of the Bill, that we have got round most, of those difficulties.
  Mr. Mathers: Will it be a United Kingdom Bill?
  Mr. Bevan: As I have said, this is already in operation in Scotland. It is therefore, not necessary for the Bill to apply to Scotland.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Oundle and Thrapston
    Mr. Tiffanyasked the Minister of Health at what date were the schemes, prepared by the Oundle and Thrapston Rural District Council for piped water supplies for 24 parishes, approved; and what progress has been made towards the completion of these schemes.
    Mr. Bevan: No schemes have been approved since the war. A decision on Service requirements has just been reached and I am now awaiting the submission of a detailed scheme for supplies in 13 parishes.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is the Minister aware that 12 months ago he informed me that a scheme had been prepared; and what assistance is he prepared to give in order to see that the scheme is operated?
    Mr. Bevan: We always give technical assistance in these matters but my hon. Friend will realise that these are very complicated schemes and they have to be fitted in with general schemes in the area.
    Mr. Tiffanyasked the Minister of Health what number of parishes in the area covered by the Oundle and Thrapston Rural District Council are without an efficient sewage disposal plant; and what steps are being taken to remedy the present unhealthy situation.
    Mr. Bevan: The answer to the first part of the Question is 34; schemes will have to proceed by instalments. I understand that a scheme for Kings Cliffe will be submitted to me shortly and that one for Warmington will follow.
    Mr. Tiffany: Is the Minister aware that the lack of sewage disposal plant is holding up the housing programme at Kings Cliffe?
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware that in very many parts of the country, particularly in rural areas, there is acute need for both a piped water supply and sewerage schemes and we are doing our utmost to improve the position.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is there any chance of the right hon. Gentleman issuing a return showing what progress is being made? He will be aware that all local authorities were asked to prepare schemes two years ago.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. I certainly will consider presenting a return of the schemes that are in hand. I think they will be shown to be rather more advanced than they have been for about 20 years.

    Hospital Staffs (Trade Union Membership)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to prevent the breakdown in hospital services threatened as a result of the action of the Willesden Council in directing that all nurses of that hospital who do not join a trade union will be dismissed.
    Mr. Byersasked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take now to make good the deficiencies of doctors, nurses and other staff who refuse to comply with the demand of local authorities that such persons should join a trade union on pain of dismissal and to prevent a breakdown of health services.
    Mr. Bevan: I hope that there will be no such breakdown. I am sending a circular to local authorities pointing out that their primary duty as health authorities is to maintain the efficiency and smooth running of their health services and to ensure the welfare of the patients for whom they are responsible. All other considerations must be regarded as secondary. While I am anxious that doctors, nurses and members of similar professions should join a trade union or appropriate professional association, this is a matter which should not be determined by unilateral action of local authorities.
    Mr. Byers: May I ask the Minister if we can take that as an assurance that the Government deprecate the action—which can only be described as irresponsible— of local authorities in these matters at a time when the nursing and medical professions are so short staffed?
    Mr. Bevan: I think that the answer I have given is sufficiently clear and we do not now want to exacerbate feelings. I certainly hope that there will not be a repetition of the incident.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Minister aware that his reply will be received with immense satisfaction by everybody who has both the welfare of the health services and the welfare of the trade unions at heart, and may I ask him to do his best to see that a similar lead is given whenever the necessity arises?
    Major Legge-Bourke: In view of his last remarks, will the Minister now "debunk" for ever the arguments put forward at the last municipal elections?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question altogether.

    Midwifery (Committee of Inquiry)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Health whether he will appoint a committee to consider means whereby fully-trained midwives who have not the full nursing qualification as a State Registered Nurse can rise to the top of their profession as matrons of maternity hospitals, provided they show that they have full experience and capabilities to justify their appointment.
    Mr. Bevan: I propose, in agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Labour, to appoint a committee to inquire into the future of the midwifery profession generally.

    Ennerdale Lake Water Scheme
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on his decision to allow work to be put in hand in connection with the Ennerdale Lake Water Scheme.
    Mr. Bevan: I am satisfied that, subject to certain safeguards, the scheme can be carried out without serious injury to agriculture or to the beauties of the scenery.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can the Minister say whether there is any chance of the local authorities employing a landscape architect in this case, in order to safeguard, as far as possible, the amenities of this very beautiful lake?
    Mr. Bevan: I am not able, within the limits of a reply to a supplementary question, to inform the House of the safeguards that have been laid down in my decision, but when they are published I think my hon. Friend will find they are adequate.
    Mr. Peart: Is the Minister aware that his decision to approve the Ennerdale scheme will be warmly welcomed by the people of Cumberland, and that that work is more important to the people of Cumberland than the idiosyncracies of the Friends of the Lake District?
    Mr. Bevan: I have had to balance the claims of the area for work with what I consider to be legitimate jealousy for the preservation of rural England.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY MEMBERS (PROHIBITIONS)
  Mr. Turner-Samuelsasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to introduce legislation to modify the disability under Section 76 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1933, whereby members of local authorities are prohibited from discussing or voting on any questions such as housing, education or the like by reason only of being a council tenant or having a child at a council school, which affects the general interests of the ratepayers or inhabitants of the area, so as to give such members the same rights as the Section confers in the case of any service within the meaning of the Act of 1933.
  Mr. Bevan: I am advised that the prohibition is not so wide as is suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, and I would refer him to the proviso to Section 76 (1) of the Act. Where a disability does arise, I am empowered in certain circumstances set out in the section to remove it.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is it not a fact that a large number of local government electors are constantly being disfranchised by preventing their representatives speaking and voting on the very matters on which they were elected?
  Mr. Bevan: But it is also very desirable that members of local authorities in voting upon certain matters should, be entirely above suspicion.
  Mr. Tiffany: Has the Minister examined this matter from the point of view of its effect upon Co-operative members?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. I have already examined that. I have certain powers but I also have judicial obligations, and I must carry out the intention of Parliament.

  CHILD CARE

    Children's Homes (Inspection)
    Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Minister of Health what measures he proposes to take to increase the inspectorate of children's homes described in paragraphs 170 and 171 of the Curtis Report.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholsonasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 144 of the Curtis Report and to the implied criticism of the system of inspection carried out by his Department; and what action he proposes to take to bring about an improvement.
    Mr. Bevan: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in his reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) on 28th November, I have already strengthened the inspectorate.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extraordinarily grave criticism of his Ministry which is implied in Paragraph 144, and other paragraphs, and what steps is he taking to see that an inquiry is made into the complete failure of his Department to pay the slightest attention to the Curtis Report?
    Mr. Bevan: I really must suggest that the hon. Member's statement is a frivolous exaggeration of the facts.
    Mr. Nicholson: Has the right hon. Gentleman condescended to read Paragraph 144, and if so, how can he make such a ridiculous reply?
    Mr. Bevan: The answer is that everybody knows that there have been instances of grave neglect of children. At the same time, there is very considerable resentment among many devoted workers that they have been smeared by the general charges made.
    Mrs. Nichol: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say what steps he is taking with regard to the voluntary homes, because, as I understand it, no instructions have gone out to them as yet?
    Mr. Bevan: That is another- issue.

    Mental Defectives
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Minister of Health what measures he proposes to take to remove mentally defective children from the society of normal children under the care of public assistance authorities and to place them in institutions where they can receive the care and training they require.
    Mr. Bevan: All that is possible is being done to remove mentally defective chil-
    492
    dren from mixed wards in Public Assistance institutions. The hon. Member will appreciate, however, that there are great difficulties due to shortages of staff and accommodation.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of uncertified children who ought to be removed to mental homes?
    Mr. Bevan
    Mr. Austin: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is sufficient liaison between his Department and other Departments in regard to child welfare, and, if he is not so satisfied, what steps does he propose to take to establish such liaison?
    Mr. Bevan: I think that there is effective liaison at the present time, but the whole matter falls to be discussed soon under another head.

    Housework (Public Institutions)
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Minister of Health what instructions he proposes to issue to the public assistance committees to ensure that children in their orphanages are not worked in the house.
    Mr. Bevan: I do not think that it would be in the children's interest that they should be prohibited from helping in the house, as other children do in their own homes. Their share should be light, and be undertaken at suitable times. A memorandum of advice to local authorities on this and similar matters is in preparation.

    Juvenile Employment
    Mr. Frank Byersasked the Minister of Health what measures he proposes to take to ensure that all children in the care of public assistance authorities come inside the scope of the juvenile employment officers and are not placed in employment of which they disapprove.
    Mr. Bevan: This matter is already included in instructions issued to my inspectors, and it will be dealt with further in a memorandum which I hope shortly to issue to local authorities, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
  Mr. Peartasked the Minister of Health when he proposes to publish his proposals for the reform of local government.
  Mr. Bevan: I do not think that the time is ripe for a major reform of local government.
  Mr. Peart: is the Minister aware that his Parliamentary Secretary made an excellent week-end statement; does the Minister agree with that statement, and that reform is urgent; and will he consider sympathetically the need for a Royal Commission to investigate local government in all its aspects?
  Mr. Bevan: I always have the utmost admiration for the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I do not disagree with him in this instance

  RATING AND VALUATION (LEGISLATION)
  Mr. Haydn Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether in view of the need for reform of the rating and valuation law, and for some guidance to local authorities, he will state the intentions of the Government in the matter.
  Mr. Bevan: As local authorities are entitled to have some guidance in this matter, so as to know whether or not to build up the necessary technical staff, I wish to give some indication at this stage of the intentions of the Government The Government intend to introduce, as soon as Parliamentary time permits, a Bill with the object of securing greater uniformity of valuation for rating purposes. The two main proposals are to create central machinery for the valuation of property for rating purposes, and to provide a new basis of valuation of small dwelling houses by reference to prewar values.
  Mr. Davies: Could my right hon. Friend give further guidance to local authorities by indicating when the Bill is likely to be published?
  Mr. Bevan: The question of when Bills are likely to be introduced in the House is one for the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House.
  Major Lloyd: Will what the right hon. Gentleman has said apply also to Scotland?
  Mr. Bevan: I am not quite sure about that.
  Mr. Alpass: Will my right hon. Friend give favourable consideration to the abolition of the present de-rating system, which is operating so unjustly throughout the whole country?
  Mr. Bevan: I am afraid my hon. Friend must await the text of the Bill.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Is it intended to introduce this Bill this Session?
  Mr. Bevan: No, Sir, it is not.

  EDUCATION

    U.N.E.S.C.O.
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Education whether she is satisfied with the response to her circular urging the schools to make a special study of U.N.E.S.C.O. and its problems during the holding of the U.N.E.S.CO. Conference in Paris.
    The Minister of Education (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): Yes, Sir. Such inquiries as I have been able to make show that there has been an encouraging interest on the part of local education authorities and teachers.
    Sir W. Smithers: in view of the views expressed by Mr. Léon Blum on marriage, does the right hon. Lady think he is a fit and proper person to be President of U.N.E.S.C.O?
    Miss Wilkinson: I can assure the hon. Member that the U.N.E.S.CO. membership is exceedingly proud to have Mr. Léon Blum.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is he one of the right hon. Lady's boy friends?

    School Meals, Dorset
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that no school meals have been served at Shipton Gorge School, Dorset, since 27th July, 1945; why they have been discontinued; and when they are to be served again.
    Miss Wilkinson: The sending of dinners to this school from Bridport Grammar School had to be discontinued owing to the

    495
    increased demand at the latter school. A proposal to equip the Women's Institute Hall at Burton Bradstock to supply dinners to three schools, including Shipton Gorge School, was submitted in May of this year and approved in June. There has been unfortunate delay in securing delivery of the necessary equipment, but urgent measures have been taken to deal with this.
    Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that a cooker has been on order from the Ministry of Supply for the last year and a half, and has never been delivered?
    Miss Wilkinson: I cannot say. There is a great demand for all this kind of equipment, and for all the reasons which are known to hon. Members there is delay.

    Milk
    Mr. Houseasked the Minister of Education what is the incidence of bovine tuberculosis among children under 15 years of age in the latest year for which figures are available; and what steps have been taken by her Department to secure a safe type of milk supply to schools.
    Miss Wilkinson: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that the incidence of bovine tuberculosis among children in this country is not exactly known but is estimated to be about 2,000 new cases a year. Measures are taken by the Ministry of Food to supply schools wherever possible with heat treated or tuberculin tested milk which now constitute 92.6 per cent. of the milk drunk in grant aided and independent schools. In the 18 months ended in June, 1946, 1,420 schools had their milk supply changed over to one of these types.
    Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the figures she has given of the incidence of bovine tuberculosis would be considered very low by the majority of authorities?
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Education if she is satisfied that the instructions laid down by her for the disposal of milk rendered surplus in schools owing to children being absent from school or for any other reason, are, in fact, observed.
    Miss Wilkinson: On the information so far received, I have; no reason to doubt that the instructions are generally well
    496
    observed, but a close watch is being kept by my Department in cooperation with the Ministry of Food.
    Mr. Lipson: Have schools to make a return to the local food officer showing what happens to surplus milk?
    Miss Wilkinson: Yes, full records have to be kept.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Education what instructions she has issued to ensure that milk not drunk by children in schools is not wasted.
    Miss Wilkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given to the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) on 9th October. I am sending him a copy of the Circular referred to.
    Mr. Turton: Has the right hon. Lady seen the reports in the Press about what is happening in certain schools in Wales, where milk not drunk on Monday is kept until Friday and then poured down the sink, and has she investigated these complaints?
    Miss Wilkinson: I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything he reads in the Press.
    Mr. Turton: But has the right hon. Lady investigated the complaints, and has she issued a categorical denial to the Press if they are unfounded?
    Miss Wilkinson: If my Department or any other spent its time investigating general allegations, often made without either evidence, dates or places, they would have little time to do their ordinary work.

    Transport, Beccles
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Education why travelling expenses are not being paid for children from Southwold, Darsham, Yarmouth and Bungay, whose parents wish them to attend St. Benet's Catholic School, Beccles.
    Miss Wilkinson: The duty of making arrangements for the provision of transport for school children is primarily one for the local education authority. I have been approached with regard to a child living at Bungay and attending St. Benet's R.C. School, Beccles, and this case is at present under investigation. If my hon.

    497
    Friend will send me particulars of any other cases which he has in mind I will look into them.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this case has been delayed for months, that many more children than one are involved, and that the Amendment which I myself put down to the Education Bill, which the then Minister accepted, was intended to provide for these cases? Is she further aware that there is interminable delay on the part of her Department?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am sorry, but in this particular case the delay is not the fault of my Department.
    Mr. Stokes: It is.
    Miss Wilkinson: There has been delay in considering the matter locally. I can give the hon. Member the facts.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the local education authority assured me himself that it was my right hon. Friend's fault?

    Teachers (Visit to U.S.)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Education if she is satisfied that the special grant of £75 made to teachers who are now in the U.S.A. is adequate to cover the rise in cost of living and other expenses to which they have been put; and what representations she has received from the teachers on this subject.
    Miss Wilkinson: Yes, Sir. Representations were received, mainly through hon. Members, on behalf of rather more than a dozen of the teachers as to the difficulty of meeting unforeseen expenses, but my present information is that the new special grant is generally regarded as adequate.
    Mr. Gammans: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that it is perfectly useless to send our teachers over to America unless, while they are there, they can maintain a decent standard of living, and will she assure herself, in view of the rising costs of living in America at the present time, that this amount is sufficient?
    Miss Wilkinson: The hon. Member must realise that every one of the teachers selected for interchange was informed beforehand that about £600 would be needed for the whole year, including the cost of return fare. The whole question
    498
    was gone into very carefully with them, and they all agreed. Then they were suddenly faced with an entirely new situation; we were asked to meet it, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer very generously did meet it.
    Mr. Nicholson: If new arrangements have been made, will the right hon. Lady tell the House what they are, because I know there is very great feeling about it?
    Miss Wilkinson: Then the hon. Gentleman is not quite up to date. We have given a grant to meet the increased expenditure.
    Mr. Nicholson: How much?
    Miss Wilkinson: Seventy-five pounds.

    Emergency Training Candidates
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Minister of Education how many intending teachers awaiting entrance to emergency colleges are now being employed by local education authorities as temporary teachers, clerical assistants or in youth service activities.
    Miss Wilkinson: About 4,400 emergency training candidates, who have been accepted but not yet allocated to colleges, are being employed by local education authorities in various capacities.

    Teachers' Training
    Mr. R. A. Butlerasked the Minister of Education whether she has in mind any revised arrangements for the administration of the training of teachers and for their allocation, when trained, to different authorities.
    Miss Wilkinson: It is my intention to set up a central council for teachers as soon as circumstances permit. It will not, however, be practicable to settle its constitution and functions until the area organisation contemplated by the McNair Report is in being, and consideration of certain other matters, as, for example, the future of the Royal Society of Teachers, is further advanced. In the meantime, there are important questions relating to the supply, recruitment and distribution of teachers which call for very early consideration. I am accordingly proposing to assemble as soon as possible an interim committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary,

    499
    composed of persons drawn from the principal associations of local education authorities, teachers and training institutions.
    Mr. Butler: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I raised this question on the Estimates, and that I confidently expected some steps would be taken? Is she aware that this apparent delay in taking steps, even to set up an interim committee under the Parliamentary Secretary, will be very disappointing to the world of education, which is expecting some drive in the conduct of its affairs?
    Miss Wilkinson: I think that in fairness the right hon. Gentleman, who has had some experience in this matter, will know that it really has not been possible to proceed with the organisation under the McNair Report and set up a committee, until negotiations have taken place with the universities. These negotiations have taken longer than they or we expected. The universities have, of course, been overburdened with the very difficult situation they have had to meet with the return of troops and so on.
    Mr. Butler: Is the right hon. Lady aware that these negotiations were started with the universities a long time ago when I was Minister and that the tempo of the discussions with the universities is far too slow if we are to implement all the Education Act? Is she also aware that there are various problems, such as the allocation of teachers to authorities and the choosing of authorities, which want a great deal of sorting out at the present time, and that a committee is wanted for that matter alone?
    Miss Wilkinson: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in the less unfortunate time when he was at the Ministry of Education, the universities with which he had to deal were not overwhelmed, as they have been during the time following demobilisation. It has, therefore, not been possible, nor would it have been fair, to ask the universities to set aside that work in order to get on with this job.
    Mrs. Manning: Have not some universities already taken steps on their own to get on with the recommendations of the McNair Report? Have not Bristol and London done something?
    Miss Wilkinson: Certain universities have been able to do it, of course, but others have not been able to do it. These negotiations are national. The whole of the McNair Report will have to be dealt with but as a first step this committee will deal with the urgent problems which have been raised.

    JAPAN (BRITISH OCCUPATION FORCE)
    Brigadier Fitzroy Macleanasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to retain a British Occupation Force in Japan.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir; but it may be reduced. His Majesty's Government are anxious to reduce their military commitments throughout the world and, in view of the degree of stability already achieved in Japan under Allied occupation, they have been considering the possibility of reducing the United Kingdom element in the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan. As other Commonwealth Forces are involved, and the command is held by an Australian, we are at present discussing this possibility with the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and India. The United States Government and General MacArthur have been informed of our proposal. I would emphasise that all that is contemplated is a partial reduction of the United Kingdom Forces, and the strength of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force elements will not be affected.
    Brigadier Maclean: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that such British troops as are left in Japan will be enabled to represent British interests properly, and also that life will be made bearable for them?
    Mr. Morrison: I am sure the Government will do all they can in those respects.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that an equally important, if not more important, matter is to strengthen our very weak civilian personnel, seeing that General MacArthur seems so anxious to keep our noses out of Japan?
    Mr. Morrison: That question had better be put on the Order Paper. It does not, I think, bear sharply on the Question that was on the Order Paper.
    Mr. King: Will my right hon. Friend say if any change in area is contemplated, and if His Majesty's Government would press to have our troops put in more populous areas, so that they would be given greater access to more amenities?
    Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that point. Perhaps my hon. Friend would put down a Question.

  BRITISH ARMY (MINISTER'S OVERSEAS TOUR)
  Mr. Stephenasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that, when the Financial Secretary to the War Office visited Irwin Stadium Camp, General Headquarters, New Delhi, India, recently and addressed the men at the camp, no opportunity was given to the men of discussing their difficulties with the Minister, or representing their views with regard to delayed demobilisation; and whether he will direct that, in future, on such occasions the men in the Services shall be given the opportunity of putting forward their grievances or difficulties to the visiting Minister.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I have been asked to reply. The Financial Secretary to the War Office is at present visiting the principal commands overseas, to find out what progress has been made and what difficulties are being met in achieving peacetime standards for the Army. I am sure he is taking every opportunity to inform himself of the views of the men in the commands he visits. But his programme is necessarily very crowded, and I can well understand that it may not be possible for him to answer individually all the questions the men would like to put to him.
  Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that he will not be able to get to know what is the reaction of the men unless there is some consultation with the men in the Forces?
  Mr. Bellencer: I have complete confidence in my hon. Friend to deal with situations like this. I am quite sure that
  502
  when he comes back and is able to tell me his impressions they will be most valuable indeed.
  Mr. Stokes: Should it not be an invariable rule that when Ministers address public meetings of that kind, particularly of soldiers, there should be at least, a small opportunity for asking questions, otherwise a totally wrong impression is created?
  Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. The purpose of my hon. Friend's visit is not to address public meetings. It is to inform himself of conditions.
  Mr. Turton: Will the Minister bear in mind the example set by his predecessor, who went to South-East Asia Command, where he had public meetings, where questions were asked and answers to the questions given; and is not that a very valuable practice, which perhaps could be followed?
  Mr. Bellenger: When my right hon. Friend went out he visited a very limited area, S.E.A.C. My hon. Friend is visiting quite a number of areas, and he has only a limited time to spend in each. I am quite sure that when he comes back and is able to, as I hope he will be able to, give hon. Members his impressions of that visit, they will be satisfied.

  ECONOMIC POLICY (CONSULTATIONS)
  Mr. David Rentonasked the Lord President of the Council what plans have been made by His Majesty's Government for ensuring proper liaison between its members and bodies representing large numbers of self-employed workers by analogy with existing machinery whereby bodies representing employers and those representing employees can be consulted in framing economic policy.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I am sorry, Sir, but I fear that the hon. Member's proposal is hardly practicable.
  Mr. Renton: As the trade unions have, quite rightly, frequently been consulted by His Majesty's Government on matters of major policy, would it not be proper, in order to secure the maximum cooperation from all vital sections of the community, that representatives of the large

  503
  numbers of self employed persons should also be consulted? They are now well organised.
  Mr. Morrison: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman, except for reasons of anti-trade union bias, should seize upon trade unions. He ought to know—and if he does not, I will tell him—that the organised employers in production are also on this very same body, and, therefore, they are in equally with the trade unions. The only thing is, that this is mainly a problem of sheer production. The perfectly worthy citizens to whom the hon. Gentleman has called attention would not be appropriate for representation on the body, for that would complicate the whole set-up. That is the only reason: it is a question of practicability.
  Mr. Renton: On a point of Order. As the Lori President has made a personal imputation against me, in saying that I had an anti-trade union bias, may I be allowed to deny that forthwith?

  EMPLOYMENT

    Building Workers, Manchester
    Mr. Marplesasked the Minister of Labour how many building workers were unemployed at Manchester at the last date the returns were made.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The number of insured men aged 16 and over in the building industry registered as unemployed at employment exchanges in Manchester at 14th October was 328.

    Staggered Holidays
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to set up a committee of inquiry on staggered holidays.
    Mr. Isaacs: Two standing committees, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland, are already in existence for the purpose of stimulating and coordinating action on the staggering of holidays.
    Mr. Freeman: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when they will report, or a statement of their activities will be published?
    Mr. Isaacs: I was only asked if I would set up a committee. I have answered that. If the hon. Member will put his
    504
    further Question down, I will see if I can give him the information.

    Coatbridge
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Minister of Labour if he will indicate the latest figures of unemployed men and women registering at Coatbridge Employment Exchange; and the number who have been unemployed for six months or longer.
    Mr. Isaacs: The numbers of insured men and women, aged 18 and over, registered as unemployed at Coatbridge Employment Exchange at 14th October were 776 and 984 respectively. At 16th September, the latest date for which an analysis is available, the numbers who had been on the registers for six months or more were 124 men and 284 women.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures are likely to decrease, or increase, or remain stable in the near future?
    Mr. Isaacs: They are bound to do one of those things; but, in view of the developments of the new industries and firms that are going into the area, there are great prospects of the figures decreasing.

    Trade Union Membership
    Mr. Byersasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the injustice now being caused to individual nurses, teachers, members of certain religious bodies and others, by the enforcement of the closed shop, it is still the intention of His Majesty's Government to leave this matter to both sides of industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: In so far as the cases to which the hon. Member refers result from unilateral action by individual employers, regarding trade union membership of their employees, such action, whatever form it takes, is to be strongly deprecated, and is likely to be detrimental to harmonious industrial relations. As I have previously stated, the Government's view, in general, is that questions regarding terms and conditions of employment should be a matter for settlement between the two sides of industry in accordance with the constitutional machinery of the industry.
    Mr. Byers: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will the Government now take steps to ensure that this religious

    505
    persecution and intolerance against— [Interruption]—this religious persecution, which is depriving members of the Plymouth Brethren of their livelihood, should now be given appropriate consideration; and will they set up an inquiry into the closed shop?
    Mr. James Glanville—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Glanville: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: I have often known Members on both sides of the House to say, "Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, can he tell us," and so on. It is, I think, a usual custom. The right hon. Gentleman would have to reply to the original supplementary question afterwards.
    Mr. Glanville: The question I want to address to the Minister is this. Will conditions between the trade unions and the men engaged in industry always be negotiated by the trade unions and the workmen concerned, independently of whatever Government is in power?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am sorry. I may have lost the main gist of the supplementary question. I will try to deal with it. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to that part of my reply in which I stated that unilateral action is to be strongly deprecated. That is the first point. Secondly, we think matters ought to be settled by the organisations on both sides, and not by action unilaterally. That is the second point. The third point is as to whether we are prepared to set up an inquiry. I am not prepared to say "Yes" to that. But as to religious intolerance, I think myself—and I am only speaking, though a Minister, at the moment for myself—I think and I hope that trade unions will respect opinion of that sort where it is honestly and sincerely held. I know of cases where such opinion has been respected, and I say further, that I am, as Minister, using what little influence I have with the organisations concerned to avoid these regrettable incidents.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: In view of that answer, I think it is rather a pity to pursue the matter.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Invisible Exports
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total estimated income from invisible exports for the years 1946–47, divided between investment, shipping, insurance, etc.
    Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate value of our invisible exports, namely, shipping, insurance and investment income for the period from April to end of October, 1946.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Oalton): The figures for the year 1946 will be given in the National Income White Paper next April.
    Mr. Shepherd: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the estimated figure for the year 1947?
    Mr. Dalton: This will be, of course, a publication which will give the facts for the year that will then have been completed, 1946.

    Estate Duty (Interest)
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now reduce the rate of interest charged upon Estate Duty.
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. and gallant Member will not expect me to anticipate my next Budget statement.
    Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: While appreciating the soundness of the reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will not agree that the rate of interest fixed by the Government in 1943 is hardly applicable at the present time?
    Mr. Dalton: That may be so, but I do not think it would follow that in this particular instance there ought to be a change. I will indicate—of course, I must not anticipate any conclusion I may reach— that I will consider the matter, with others.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Would it require legislation to make this change?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, it would.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: In considering his next Budget, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a distinction in the case of small estates?
    Mr. Dalton: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to my last Budget speech he would know that I have swept away Estate Duty on all the small estates.

    Trustee Act
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the low rate of interest on trustee securities and the reduced purchasing power of the £, he will consider amending the Trustee Act, in order to give trustees greater discretionary powers of investment.
    Sir F. Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in view of the fact that trustees are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable securities to replace those which are being taken over by His Majesty's Government under the nationalisation schemes, he will consider amending The Trustees Act, 1945, with a view to broadening the provisions and bringing them more into line with present-day needs.
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the Trustee Act, 1925, to enable trustees to invest more widely.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that incomes of many elderly persons have been very considerably reduced as a result of the otherwise admirable cheap money policy of the Government, is not the Chancellor able to give further consideration to this matter, because many of them are suffering very real hardship?
    Mr. Dalton: This is a matter in which to extend the Trustee Act, to extend the range of securities, would be to increase the risks. The principle of the Trustee Act is to confine trustees within a certain range of securities, in which risk is small or non-existent; and I think we should not alter that, in spite of the fact of certain changes that have taken place in the rate of interest.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is it not a fact that the risks of investments—for example, in railways—have proved to be very great? Can the right hon. Gentleman not give some consideration to this whole question, because it is a vital matter affecting thousands of small people?
    Mr. Dalton: I do not think I should be doing the right thing towards small people by increasing the risks attaching to their investments.
    Mr. Stanley: In view of the fact that this list will be very much curtailed now by the abolition of railway stock, would not the Chancellor give consideration to the matter in the light of modern circumstances? Is it not possible that stocks which were excluded from the Trustee Act at the time of its passage because of their risk may now have become a much more secure investment, and is it not really time for the whole matter to be reconsidered?
    Mr. Dalton: I naturally would not wish to exclude a rational consideration of the matter now raised. I have given consideration to it on a number of occasions, both with a view to Questions in the House and otherwise, and my mind at the present moment is inclined against making the change for the reasons I have given. There has been a very great increase in the total volume of securities within the Trustee List but I am always prepared to look at the matter again, though I must not be taken to be giving any kind of commitment or undertaking that it will, in my considered view and that of the Government, be desirable to make this change.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most risky investment today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Is to be a Tory candidate."]—is British Government securities so long as the present Government are in power, and is he aware that no banker or broker of repute would advise an investor to invest in a company of which the present Chancellor is chairman and the rest of the Cabinet Members are the board of directors?
    Mr. Dalton: I think the hon. Member must be a bit out of touch with the Stock Exchange.

    Czech Notes
    Mr. James Callaghanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why travellers returning from Czechoslovakia may change Czech notes of 5, 10, 20 and 50 crowns in the United Kingdom, but not of 100 crowns, bearing in mind that there is in any case an overall maximum of 500 crowns for import purposes.
    Mr. Dalton: Czechoslovakia does not allow the export or import of her own 100-crown notes, which are therefore not acceptable to the Bank of England.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a customer is advised by the Bank that, if he cares to fill in a form saying why he left the country, when he left, when he goes out and when he comes back, whether he has been tattooed, and a number of other things, he can in fact change 100-crown notes? Is there any reason why, as the maximum is only £2 10s., all these forms should be filled in?
    Mr. Dalton: The point is that notes smaller than 100 crowns are allowed by the Czechoslovak Government to be exported, but to export 100-crown notes from Czechoslovakia is an offence against Czechoslovak law, and the Bank of England will not condone it by taking them.

  PRODUCTION CAMPAIGN (POSTERS)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that posters have been sent to the Crimony Company, exporter of almond products, urging its workers to extra effort and increased output, at the same time that the firm has been refused supplies of almonds for goods for export, had its allocation of coal cut from nine to five tons per week, and been informed that it is to receive no coal at all until mid-December and whether he will either limit the issue of such posters to cases where they are appropriate, or ask firms to return them if their exhibition would cause resentment.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Keeling: Does that answer apply to all the questions?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. The hon Gentleman asked a number of questions; I have sorted them out, and the answer to them all is "Yes, Sir."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will make a statement on the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 9th December—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Exchange Control Bill, and Committee stage of the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Money Resolution.
Tuesday, 10th December—Second Reading of the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Wednesday, nth December—Motion to approve the British Broadcasting Corporation Licence and Agreement; Committee and remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill; Second Reading of the Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords] and the Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords].
The Business for Thursday and Friday, 12th and 13th December, will be announced later.
Mr. Churchill: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the position with regard to the Transport Bill, circulated on 28th November, and containing 127 Clauses and 13 Schedules? Do the Government propose to take the Second Reading of that Bill before Christmas?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, we do.
Mr. Churchill: Has the right hon. Gentleman accepted the position that at least three days should be given to the Second Reading Debate on this most complicated Bill?
Hon. Members: Four days.
Mr. Churchill: At least three days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it not a matter of importance? I thought that the party opposite attached great importance to Government legislation. This Bill is, presumably, the major Bill of the Session. Is it intended to send it to a Standing Committee?
Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, these questions are premature. I am dealing with the Business for next week, and it is not usual to deal with the question of where Bills should go for the Committee stage until Second Reading. I have said nothing, so far, with regard to the time to be taken for the Second Reading Debate, and if that question is to be raised, it had better be raised through the usual channels. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about "at least three days," I think he is going too far.
Mr. Churchill: When I said "at least three days" I was thinking that two days would be totally-inadequate. I do not think it is quite right to give indications across the House of the kind of trends of discussion which are likely to take place through the usual channels, but there is no reason why the House should be kept entirely out of it. In regard to this most important Transport Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that if it is sent to Committee upstairs, only about half the Members who really have a right and a duty, and a need to speak on it, will be able to take any part until it reaches the Report stage.
Mr. Morrison: I have not said anything about this Bill. It really is most unusual at this stage to announce whether a Bill is to go upstairs, or is to be taken on the Floor of the House. Many important Bills have gone upstairs, and some have been taken here. We will consider that in due course and come to a conclusion about it. It is unusual to give such early notice of whether or not a Bill is to go upstairs.
Mr. Churchill: Is it not right to give some indication and warning? Of course, we quite understand the overwhelming power which the right hon. Gentleman wields; we are only anxious to know, as far as we can beforehand, in what direction it is going to be exercised, and with what severity, in order that we may endeavour to accommodate ourselves to it.
Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: I am sorry to press the Leader of the House again on the subject of the statement on war damage compensation, which we have been expecting from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 1st August, foreshadowed a statement "during October," and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should say whether the Chancellor meant October, 1946, or not.
Mr. Morrison: My right hon. Friend expects to be able to make a statement before we rise for Christmas. No doubt a suitable Question will be put on the Order Paper.
Major Guy Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allocation of only one day to the important National Health Service (Scotland) Bill will cause great dissatisfaction in Scotland; and will
512
he not consider allowing another day's Debate on a subject about which Scottish people feel very strongly indeed?
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that many Scottish Members will wish to speak on the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman consider suspending the Rule?
Mr. Morrison: Broadly, this Bill follow; the same principles as the English Bill, in which 500 odd Members were concerned, and I do not think it is, therefore, unreasonable that the Second Reading Debate on the Scottish Bill should take a somewhat shorter time.
Mr. Edelman: Will the Leader of the House provide time in the near future for a Debate on the zonal fusion in Germany?
Mr. Morrison: Not at the moment, I am afraid. It may be that on the return of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary some Debate may take place, but I cannot give an undertaking at the moment. We will, of course, consider representations through the usual channels.
Mr. Churchill: Is it not necessary to provide, before Christmas, for a Debate on foreign affairs? Are we not to receive an account of the mission of the Foreign Secretary to America? We understood that there was to be a full Debate of two days on foreign affairs, and we have not pressed the matter in the interval. What is the idea of the Government about a Debate on foreign affairs before we separate for the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Morrison: I do not know the date on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be back. I am very doubtful whether he will be back in time, and whether, if he does get back, he will have time to prepare for an important Debate of this kind. Be that as it may, I cannot accept the doctrine that after every international conference—and there is a fair number of them nowadays—we must have a two days' Debate. If we do that, the House will not be able to get through its work. If representations are made through the usual channels, I will consider them, but I cannot give an undertaking in respect of having a Debate on this side of Christmas. I think it important, however, to make it clear that these international conferences come and go with some frequency, and that if we are

513
to get through our programme, we cannot possibly accept the doctrine that after every conference there must be a two days', or a one day, Debate.
Mr. Churchill: We are to have a separate discussion about Germany, I understand. Is not that so?
Mr. Morrison: Quite likely.
Mr. Churchill: Then, surely, there must also be a discussion about the general position in regard to foreign affairs. These are exceptional times, and all our fortunes depend on what is settled in these matters. The House takes a great interest in foreign affairs, and follows them closely. Cannot we have an assurance that, if the Foreign Secretary returns, we shall have an opportunity of discussing these matters before Christmas?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I cannot give that assurance. The right hon. Gentleman is now going still further. He is now claiming one day for a Debate on Germany and, therefore, two days for a general Debate on foreign affairs. This doctrine of using up Parliamentary time to the injury of a vital and socially necessary legislative programme, is one which we cannot accept. I do not know when my right hon Friend the Foreign Secretary is corning back, but I think Members on all sides of the House would agree that, in view of the strain of the work and the negotiations he has had to conduct in the United States, it would be unfair to commit him to a Debate almost immediately after his return.
Mr. Churchill: May I ask now, whether there is to be a statement on India in the near future and whether the Thursday and Friday next week are being reserved for that purpose? If a statement were made, it would be necessary to have a full Debate on the subject, or rather, it may be necessary to have a full Debate.
Mr. Morrison: Now the right hon. Gentleman has thought of another subject which, also, is of importance. I quite agree with him. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers are engaged in discussions with representatives of India. It is possible that, arising out of those discussions, a statement may require to be made, and possibly it would be right—I cannot say—that a Debate
514
should ensue. That is one of the reasons why, with the knowledge of the Opposition, we left some elasticity about the Business for next Thursday or Friday, since other matters may arise.
Mr. Churchill: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that we should have a statement on India, and immediately proceed to debate it at length? There must be some opportunity to consider it. I suggest that at least two days for a Debate on India will be required, and that there ought to be an interval between the Government's statement and such a Debate.
Mr. Morrison: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better await the statement. It depends upon its nature. I wish to indicate once more that the right hon. Gentleman has a habit of thinking of all the subjects he can, and then demanding at least two days' Debate on each. This is a Parliament which has to do a job of work, as well as engage in general Debates, and it is going to do its job. Therefore, it is a little unreasonable for the right hon. Gentleman to get up on a Thursday and think of all the subjects he can, and then proceed to demand at least two days for a Debate on each one.
Mr. Churchill: I naturally thought that these great topics were worthy of the attention of the House, especially when the Government seem to have so much time on their hands that they were able to waste a whole day stealing £5,000 a year from Lord Nelson.
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Speaker: We are getting a little wide. We are dealing with the Business for next week.
Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Cannot the Leader of the House tell us now that there will be a statement on India on Monday next, as this matter is of vital importance and of great interest to the whole world?
Mr. Morrison: How can I? Discussions are being conducted by the Prime Minister and others, and it is obvious that I cannot give an undertaking about a statement, until we know how things are going.
Mr. Nicholson: If the right hon. Gentleman has followed the situation at all, he must know that the crux of the whole situation is whether the Constituent

515
Assembly meets on Monday or not. The House has the right to demand a statement on the progress of the negotiations by next Monday at the latest.
Mr. Morrison: It is a matter for consideration whether there will be anything useful to say. That is for the Government to consider and decide. If we are not careful, we shall be drifting into statements every day of the week.
Mr. Warbey: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there will be an opportunity in the near future for a Debate on Austria? The Report of the Select Committee on Estimates has been before Members for two or three weeks, and there is a danger that because of the blaze of publicity which is being focused on Germany we may lose sight of the position in Austria.
Mr. Morrison: I cannot give an undertaking about a separate Debate on Austria.
Sir Arnold Gridley: Reverting to the Transport Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House if he is aware that this Bill affects not only the transport industry, but every other industry in the country? Is he further aware that industry generally wants further time to consider a huge Measure of this sort, before the Second Reading is taken, so as to enable various industries to make their representations to the elected Members of this House?
Mr. Morrison: I agree that one of the purposes of this Bill is to benefit all other industries in the country by giving them increased efficiency in transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Bill has been available for some time. [HON. MEMBERS: "A week."] It is not to be taken next week. It cannot, therefore, be taken earlier than the week after, and I think that is ample time, in which to study a Bill of this kind.
Mr. Driberg: Since there are two days vacant next week is my right hon. Friend able to give any time for discussion of a Motion standing on the Order Paper in the names of 170 hon. Members, on the question of the Roosevelt Memorial statue?
[That this House is of the opinion that the design proposed for the Memorial Statue of the late President Roosevelt is inadequate and unworthy; and urges His
516
Majesty's Government to propose to the Pilgrim Society that the matter be reconsidered.]
Mr. Morrison: I am not at all sure that the House would find it urgent or useful to debate that Motion or whether we could come to a collective decision about it. I know that my hon. Friend has joined up with Members in all parts of the House, in this matter, and I know that there are views in all parts of the House about it. But, if I am not mistaken, the two vacant days next week will soon be gobbled up.
Mr. Churchill: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will indulge me by expressing the hope that some opportunity will be given for discussing this question of the Roosevelt statue, and particularly the standing as against the sitting position?
Mr. Speaker: I am not quite sure that that would be in Order. There is no Government responsibility for that matter.
Sir John MellonWith regard to the Transport Bill, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will consider the propriety of sending this Bill, in the first instance, to a Select Committee, followed by a recommittal to a Committee of the Whole House, in order that there may be an opportunity for interests affected attending and giving evidence, since the Government, by introducing this Bill in its present form, have deprived them of the normal right of Private Bill procedure?
Mr. Morrison: This is not a Private Bill; it is not even a Hybrid Bill. This is a Public Bill and it ought to be a Public Bill. The suggestion on Parliamentary procedure about this Bill which the hon. Gentleman has made, is very quaint. I have no doubt that all the interests concerned feel sure that they will be able to find channels through which their views can be expressed.
Earl Winterton: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a Ruling on a matter to which you have just referred? Do I understand that your view, given in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, is that the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and others, is out of Order?
Mr. Speaker: I am rather doubtful about that. I was surprised to see it on the Order Paper. It only asks the Gov-

517
ernment to approach The Pilgrims, which I think is rather an odd thing to ask the Government to do. There is no responsibility whatever on the Government about the position of the statue.
Mr. Churchill: Surely, Mr. Speaker, His Majesty's Government passed a Bill through the House appropriating public ground and public funds in connection with this matter. Can it be then argued that the House has no further right to discuss the matter, even if they view with distaste the particular measures which are being taken to give effect to the legislation? May I, with great respect, ask, "Was not this Measure passed unanimously by the House?'' We were invited to pass it by the Prime Minister, and can it therefore be said that, the very day-after, no one has a right to say another word about what is to happen?
Mr. Speaker: I am not sure exactly what the position is, but I know that the Bill has nothing to do with the position of the statue. That is the point upon which there is controversy. A Society raised the money to put up the statue. I cannot say without looking into the matter, but I am very doubtful whether this Motion is in Order, because the position of the statue is not the responsibility of the Government.
Mr. Churchill: May the Government be allowed to say what their attitude is on the subject? You, Sir, I understand, are a member of the committee which has chosen this statue. I should not like to involve myself in any argument with the. Chair on any question about artistic propriety.
Mr. H. Morrison: So far as I know, this is a highly contentious and very artistic matter, and I am not in a position to announce the collective view of His Majesty's Government upon it.
Mr. Driberg: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I put it to you that, since Parliament has approved the Measure dealing with the site, the statue itself is in such close and integral relationship with the general layout of the site that it is natural and proper that this House should also take an interest in it?
Mr. Speaker: That may be arguable, but as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, I am in a somewhat difficult position. I must, however, point out
518
that the statue, and the position of the statue, are matters which have nothing to do with the Government. They have no responsibility.
Mr. Churchill: In a matter of this kind, when we are proceeding on a basis of unanimity, and as the statue would not be put up if the House had not passed the Bill, is it not right that some interchange of ideas should take place between Members of the House on both sides, and that the opinions and views of a large number of people should not be impinged upon in a harsh manner; and should we not be permitted to discuss this matter upon the Adjournment for the Recess?
Mr. Speaker: We are not allowed to discuss matters for which there is no Government responsibility. I must try to stick to the Rules of this House. I am quite prepared to give the matter my consideration, but this has suddenly been raised at the last minute. I have had no notice of it. I will certainly look into the matter. I merely gave the first impression which came to my mind that the position of the statue is not the Government's responsibility. If I am asked to give a Ruling next week, I am quite prepared to do so.
Mr. Churchill: May I extend to you, Mr. Speaker, my thanks for the promise which you have made to give further consideration to the point of Order which has been raised?
Mr. Gallacher: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that, instead of our valuable time being wasted, it might be possible for those who feel deeply on this question to meet the committee responsible and get two statues, one standing and one sitting?
Earl Winterton: Would you, Sir, when you give consideration to this matter, consider it in relation to the Debate which took place the other day on the Adjournment, on children's cinema clubs? The Government have no responsibility for them; no grant is given towards them, and yet you permitted a Debate on that subject on the Adjournment. Will you consider that in relation to this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I suppose that I did permit the Debate. I do not remember anything about it. I do not think that I was in the Chair at the time.
Earl Winterton: May I respectfully say, Sir, that you were in the Chair when the Debate took place last week, and may I very respectfully submit that that should be considered in connection with your Ruling on this other matter?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Home Office has certain very definite responsibilities with regard to the licensing of cinemas and the people who are admitted to them?
Mr. Speaker: That is really the answer, and therefore I need not consider it, in relation to this other matter.
Mr. Churchill: Have not the Government, in view of the Bill which they have passed, a very definite responsibility for the condition of Grosvenor Square?
Mr. Speaker: I believe that they will have responsibility for Grosvenor Square, but not for the statues in it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EXCHANGE CONTROL BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  EXCHANGE CONTROL BILL

    CLAUSE 15.—(Deposit of certificates of title.)
    Amendment proposed (4th December), in page 10, line 43, at the end, to add:
    "(8) For the purposes of this Part of the Act the expression 'authorised depositary' means any person who at the date when this Part of this Act comes into force is lawfully holding himself out as accepting on deposit by way of custody any security, certificate of title, coupon or secondary security as defined in section nineteen of this Act and in addition any such person as may for the time being be authorised by an order of the Treasury to act as an authorised depositary for the purposes of this Part of this Act."—[Mr. Nigel Birch.]
    Question again proposed. "That those words be there added."
    4.0 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: It is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT that, when our proceedings on the Bill came to a conclusion last night, I was in the middle of the following sentence:
    "I was hoping that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, who is now being suppressed by his right hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 465.]
    That sentence would have ended, if our proceedings had not come to a summary conclusion, with the following words: "will find it possible, after a night of repose and a morning of cogitation, to acknowledge the value of this Amendment." Hon. Members will recall that we were discussing the scope of the list of authorised depositaries, and that I had become involved in a minor difference of opinion with the Solicitor-General as to what he had said on this matter earlier in the Debate. We are now fortified by the OFFICIAL REPORT, in which the Solicitor-General will find the following passage:
    In practice, little difference will take place, because the authorised depositary will again be the bank.
    MR. STANLEY: Just the banks?
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes."
    Later, the hon. and learned Gentleman said:

    521
    "What will be done is that the Treasury will nominate particular authorised depositaries who, in fact, will be the banks."
    I then had the good fortunte to catch your eye, Major Milner, and I said:
    "I was surprised to hear him say that there is to be a kind of closed shop in this matter. He says it is going to be the banks and nobody else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1946; Vol. 431; c. 463–4.]
    Here it is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT that the Solicitor-General indicated dissent. I think that the Solicitor-General, if he now roads the words which he spoke to the Committee, will agree that he has left us in some confusion in this matter, and that it was not unreasonable on my part to assume that the burden of his speech did indicate that the banks, and the banks alone, would be the authorised depositaries under this Clause. It is now on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We on these benches feel that the scope of those permitted to act as authorised depositaries should be widened. I gave one instance last night of the City Safe Deposit. I think that is a reasonable example, and the proviso in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend last night would enable the Government to deal with this matter on a rather broader basis. I hope the Solicitor-General has now had time to give this matter a little further consideration, and I hope he will agree that to confine these duties to the banks would not be the most satisfactory method of dealing with the subject.
    There is one other point I would like to make, and I address myself to the Chancellor rather than to the Solicitor-General. Now that we are engaged in hammering out a new Bill, cannot we get rid of some of this awkward nomenclature? After all, we are accustomed to say that so-and-so is our bank, so-and-so is our doctor, our broker, or our lawyer; but suppose I am strolling in the vicinity of Threadneedle Street with a friend, and approaching us I see a venerable figure, and when we get to him I have to say, "May I introduce Lord Catto, my authorised depositary?" how invidious and embarrassing it is. I suggest we might find a more euphonious title for those who are to carry out these duties. That is all the more reason for further reflection on this matter between now and the Report stage. I hope that, in the meantime, the Solicitor-General will tell us that we were not unjustified in
    522
    putting the interpretation that we did upon what he said, and that this proviso will receive favourable consideration.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): It grieves me to think that I was in any degree of conflict with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) as to what I said. What I intended to say was that ordinarily it would be the banks. Nobody other than the banks springs to my mind as likely authorised depositaries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked about safe deposits. One obvious difficulty about appointing them would be created by Clause 20 (6). The hon. and gallant Member will find that that Subsection reads:
    "The certificate is deposited with him in a locked or sealed receptacle from which he is not entitled to remove it without the authority of some other person."
    Normally, of course, a safe deposit accepts an article for custody from a customer on the basis that it will be locked in a receptacle, and that the safe deposit will not know the contents of it, and will not be entitled to extract it from the box or other receptacle in which it is. In the case of a bank, that does not necessarily apply. That is the normal relationship between the safe deposit and its customer, but it is not necessarily the normal relationship between a customer and a bank. The authorised depositary must be a depositary who comes within Clause 20 (6). That creates an immediate difficulty in the way of appointing safe deposits as authorised depositaries. On the other hand, this Clause is so drawn as to enable the Treasury to prescribe any other institution other than a bank as an authorised depositary, if it seems good so to do. They are not excluded. There is a power to include any other institution which it seems proper to include. All I say is that the authorised depositaries which those responsible have in mind as the natural institutions are the banks. They certainly would be suitable. They have been doing this particular sort of work with distinction for a great many years, and it would seem to be the normal and proper course to continue them as authorised depositaries. The important point is that the Clause as drafted does not exclude anybody. Anybody can be included as an authorised depositary if it seems good that they should be included.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: We are fortunate that we adjourned last night in the middle of the discussion on this Amendment and that the Solicitor-General has thus been able to read what was said in the earlier stage of the discussion. It is perhaps unfortunate that we cannot follow that procedure at all times, but to do so it would slow down the proceedings of this Committee. The Solicitor-General did not say last night what he has said today. When I put a question to him he explicitly stated that the banks and the banks alone were to be the authorised depositaries under this Clause. My hon. Friends and I thought that was much too restrictive in scope. There are, after all, in connection with the function which has to be performed in this case only two things to consider. One is the trustworthiness of the people named, in order that the Treasury's interests should be properly safeguarded; and the second is the widest possible convenience for the general public, who have to make these deposits. I cannot help feeling that it would be possible to meet the Treasury's requirements for security, and at the same time provide a wider field for the choice of the customer than is apparently intended— according to the Solicitor-General's statement last night—under this Clause.
    The Solicitor-General yesterday said that it would be the banks; today he said it would not be. That is one of the difficulties which we find in discussing legislation of this kind. In the past, we were accustomed to see a thing in black and white in a Bill. It was there and was exactly the same on Wednesday evening as on Thursday afternoon. Now we are told that nothing is required in the Bill, because the Treasury is going to do something different. So we have to rely entirely on what is told us by the Minister who may be called upon to respond from the Front Bench. We must assume that the Solicitor-General, when he first spoke, was speaking from the excellent, comprehensive brief supplied to him. He said it was the intention of the Treasury only to allow the banks to act as authorised depositaries. We feel, as I say, that that is unnecessarily restrictive. The point has been raised that the mere deposit of a thing in a locked box may not enable the Treasury's intention to be carried out, but that could not be applied to the sort of people with whom a very large number
    524
    deposit their securities, namely, brokers and solicitors. I do not think it at all likely, as the Solicitor-General has said, that nearly everybody leaves their securities in the bank. I believe that a large number of people leave them with brokers and solicitors.
    We do not pretend that any Amendment we propose to a complicated Bill of this kind can be expected to be word perfect. All we intend to do is to raise points which we believe to be substance, in the hope that if the Government are prepared to accept the principle, they will put that principle into proper phraseology with proper safeguards. The point we really want to raise by this Amendment is that the determination to restrict this provision to the banks is unnecessary for the security of the Treasury, and that it restricts the convenience of the customer. We should like to feel that it is not only possible under this Bill to do so—everything is possible under this Bill—but that the Treasury will really consider adding to the banks, a list of reputable brokers and solicitors who can also perform this particular function. It is not a very difficult and, I gather, not a very attractive one.
    I thought for one moment that the new affection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for, the banks was making him go too far, further than he has gone even in the past, in putting business in their way. But I find that I am wrong in this case inasmuch as this function is more a burden than a benefit. Therefore, we feel that where respectable brokers or solicitors are prepared to undertake, on behalf of their clients, work which they have been doing for years, the Treasury should consider the possibility of adding them to the list of authorised depositaries. The door seemed to be slammed by the Solicitor-General last night. This afternoon it has been slightly opened.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. James Callaghan: It was open wide last night.
    Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Gentleman will look at Col. 463 of yesterday's HANSARD he will see that it was shut. I do not think the hon. Gentleman had the benefit of actually hearing the discussion—and the arguments do not look as convincing when seen the next day in cold print— but if he looks at Col. 463 he will see that the Solicitor-General said:

    525
    "In practice little difference will take place, because the authorised depositary will again be the bank."
    I wanted to clear the matter up, because the Solicitor-General was really very brief and so I asked:
    "Just the banks?"
    and the Solicitor-General's answer was:
    "Yes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 463.]
    By that the Solicitor-General closed the door absolutely and completely, but he opened it again this afternoon.
    Mr. Callaghan: But what about Col. 464?
    Mr. Stanley: I prefer the spoken word to an indication of assent or dissent. In Col. 463 the Solicitor-General spoke; in Col. 464 he merely gave some facial or physical indication. I prefer at the moment to rely on the spoken word. I was wondering whether it was not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to open that door a little further, and to say that it will be the practice of the Treasury to add to the banks as authorised depositaries, under any safeguards he chooses to devise, those people like brokers and solicitors who are doing this work. If he is prepared to do so, I feel I should be able to advise my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment to a Division.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester) rose—
    Mr. Stanley: I always give way to one of the deputy Law Officers of the Crown in the person of the hon. and learned Member, and I shall be delighted to do so again.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): There are so many important matters that the Opposition are anxious to discuss, that it would be a pity to take too long over this Amendment. I am quite prepared, in an effort to move the chariot wheels forward, to consider this question. This is an administrative matter. I cannot accept the Amendment for reasons which I gave yesterday. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) appreciates that this Amendment would not do, in terms, what he wants done. Therefore, I ask the Committee to resist it, but I hope that it will not be pressed. As I have said, this is a matter
    526
    of administrative detail and no doubt important detail. Those who are holding securities for others and who are not bankers are only a small number; certainly there is not a numerous aggregate of them. It is a rather specialised function and I am still inclined to the opinion that the majority of people who hold securities, keep those securities, including bearer securities, at their banks. However, the matter is not worth any heat at all, and I am quite prepared to look into it and see whether we could devise some rather wider category. I do not think it would be convenient to say that all persons in this business, as a class, should be put under the rule; but I think we might perfectly well consider whether we could not extend the category to some extent, to include such people as brokers, solicitors and so on, who have been engaged in this kind of work. I repeat my view that the majority of persons holding particular kinds of securities leave them with their bank, but I will give an undertaking to look into this question again and see whether anything can be done.
    Mr. Nigel Birch: In view of the Chancellor's assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I wanted to put one point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he rose, because it seems to me that what was said by the Solicitor-General suggests a different position from that indicated by the Chancellor. The Solicitor-General said last night:
    "Therefore, for the reason given before, it will be unsatisfactory if all banks who at present act as depositories of certificates are automatically and for good authorised depositaries for the purpose of Clauses 15 and 16."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 464.]
    As I understand it, that could easily mean that it would enable the Government to have only one bank depositary. I do not think that is in fact the Chancellor's idea, but the words are there and when I read them this morning I was struck by the fear that this provision might be used to compel the depositaries to hand everything over to the Bank of England. I do not say whether that would be good or bad, but I think it would be unfair to carry the thing so far. For that reason I should like an assurance that it is not intended to force them all into one national bank.
    Mr. Dalton: No, that is not the intention of the Government.
    Mr. John Foster: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to do this under Clause 31 or Clause 37?
    Mr. Dalton: Do what?
    Mr. J. Foster: Take administrative action. At the moment, as I think the Chancellor will agree, the administrative action is taken by the Treasury and the Bank of England, but it is difficult for the ordinary man in the street to find out. In fact, one of the difficulties with the present mass of Defence Regulations, exemptions, directions and so on, is to find one's way about in them. A number are contained in circulars to bankers, which are not available to the layman, and if the Chancellor will bear in mind, with regard to Clause 37—
    Mr. Dalton: May I consider that for a moment? I should like the opportunity to say something about the future proceedings and to make a suggestion, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says about the alternatives. When I make my statement I can deal with this point.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. David Eccles: There are two or three brief points I should like to make, before we part with the Clause. The Clause begins by defining the types of security which need not be deposited, and for which there need not be a certificate of title. Subsection 1 (b) gives the Treasury power to prescribe securities other than those which are registered shares of United Kingdom companies. I should like to point out to the Chancellor that unless he uses that power to exempt all the registered securities in this country on subsidiary registers of companies in the British Empire, he will find that anybody who possesses a share certificate in any company which is registered, say, in India or in South Africa, will have to come under this Clause and deposit it. That will cause a great deal of trouble, and I hope that when we reach Clause 31 the Chancellor will be able to say something on the subject.
    As to my second point, I am not quite clear whether the certificate of title to a
    528
    bearer share which has been imprisoned in one of these depositaries, is good delivery. A bearer share having been stamped when issued, there is no question of any stamp duty when it changes hands. Will the certificate of title be a good delivery between two persons, one of whom wants to buy and the other to sell his bearer certificate? In other words, will it become a negotiable instrument? I hope it will, because that would save a great deal of trouble in the depositaries. One further point is that I am not quite clear how American securities circulating in the London market, are to become good delivery under this system. As the Chancellor will know, at present a buyer has to sign on the back that he has taken over the security. That point needs looking into and if we cannot have an answer now, perhaps we might have one at a later stage?
    Mr. Birch: I should like to raise one point which, again, might be better answered under Clause 31.
    The Chairman (Major Milner): It is quite clear that there is to be a Debate on Clause 31, and questions arising thereon would be better raised at that time.
    Mr. Birch: But this point does arise on Subsection (5) of Clause 15, and therefore I should like, with permission, to raise it now. Under this Subsection the Treasury have absolute power to control dealings between residents in this country in bearer securities. It is a question of how this is to be administered. At the moment, dealings can take place in some of the securities but not all, and I should like to know, now or later, whether in fact a relaxation is intended; whether things are to stay as they are now, or whether they are to be tightened up. It is rather difficult to know from this Clause what is going to happen.
    Mr. Dalton: May I seek your guidance, Major Milner, in connection with the question just put me by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch)? In the course of our discussion yesterday, it was generally agreed that it would be convenient, at some later stage to be indicated by the Chair, I should make a full statement on the intentions of the Government with regard to the exemption Order which we intend to make. That Order will, in fact, be made under Clause 31, and it

    529
    seemed to us last night that it would be convenient that I should make that statement when Clause 31 was reached. In that case, questions such as that which has just been put to me by the hon. Member for Flint could suitably be dealt with at that point, if you think that appropriate, Major Milner. It might also be possible, as a matter of procedure, to make the statement at some other time by some such means, as moving to report Progress. This, however, would be complicated and I do not think the Committee would want it so, but would prefer the statement to be made during the discussion of Clause 31. If that should be your own view, Major Milner—and here I am endeavouring to assist those who have points to raise—would it be in order for hon. Members to raise points prior to reaching Clause 31 and for me, the Solicitor-General, or the Financial Secretary, to take a note so that these points should not be lost when the statement is made? If so, I suggest that it would not be out of order for any hon. Member just to make such a reference, provided that it is understood that my reply is to be given later. If you will give your Ruling on this point, I think it would be of great help to the Committee.
    The Chairman: I think that, if it commends itself to the Committee, we might adopt that suggestion, namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make a statement during the discussion of Clause 31 and if, between now and then, incidental references are made, the Chancellor will note them and endeavour to deal with them on the Motion that Clause 31 stand part. It would not be in Order to make a statement on a Motion to report Progress, where the Debate has to be confined to that particular Motion. I presume I may take it that the Committee is in agreement that the statement should be made as suggested.
    Mr. J. Foster: There is just the point that some of the things which the Chancellor intends to do in the way of exemption will come not under Clause 31, but probably under Clause 37. For instance, it may be that the present administrative practice—which I believe is not under an Order in Council or a direction available to the public—whereby money under a will, for example, is transferred to America, will come under Adminstrative Order under Clause 37. I do not know whether
    530
    this is appreciated by the Committee but, as I read it, under Clause 31 everything is to be laid before Parliament, and quite a number of the points mentioned in the Committee will not be the kind that the Treasury will want to put in an Order in Council to lay before Parliament. The list of authorised depositaries and particulars of how to choose them will be put in Clause 37. Therefore, if the Chancellor is making an omnibus statement he will have to get leave to apply his remarks to both Clauses 31 and 37.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bowles: In regard to what you have said, Major Milner, about hon. Members on any side of the Committee making points in regard to Clause 31, so as to give notice to the Chancellor, could we also agree that hon. Members should not repeat their remarks when we reach that Clause? Having made their statements on Clause 15, or whatever earlier Clause it may be, that should be sufficient.
    The Chairman: Hon. Members should merely mention incidentally matters of which they wish the Chancellor to make a note. They can mention those matters in extenso when we come to the Clause to which they relate which, I assume, will be Clause 31.
    Mr. Bowles: Suppose the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) or the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) should raise points with the Chancellor, which you, in your wisdom, think would be more appropriate on Clause 31. If they are allowed to raise those points once, they should not, I submit, be allowed to raise them again when we come to the later Clause, and thus waste the time of the Committee.
    The Chairman: I think it is understood that such matters should only be mentioned, in the first instance.
    Mr. Bowles: And not again on Clause 31?
    The Chairman: Clearly we cannot have a Debate upon any matter before we reach the Clause to which it relates, and then another Debate upon it when we reach the Clause. I have given a Ruling that hon. Members may raise points shortly, in order to bring them to the notice of the Chancellor, if the points have a relation to Clause 31, in order that the Committee

    531
    may have from the Chancellor a comprehensive statement of the whole operation of that Clause when we come to it.
    Mr. Stanley: That arrangement suits us on this side of the Committee. It seems a convenience that hon. Members should be able to indicate certain points as we come to them, in order that the Chancellor may have in mind the matters on which we should like to hear an answer, in relation to Clause 31. On the other hand, doing that before the statement is made, obviously should not deprive us of a right of discussing them after the statement has been made, when we know what the Chancellor proposes to do. We have no desire to waste time, but we have to get through a very complicated Bill in what appears to most of us a reasonable time, and we are anxious only that that time should be used to the best advantage.
    Mr. Dalton: We are really in agreement as to what is the best course. I would like to clear up the point raised by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). I understand that when I get to Clause 31, I shall not be held too tightly by the Chair, and that I shall be able to make a broad statement, going into some detail, on what is intended, in the way of issuing Orders. The more important of the Orders will be made under Clause 31, but some of them may be made under Clause 37. or under some other part of the Bill. I take it, Major Milner, that you would be prepared to stretch any points that needed to be stretched, in order that a full statement might be made, regardless of the particular Clause under which an Order could be made? If that if your view, we can conduct the discussion in a satisfactory way.
    I would add only one more point, which is not so much a point of Order as a point concerning the programme of Business. We are now having a third day, for this Committee stage, as was announced at Question time today. We are taking Monday for the completion of the Committee stage. That proposal was generally accepted; nobody questioned it. We do not want to have a late sitting on Monday. I was presuming that we might finish the Committee stage by 10 o'Clock, although we might take power to suspend the Rule, as a matter of precaution. It might be a convenient and reasonable
    532
    allocation of time, if I could make the statement which has been asked for— and which I am anxious to make—early on Monday. So if we can get up to the end of Clause 30 tonight, that would leave the field free for Monday, and for what is likely to be a relatively long discussion about the Orders which are to be made. I am not asking for a commitment, but that we might so conduct our discussion, as to finish reasonably early on Monday.
    The Chairman: I am afraid we cannot discuss the programme on the Motion before us. It is now clearly understood that the discussion on Clause 31 will not be repeated when we come to Clause 37. There will be the widest possible latitude on Clause 31.
    Mr. Assheton: Before we depart from Clause 15, I want to raise one point. The Chancellor may not be able to give an answer right away, and if so I shall quite understand it. The point relates to the collection of dividends on American registered bearer securities. I do not know whether the Chancellor is aware that most of the bearer securities are registered in marked names, and that the process of collecting dividends is not just a matter of cutting off coupons. The names have to be marked in order to collect the dividends. I have been looking at Subsection (3), and I see that there are various reasons which will entitle a depositary to part with a certificate and I should like to know whether any of them cover this point. I do not press the Chancellor for an answer now but I hope that it is a matter that he will look into.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, we shall look into it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Additional provisions as to deposited certificates.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Eccles: The Clause contains an additional provision relating to deposit certificates. Subsection (1) says that if a bearer warrant is mutilated in any way by loss of a coupon or something of that kind, the authorised depositary may not do anything with the warrant without the

    533
    permission of the Treasury. When I started life in the City, I used twice a year to cut the coupons, in a safe deposit in my firm. It is a fact that very often bearer warrants were short of a coupon. Perhaps a corner had been cut off or something of that kind. It will cause hardship if each one of those pieces of paper is to require the separate consent of the Treasury. I hope that, in administering the Clause, some way will be found whereby a new warrant can be issued without too much trouble to replace a warrant that has been damaged.
    My second point relates to Subsection (3). At present a foreigner who holds a British security can take over the capital moneys without question when the loan is repaid. As I read the Subsection and the other parts of the Bill, that right is now taken away from the foreigner. Suppose, for example, that he holds bearer war loan and that the Chancellor, in the course of his cheap money campaign, pays off the war loan. I think that an American who held bearer war loan has the right at present to take the money out of the country. Am I right in thinking that, under the Bill, he will no longer have this right?
    Mr. Birch: It appears to me that Subsection (3) of Clause 16 is inconsistent with Subsection (4) of Clause 15 because under Subsection (3) of Clause 16, without the permission of the Treasury no ordinary dividend can be dealt with by the recipients. The Subsection says:
    "The authorised depositary…shall not permit any part of the sums received to be dealt with, except with the permission of the Treasury."
    whereas Subsection (4) of the preceding Clause says that the powers taken—
    "shall not be taken as restricting the manner in which any sums lawfully paid on account of the capital moneys, interest or dividends may be dealt with by the person receiving them."
    In one place we have to get permission before using our dividends, whereas in the other, it is specifically stated that, in the ordinary course of business, dividends can be used without asking for permission. There appears to be some inconsistency.
    The Solicitor-General: The answer to the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) is in Subsection (1) of Clause 16, which provides that Clause 16 shall virtually
    534
    apply only in certain circumstances, that is to say until the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) are fulfilled. Once the requirements of (a) and (b) are fulfilled, one is thrown back on the position under Clause 15. There is nothing in Clause 15 to prevent the owner of bearer securities who deposits them as required, from enjoying the dividends collected on those securities by the authorised depositaries.
    The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) referred to the foreign holder of a bearer certificate which is paid up and redeemed. That is a question of exemption. As the hon. Member said, the foreign holder is allowed to remit the moneys paid up on redemption, is matters stand at present. As the Bill stands there is power to prevent that, but exemption will be conferred upon the foreign holder.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Special provisions as to dealings in certain securities.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Eccles: If I understand aright, this is the Clause under which the Treasury could, if they were willing, permit the United Kingdom holder of a dollar security to sell it and buy another dollar security, an operation which is known as "switching". I wish to ask a question about this so that the Chancellor can answer it on Clause 31. At the present time, the British holder sells and the dollars have to be taken into the pool, and he is not allowed to exercise his judgment and buy something else. I consider that very hard, because British investors have had a long training in the art of investing, and it is unreasonable that they should not be allowed to sell one American security and buy another, especially now that the vesting order is off. I hope the Chancellor will be able to confirm or deny this—I am told that the reason why switching is not to be permitted is that His Majesty's Government signed our rights away in connection with the Canadian and United States loans. I am told that the Canadians and Americans say that when a British holder sells an American security, they want the dollars straight away in the pool. If that is so, it is serious, because it means that we have given away what is, in my judg-

    535
    ment, a reasonable thing to retain. I should like to know whether the refusal to permit switching of dollar securities is in fact due to the requirements of the Canadian or United States Governments.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It seems to me that this Clause goes even further than the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I do not speak as an expert, but I think we ought to be told what is behind this Clause. Obviously there is something but I do not know what it is. The Clause is extremely harsh in its terms. It says that the Treasury may make an Order overnight—and may I remind the Committee that this is not in Order which will be laid before Parliament—saying that a certain security shall not be transferred by any person who holds it in the United Kingdom, although he wants to sell it to someone else also in the United Kingdom for sterling. I hope that the Solicitor-General can clear up this point. I am not sure whether the Clause is so wide as to prevent an executor transferring a security to the beneficiary. This looks to me to be something put down as a stopper before something else happens, as though this were a means of stopping dealings in a particular named security in order that the Government may take some further steps later on. I cannot suppose that this embargo is to last very long. There may be a purpose in having a temporary embargo. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what it is, and will assure us that it is purely temporary, and is not intended to hamper dealings over a prolonged period.
    Mr. Birch: In this Clause a different formula is used from that which appears elsewhere. It starts by saying:
    "the Treasury nay, if in their opinion there are circumstances rendering it necessary or expedient so to do, by order direct…."
    Everywhere else it says that "the Treasury may direct." I wonder why they can only direct if it is necessary and expedient so to do in this case, and direct in other cases even when it is unnecessary and inexpedient.
    Mr. Dalton: There is no catch in this which cannot be quite frankly explained. I shall, when I reach Clause 31, say something in more detail as to the remissions
    536
    and relaxations that will be made, and perhaps I may reserve that part until then. The broad purpose of this is to take care of securities of specially valuable types of currencies. We have our mind on dollars here, as throughout the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) asked if I could assure him that it was only a temporary provision. I would not use that epithet, but it is a provision designed to meet a condition of things which we hope will not last very long. It is a condition, however, which will certainly extend over the next few years, in which we have to watch, with especial care, the movement of our dollar reserve and the general balance of payments in international trade. We have this particularly in mind in this provision. We have to make sure that no good dollars go astray. I will indicate the detailed relaxations at the point I have mentioned.
    Mr. Howard: May I raise one point which perhaps the Chancellor will consider when he comes to Clause 31? As I read this Clause, it affects also a person who is in the United Kingdom who may be a holder of dollars—or kronor if we take the case of a Swede. It is not utterly inconceivable that a Swede might be negotiating the sale of some of his property which was not quite completed when he came on a visit to this country on other business. While in this country he might receive a cable saying that that sale was now ready for completion. As I understand this Clause, if he sent a cable saying, "Go ahead. Authorise that sale," he would be committing an offence under this Clause and would render himself liable on summary conviction to three months' imprisonment, a fine of £500, and forfeiture of that security. I do not know whether the Chancellor would like to answer that point now—whether I am correct in saying that under this provision, as drafted, that could happen—or whether he would prefer to reserve the point until later.
    Mr. Dalton: Under this provision as drafted, that could happen.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 18 and 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation of Part III.)
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite::I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, after "thereof," to insert "which."
    May I ask your permission, Major Milner, to speak on this Amendment and also the next Amendment, namely, in line 18, after "not," insert "is intended to be effective.'' These two Amendments deal with the matter of intent. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that yesterday we had an Amendment to an earlier Clause of a somewhat similar nature. Subsection (2), as drafted, provides that a person shall be deemed to transfer his security even if the instrument which he executes is ineffective. This Amendment is designed simply to ensure that it applies only to an action where there was guilty intent, and where it was the definite intention of the executor of the instrument that it should become effective. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to deal with this Amendment as he did with the earlier one, when he said that he would like to look at the wording of this again to make sure that the form of words protected the innocent and perhaps, on the Report stage, introduce such a revised form of words.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and gallant Member has invited me to consider his Amendment, and I will certainly do so. I will ask him to withdraw it now, upon the basis that I undertake to look at it again. I am not satisfied, as at present advised, that it is necessary, for the purpose he indicates, to introduce the words he has put on the Order Paper, but I would like to consider it carefully. All this wording, of course, has been carefully considered in the light of that particular kind of consideration but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept my assurance that we will carefully take into account the argument he has adduced, and withdraw his Amendment upon that understanding, I will gladly give the undertaking.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman might consider a still further simplification of this Subsection? It seems to me that the ordinary prosecution for an attempt to transfer would cover almost all the whole ground. I cannot see whom this Subsection really catches beyond the person who has been guilty of an attempt
    538
    to do something. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at that.
    The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General indicated assent.
    Lieut.-Commander: Braithwaite: In view of the undertaking which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has been kind enough to give, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Restrictions on import.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Assheton: Before we dispose of this Clause, would the Financial Secretary or the Solicitor-General tell the Committee some of the reasons why it is in the Bill? A great many people in the country are puzzled to know why the importation into the United Kingdom of notes, which have been issued, and have been legal tender in the United Kingdom, is prohibited. I know some of the reasons which underlie this Clause, but I think it would be in the interests of the Committee and the country in general if this matter were made clear.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Clauses 21 to 23 deal with the import and export not only of goods, but of currencies, currency notes, securities and other valuables. Clause 21 deals with the import of these things, and, except by permission, prohibits them. It prohibits their import by the whole world, not only foreign countries, but also the scheduled territories. The reason is quite simple. If we prohibit export, we must also prohibit import. As the Committee knows, except with permission, a person is not allowed to take valuables, currency notes, gold, and other things abroad. Normally, when going on holiday one makes application and is allowed to take up to £20 in English sterling to help on the return journey between the time of arrival in this country and reaching home. Otherwise, sterling is not allowed to be exported. If we allowed sterling to come in, it would mean that the only people who would benefit would be people who took currency notes out of the country and got rid of them—I will not say on the black market, but, at any rate, in ways which were not strictly legal. Therefore,

    539
    to stop up that loophole, as we prevent the export, we must also, as a corollary, prevent the import.
    We have to remember, too, that when the Armies of liberation were crossing Europe, many currencies began to deteriorate, and all sorts of curious things happened. Until that situation is clearer than it has been up to now—and as the war recedes we hope it will be cleared up —we have to keep these prohibitions not only against the import of sterling notes, but also against the import, again under certain limitations, of other currencies as well. As no doubt the Committee knows, certain currencies are allowed in quite freely. One of these is the United States currency, and the more dollar notes that come in, the merrier. The same applies to Swedish kronor. So far as the French franc is concerned, I think up to 4,000 are allowed in on the person of any one traveller. I forget for the moment how many Belgian francs one can bring in.
    I think, speaking from memory, it is about 400, and so many Norwegian kroner can come in, and so on. That is the situation today, and the reason why these prohibitions have to be applied. We are only too anxious to assist foreign tourists who come here. They can bring letters of credit, and travellers' cheques, and things of that sort, which can be translated into cash when they reach here, but we have to make these prohibitions as far as carrying currency and gold is concerned.
    5.0 p.m.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am not at all sure why, under Subsection (1, a) it says:
    "any notes of a class which are or have at any time been legal tender in the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom;"
    I admit that that is a very nice, sweeping phrase, but, as I see it, if one is abroad and is given a Charles I penny one cannot bring it back into this country. Similarly, if one brought back a William III note, which is one of the first notes issued by the Bank of England, one might be arrested, although the note had been kept in the family as an heirloom. Although I am certain that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are agreed that this provision is very important if we are to have exchange control, I ask the Financial Secretary whether it is really
    540
    necessary to have the Clause quite so widely drawn. I can see that it is necessary in regard to legal tender, but why should something which is not legal tender be stopped when it is of no possible value, except perhaps of rarity value? That, I think, is dealt with under a quite different regulation, and has nothing to do with the currency regulations.
    Is it the intention of the Government that the present Order governing the amounts of currency that may be brought in will be retained by the Government when they come to issue the general Order under Clause 21? Why is it thought necessary to include under (1, d)
    "any certificate of title to any security, including any such certificate which has been cancelled,"
    Why should it not be possible to bring in a cancelled certificate? Is it because the Treasury are frightened of fraud being exercised, or that importation of such certificates may have a rarity value? I cannot see any real reason for the provision. I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary would have a look at it again, and see whether he cannot make the Clause a little less wide and all-embracing. It seems to cover a great many things which the Treasury cannot wish to cover for any known purpose of exchange control.
    Mr. Eccles: I know the Financial Secretary is trying to help the Committee, but I must put to him one or two questions about his argument. In the first place, he said that the Armies during the war had parted with pound notes and ten shilling notes to people on the Continent and that, therefore, a lot of notes were circulating on the Continent, and we were not going to have them back. That is not a very creditable argument. If our troops have given British notes in the course of their campaign to persons in the liberated territories, it seems to me that we ought to take them back again, and give value for them. In fact, what is happening is that the pound notes are selling at a rather disgraceful discount in some markets.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is the answer.
    Mr. Eccles: The Financial Secretary also said that if we prohibit the export of anything, we must also prohibit its import. That is a most unfortunate phrase. He has only to look at Clause 22 to see that we prohibit the export of gold,

    541
    but we do not prohibit the import of gold under Clause 21. When I first read Clause 21 I could not help laughing, because there the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prohibiting the import of all the bits and pieces of paper he is creating in this country at such a rapid rate, and yet allowing gold to come in here without so much as a "by your leave." I appreciate the sentiment, and that he really understands that that metal is worth a great deal more than the bits of paper he will not allow to come in. He takes the view that as soon as his children have left home he does not want to see them again, but, if it is a question of gold, let us have as much coming in as we can. What is the reason for leaving gold out of Clause 21, but putting it into Clause 22?
    Mr. Howard: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary about the final words in paragraph (d):
    "… and any document certifying the destruction, loss or cancellation of any certificate of title to a security."
    I quite foresee such a document being very necessary. I cannot see why its importation should be wrong.
    Mr. C. Williams: What is precisely the meaning of Subsection (2), which says:
    "In this Section the expression 'note' includes part of a note and the expression 'security' includes a secondary security"?
    Are we to be prosecuted or imprisoned because we happen to have a little bit of an old note, or one of the millions of marks of old German currencies which have been used as wallpaper, and which by some chance one might have in one's possession, perhaps wrapped round an old boot? I do not expect that the whole Cabinet would allow a provision like this to go into the Measure. If there is any reason for it, perhaps it is that currency is so bad that they are afraid of the worst and the lowest currencies in the world competing with us. Otherwise, I cannot understand it.
    Then there is the Subsection to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, St. George's (Mr. Howard) referred, which includes:
    "any document certifying the destruction, loss or cancellation of any certificate of title to a security, is hereby prohibited."
    Why on earth should some interesting, but valueless, document of that sort not be brought in without a new declaration?
    542
    Most of this Clause seems quite meaningless. If necessary at all, it could have been drawn simply, and not in such a way as to prohibit people bringing into the country quite interesting, but valueless, documents. I ask the Financial Secretary whether it is not carrying things too far, and acting rather ridiculously to introduce this prohibition?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We do not think it is ridiculous. I would like to say in passing that the wording of these Clauses has been carefully scrutinised. It is our belief, and we hope the Committee will share it, that what is here, is necessary. We are not asking for any restrictions which are not, in the view of the Government, essential to protect the exchange position of this country. I was asked a number of questions. I shall answer the main points put to me so far as I have apprehended them. One question was why we did not prevent, under this Clause, the importation of gold, since, under Clause 22, we prevented its export, The answer is simple. We can take all the gold that comes here. I think I indicated in my first answer that we welcome all the dollars that come, because dollars are useful, and we can exchange them, and use them abroad again for the value which was placed on them when they came here. The same most decidedly applies to gold. It applies at the moment to Swedish kronor. Any one with Swedish kronor can bring them here, and we will use them. That is the simple answer to the point put by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles).
    I was also asked why a phrase had been inserted dealing with notes which had ceased to be legal lender. The point was made, "If they have ceased to be legal tender, why worry? "The answer is that certain notes which were legal tender before and during the war, have now ceased to be legal tender in this country—such as the £100 note and certain issues of £5 notes, which were called in. Scottish and Irish notes circulated quite freely in this country during the war, but do not circulate now, except by leave of the bank, or by way of payment of commission to the bank for having to collect them for Scotland or Ireland, as the case may be. All these notes, in the case of Bank of England notes must be honoured by the bank, and current notes

    543
    issued in exchange for them. Because the notes are not legal lender, it does not mean that they are of no value. We have to watch contingencies of that kind, and make provision for them in this Clause. Also—and this is perhaps no small point—Customs and Excise officials at the ports are extremely efficient, but they do not always know, when they see a note, whether it happens to be legal tender, or has ceased to be legal tender. It is unfair to put on them the onus of stopping it there, especially as the notes if they are sent here and properly declared can be exchanged in the ordinary way for their full value at the Bank of England.
    I was asked to deal with Subsection I (d). The query was, what were the certificates which had been cancelled and which we wanted to prohibit? This deals with a loophole which might be used, and which we want to stop. It is possible for two people to act together, one in this country and one abroad, and between them to say that a certificate of title to a security had been burned. In fact, they might deliberately burn it, and go to the registrar or, in the case of a bearer security, to the proper authority, and claim that a new certificate or new bearer security should be issued to replace the one which had been destroyed. By that means it might be that the real owner would be undiscovered. The recipient in this country might be placed as the owner of that security by a trick, through connivance between himself and some one abroad. We want to stop that loophole if we can.
    The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked why we should prohibit half notes from coming in. The answer is a simple one. It would be possible— if it were legal to send half notes—to send one half of a note by one post and the other half by a post next week. The Bank of England deal with notes, even if they are cut in half. In the old days the practice was known of sending a half a note by one post and the other half by another, and when these were stuck together the Bank, or any one would accept them as if they were whole. We want to stop that. That covers most of the points raised, and I hope that we may now have the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 22.—(General restrictions on export.)
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 15, line 44, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 2, on page 16.
    As hon. Members will see, the effect of the Amendment would be to leave out Clause 22 (1, f). This is an exploratory Amendment. As the Clause is drafted, the Treasury can prohibit the export of any articles on the person of a traveller or in a traveller's baggage, as may be prescribed. In other words, the Treasury can prohibit one from taking abroad any luggage of any sort. We want to know that this power will not be used to irritate, beyond the absolute minimum, travellers leaving this country. I do not see how it is possible to prevent people from taking abroad anything which is saleable. Obviously, I imagine that the Treasury wishes to prevent some one taking diamonds or jewellery of high value for the purpose of selling them abroad. We say that this is one of those police powers that are really most irritating, and ought to be used most sparingly. As it is very difficult, given the rest of this Bill, to bring back money if one has not taken it abroad, or that it is difficult to do the other half of the transaction, I hope that this power will be sparingly used. I trust that we shall hear on Monday that the exemptions under it are to be rather wider than the present practice.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am afraid that I regard this as a slightly bad intrusion into this Bill. As it reads, it must, in any case, be redundant. Unless I am mistaken, all the powers which the Treasury may want to stop a traveller leaving, say, with jewellery in his pocket, is contained in the Fifth Schedule. This particular Clause seems to be absolutely unnecessary, and, I must admit, from my own point of view, vicious, because it means that the Treasury can do anything they like. They can stop anyone leaving with a toothbrush, they can insist upon him leaving his pyjamas, they can even search his teeth and take the gold fillings before allowing him to get into his aircraft. There is no limit to what they can do to a traveller and his baggage. That seems to me to be unnecessary, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said, a deliberate imitation of the sort of regulations which one

    545
    found in Nazi Germany before the war. For my own part, unless the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has a very good reason for the inclusion of this provision, I certainly hope that Members on this side will vote against its inclusion in the Bill.
    Mr. Howard: It is most important to have a proper understanding of this matter and to know what the actual procedure of prescription by the Treasury will be. We should also know to what extent members of the public will be able to know what articles are or are not prescribed. Perhaps the Financial Secretary could deal with that point.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I wish to ask a further question. If this matter is dealt with in existing powers, and there are certain articles at present prescribed, would it not be possible to list or describe them by inserting words of general description which will cover what it is desired to cover but will not cover everything of whatever sort?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Broadly, of course, what we seek to do is to prevent the export of portable valuables of certain kinds which can be taken out of the country on the person, or in one's baggage. Obviously, valuables of that kind can be taken abroad and exchanged there for foreign currency, which, eventually, is a drain—possibly not a big one, but nevertheless a drain—on the resources of the country. It is no good preventing, by other parts of this Bill, people having as much currency as they like when they go abroad for a legitimate holiday, if we permit a loophole of this kind which would allow them, by this method, to add to the currency they have abroad, by taking an article and selling it when they got there. I hope the Committee will agree that this is essential to the overall picture of what we want to achieve. The simple reason why we have inserted this provision is because valuables could be turned into foreign currency by anyone who wished to do so. I was asked whether a list of the prohibited articles would be published. Of course, it will be I can, if desired, give some idea of the kind of valuables we have in mind. They are articles wholly or mainly of gold or platinum, diamonds and precious stones, pearls, rings set in some way—
    Mr. Howard: I hold in my hand a gold pencil which was given to me on my
    546
    21st birthday, and I would be prohibited from taking it out of the country.
    Mr. Grenvil Hall: Not at all. All that bona fide travellers have to do is to let the Customs know, and obviously the thing will be treated with common sense. If the hon. Gentleman began going week after week with his pockets full of gold pencils, which he said had been given to him on his 21st birthday, I think the Customs and Excise, who are fairly knowledgeable on these matters—
    Mr. Howard: I trust the Financial Secretary is not suggesting that I would do such a thing?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course not. A collection of postage stamps—not the schoolboy variety but a real collection —obviously is a thing which could be used and sold for money's worth abroad. Works of art and furs, or articles wholly or mainly composed of fur, are other examples. I wish to throw myself on the indulgence of the Committee. We have here a loophole which clever people, if they were so minded, could use very easily. I should say that in the Customs and Excise at our ports, there are officers who are well versed in the wiles of the human mind. They have ways and means of catching people and knowing the good traveller from the bad. We do not intend to have a sort of Gestapo so that everybody is watched from top to toe. I can assure the Committee that we want this provision and that it will be used with discretion. Without going into detail, I think it will be found that it will be used wisely for this purpose.
    Mr. C. Williams: Of all the forms of legislation which are bad, legislation based on the good intentions of a Front Bench is the worst. Good intentions have no bearing on the ultimate, effect of legislation, wherever it comes from. We have now been asked by the Financial Secretary, who used rather humble words in seeking our indulgence, to approve this provision. His main argument was that this Subsection, with all its restrictions, would not be bad and that it would be dealt with by obvious common sense. Who has ever known of a Government Department dealing with things with obvious common sense in the ordinary everyday affairs of life? It is not our experience as a general rule. It may happen at times, but it is not the common

    547
    experience, that on occasions like this things are dealt with in a common sense way. It may well be that the Customs, because they are nearer the sea, have more common sense than other people.
    On the other hand, let us consider this position. I happen to be too impoverished to have gold pencils. I could take out of the country only a wooden pencil, so I would be all right. I may not even be able to take out even a wooden pencil, because I may be accused by the Minister of Health of depleting the stock of wood needed for building. This Clause lays down that anyone who goes out of the country with a gold watch and chain can be stopped. How is anyone to prove that a gold chain, the rings on one's fingers, or anything of that sort, is, or is not, one's own property, and that if it is taken out of the country it will not be sold on the other side? It is carrying the matter to a fantastic length to put this in the Bill. The Financial Secretary deliberately laid it down that furs should be included in this provision. How are we to understand at what stage the fur coat of, say, the Leader of the House is his own property and is not a fur coat lent to him, so that he can shine in the United States?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The word is "exported" not "transported".
    Mr. Williams: I am very sorry. I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for having contributed something to the Debate at last. I have been waiting for that for a very long while and I thank him for making that slight correction. I hope he will not send me a very heavy bill for it. The reason I put my name to this Amendment was because I wanted to find out precisely how far the Government wanted to go. I think as the Financial Secretary laid it down, this is one bit of the chain that tightens up the net which is being drawn around the ordinary person in this country. If a person goes abroad now, he is to be subject to search, of a most rigorous kind, if anyone happens to think he is a suspicious person, a Communist, or anything of that sort.
    Mr. Gallacher: It is not the Communists but the Tories who will catch it.
    Mr. Williams: That may be. If they are doing wrong I shall not object to it.
    548
    On the other hand, we are much less likely to do it than other people I know.
    Mr. Gallacher: Who is in the black market if the Tories are not?
    Mr. Williams: I do not think I would be in Order if I were to discuss the black market now. I do not wish to lengthen the proceedings in that way, though I have no doubt that the Communist Party might wish to do so. Whether or not we withdraw this Amendment, I think it has given another illustration that this Government do not really want this Measure for the purpose which they profess to have' in view. It is simply another illustration that they want this Bill in order to have power to keep our people, as far as possible, segregated from the rest of the world.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I wonder if the Financial Secretary would explain two things to me? The first is this. Do his advisers really fear that the existing list is not sufficiently comprehensive? Have they any serious fears of that kind? If they have any serious fears of that kind, could we not have had the existing list in the Bill, or could we not have had it put into it. And could there not, even now, be some machinery for providing that the existing list should not be added to without some notice? Or, better still, without the necessity for some kind of Parliamentary consent? Because, on the face of it, this seems an occasion when really the argument for administrative convenience can be safely asserted to be even more tenuous than usual. It does seem to have very little more in it than that it is easier to do nothing than to do anything; and I should have hoped that we could even now assume that the existing list is much more likely to be truncated than lengthened any more.
    That is my first question and, it I could have the indulgence of the Committee to ask one more, it is this. I was a little disquieted by what the Financial Secretary said about stamp collections and pictures. Can we be told what effect rules of this sort, as already operated, have in the direction of exciting reciprocity? Because I should have been a little inclined to suppose, I admit mainly on the basis of personal prejudice, that, for instance, it really was desirable if we could get anything worth while in exchange for stamps,

    549
    to let the stamps go. If foreigners are asses enough to give us something worth having instead of stamps, I should have thought the foreigners ought to be allowed to have the stamps, and that we should be allowed to get whatever we could get instead. About pictures, my prejudice would be rather the opposite one. If we are to keep up London as one of the central markets of the world for objects of vertu and taste, and so on, which is something which, I think all hon. Members would agree, is, if not a necessary essence, at least a necessary concomitant of a great capital, then, if that is to be done, surely we should desire that there may be the widest variety of taste exercised in the way of importing pictures. I am aware that this Subsection is concerned with exporting, not importing, pictures, and perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) was going to tell me of that, but I will just now come round to it by myself. The connection is this. Perhaps we could be told what effect this has, for instance, on the French Government; because it would seem to me highly undesirable that besides the obligation already on us, that the private individual who wants to buy a picture in France is already faced with the complication that he has to get permission from the Board of Trade, we should have difficulties also from the French end in retaliation for the difficulty we are here enforcing. We were ridden off on the Second reading, I think by the learned Attorney, upon the argument that that was not a matter of exchange, it was a mere matter of import control at the Board of Trade; I cannot understand on what principle the Board of Trade permits or does not permit, such importation unless it be upon advice from the Treasury of what the effect on the exchanges would be of granting or withholding those licences.
    That, in my submission, is a small, but Very serious, obstacle in the path of those who are trying to revive some kind of European or even world civilisation. If that obstacle is to be raised slightly by what I should have thought would have been a natural tendency of foreign countries also to make this same sort of rule, to make it difficult from the other end also to bring pictures here from say, Paris, Madrid or Florence, or anywhere else, then, I think, that would be
    550
    a serious disadvantage. I should be very difficult to persuade that the amount of currency risked would be very great; and if it were in order, if I were challenged about it, I think I should be prepared to put strong arguments for the view that it would help our currency to facilitate the carrying in and out of pictures by private individuals. If it is right that taste and intelligence in these matters are centralised in London at least as well as in any other centre, then the more we are free to import and export these things, the more it is likely to benefit this country, even in a short-range financial sense. I think that we ought to have some explanation upon those two points.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: I can give my general support to this Bill because I think that, as a whole, it is necessary from two points of view. The first is to defend ourselves in the altered economic situation in this country following upon the war, and the second is to avoid a repetition of what happened in 1931, and which is still vivid to many of us in this House. Therefore, I beg the Government to believe that I am not opposing the broad principles of the Bill. But I would remind them that this is an Exchange Control Bill, and that we are in danger of making it an Exchange Prohibition Bill. This Clause gives the Treasury power to limit any article on the person of the traveller or in the traveller's baggage which they may prescribe. It is an omnibus power of an extremely wide order, and when one questions the range of this power the only assurance one gets is that the power will not be unreasonably exercised. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) when he says that Government Departments and civil servants always behave unreasonably.
    Mr. C. Williams: I said that there were occasions when they did not behave reasonably. I did not say that they all behaved unreasonably, because I know there are exceptions.
    Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman actually said—and my photographic memory is now in full play—was that he could not remember any occasion on which a Government Department acted in a reasonable way. I must say that I know of such occasions, and, so far as the operative agents in this case are concerned—

    551
    presumably, they will be officers of the Customs and Excise—I am certain that they do a very efficient job.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): This dispute is a matter between the two hon. Members and has nothing to do with the Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. C. Williams: With very great respect, I would point out that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is accusing me of saying something which I am sure I did not say. In what I said about Government Departments, I deliberately made exceptions, as will appear from the record in HANSARD. I particularly excluded those civil servants who work near the sea. I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me in any way.
    Mr. Brown: With great respect, I do not think that I have done so. However, we shall see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow and, if I were allowed to bet on the accuracy of my recollection, I should be prepared to lay a heavy sum. The argument that the Government will operate the power reasonably, is an extremely dangerous one. As a matter of fact, if we are going to govern on that basis, we might as well have a simple one Clause Act of Parliament which lays it down that the citizen shall do nothing which the Government says he shall not do. I have no doubt that hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite could defend that equally legitimate Measure by saying that the Government would apply that Act of Parliament in a reasonable and restrained way. But it would still be a thoroughly bad Act of Parliament, and I think this is a thoroughly bad Clause.
    The next thing I would mention is that it is not only the reasonableness of the present Government that we have to take into account; it is the possible unreasonableness of any succeeding Government. I know who the successors of the present Government are going to be. I see evidence in the trade union movement of Communist penetration of an extremely serious character. It may be that we shall have a political erosion of a similar kind, and I am certainly not willing to see powers of this sort vested in the hands of any Government unless I am sure what the policy of that Government will be. I feel
    552
    no such confidence about the future to justify such omnibus powers.
    Mr. Tolley: Would the hon. Gentleman invest these powers in a Government of Independent Members?
    Mr. Brown: The answer to that, of course, is twofold. First, by definition there cannot be a Government of Independents, the Independent having passed a self-denying ordinance in the matter of office, which makes the intervention extremely irrelevant. Secondly, even if there were to be a Government of Independents, I should still seriously object to giving them these powers. Now may I put this point to the Government Front bench, if they will allow me? I am not suggesting for a moment that their intentions here are anything but good. That is agreed between us; and I am not questioning that they need the broad powers of the Bill. I remember a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary not long ago, when he said that his idea of freedom was that he should be able to go about without a passport, to get on a train and go wherever he wanted to go. I am sure that is the feeling of most people in this country. We already have the enormous difficulties of passports, visas, permits, and Heaven alone knows what.
    Mr. Birch: And the fare.
    Mr. Brown: I must say, the fare is exactly the same whether one is a Conservative, an Independent, or a Labour Member. There is no judicial discrimination exercised in favour of the Independent in this matter. We have all these difficulties, and in various parts of the world we have other difficulties, such as governmental prohibition on the movement of whole peoples, as we see in Russia, where a person cannot leave the country without the permission of the Government, which normally is not given. On top of that, we now have very extensive exchange restrictions, under which, even if we get a passport, even if the Government do not forbid us to go, and even if we have the money with which to go, we may not even have any baggage to take with us at the end of it all.
    I suggest the Government really do not want powers as wide as these. It will be better to allow some leakage in this Bill, even a modest amount of leakage—and the Financial Secretary did not pretend it

    553
    would be major. It would be better to have a slight leakage in the Bill, rather than give the Government very wide powers of doing what they like within a very wide area, with no assurance, except a general assurance of their good intentions, that those powers would not be used in some very different way. We have all heard of people not being allowed to take more than one handbag with them when they are transported by Governments from one part of the world to another. Anything of that kind is too restrictive a power to be allowed to a Government. If the Government want to stick in the Bill the sort of things they want to permit, that is another matter, but I do not think they ought to be given these omnibus powers.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley: I appeal to the Chancellor, now that he has returned, to see whether he could not give further consideration to this Amendment. The paragraph which we desire to leave out, as it stands, clearly covers a multitude of articles which the Government would not wish to touch. It is open to the most tremendous abuses, and it can be unlimited in its scope. There is no reference to any class of article which may come within its scope; it has no limitation whatever. The first thing I want to ask is whether, in fact, even for the purpose of the Treasury, it is necessary to have this paragraph at all. I understand the need for other paragraphs, dealing largely with such things as documents of title, which clearly would not come under any Board of Trade provision for the control of exports. But when we come to articles such as the Financial Secretary has enumerated, is it not a fact that those articles are, or at any rate could be, if necessary, already controlled under the export licensing provisions of the Board of Trade? In that case, this would be superfluous. Apart from that, I second the appeal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). As we go through this Bill, we begin to wonder why it was necessary to have a Bill of this length at all and why the Government did not simply come down to the Committee with a one Clause Bill, saying that for the purpose of controlling exchange the Treasury can do whatever it likes.
    Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Stanley: That naturally draws cheers from the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife, who on this particular Measure is the most ardent, the most enthusiastic, and, although usually from a recumbent position, the most vociferous supporter of the Treasury. Of course, that appeals to him; that is the kind of legislation he would like. However, I understood that other hon. Members on that side of the Committee at least pretended to share our dislike for that kind of Measure. There is very little difference now between this Bill, with all its facade of Clauses and definitions, and a Bill of that kind, because every Clause contains powers which are so outrageous, giving rise to such anomalies, that the spokesman for the Government cannot possibly defend it, and the answer is, "Oh well, of course that is true, but we are never going to do that. We are going to deal with it quite differently." Would not it be possible on this paragraph to make a start, and to try to limit the powers taken by the Government to what they are actually likely to need? Would it not be possible, under this paragraph, to include some limiting words, such as "valuables, furs," or whatever it may be, which would cover the sort of list which has been in operation for some years, and which, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, is very unlikely to be extended? Is it too much to ask that, at any rate that safeguard, that check upon these unnecessary powers, should be inserted? I cannot believe that by doing so the Government, the Treasury, or the Exchange Control would in any substantial measure weaken the control which this Clause will give them.
    Mr. Maude: I think I have a new point for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Financial Secretary. It is this. Looking at Clause 22 it will be noticed, first of all, that there is a very natural desire to prohibit the exportation of the things set out in (1, a) to (1, d); that is to say, notes, Treasury bills, postal orders, and gold We are not to be allowed to export them in any manner; that is to say, we must not post them, we must not ship them, nor must we take them out in any other way, by air or I cannot think of any other way—
    Mr. Edwards Evans: Submarine.
    Mr. Maude: Or by submarine. All methods are closed. The Government are trying to prevent these things—that is to say, Treasury bills, notes, postal orders, gold, etc.—going out. In addition to that, when listening to the Debate this afternoon I realised that the desire of the Government, very understandably, is to prohibit certain other things going out under exactly similar conditions; that is to say, by air, by sea, by post, by ship, and so on. They would include, for instance, pictures, postage stamps, diamond necklaces, and the various other things we have heard referred to today. Why on earth not put them into the Clause? The Committee will see that what they have done is to put in these articles of value, whether gold or platinum and so on, only when exported in a particular kind of way—only when exported on the person of a traveller or in the traveller's baggage.
    I know the difficulties of drafting are infinite. Nevertheless, the point seems to me to be a good one. I looked at Clause 23 carefully to see if, in fact, the payment for exports would give the necessary powers, and to see what powers the Government want. They want to prevent people investing all their money, for instance, in postage stamps, or in pictures, and clearing off. It seems to be wise not to take refuge in this easy business of saying certain things are to be prohibited, and leaving it to the Customs and Excise to work out a list. I hope that, between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, the Government will decide what things they do not want exported, and say so, and put a list into another Subsection.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I cannot help thinking that the Committee is frightening itself unduly, and setting up bogies. As the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) and the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said, it would be possible to put a list into the Bill; but that would be putting it there for as long as the Act subsisted; and it may well be that, as the years go on, things which are now thought proper to prescribe, for the reasons which I have already given, may not then be included in any list that could be used by the Customs and Excise authorities. We do not—and I think that this has been said before—want to put these prohibitions on for the sake of
    556
    putting them on. They have been put on, or are being put on, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said over and over again, in order to protect at the present, and, as. far as we can see, for some years ahead, the exchange resources of this country. Here in this Clause is listed a series of valuables of one kind or another—currency notes, Treasury notes, postal orders, gold, securities and titles to securities.
    Mr. Stanley: It does not list valuables. If valuables were included, I should feel much happier.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I was saying, there is a list of the more generally known types of security which can be exchanged —I think that there is no difference of opinion in any quarter of the Committee on this—by the holder, if he takes them abroad, for foreign currency; and that, as I think I said—and I do not want to go on repeating myself—would mean putting in the hands of the holder overseas a claim on British exchange resources; and that is something that we should watch and guard against. That is the only reason why this Clause is here.
    Let me come to paragraph (f). There are, in addition to the things listed by name, certain other types of valuables which are portable, which can be put into the pocket or a handbag, or into one's baggage, and carried abroad. Baggage is searched, and, if need be, individuals can be searched; but, normally, no one suggests that that should be done, and it is not done, and people come and go. But in this Bill we have to take powers lest they should be necessary, and suspicions are aroused. The powers will be used with the utmost discretion. It is absolutely essential that that power should be there so that we could stop, not the ordinary individual like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol or some other hon. Member opposite, but the person who, quite definitely, would make use of this loophole to carry on a trade between this country and abroad, and to take out a string of pearls, possibly —although there are not so many of them about as all that—or valuable collections of stamps; or. to stop a woman passing in and out of the country day after day in a different fur coat every time; to stop that sort of thing.
    Mr. Stanley: As I read paragraph (f), the intent does not come into the matter at all. The hon. Gentleman says "people who go out for the purpose of evading." That does not seem to me to come in under (f) at all. In fact, if my hon. Friend went out carrying his gold pencil, without first having asked either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Governor of the Bank of England if he could take it out, and if he were found in possession of it, he would be liable for prosecution under this Clause.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I say. we are setting up bogies between us. I am not quarrelling about this, but it is a fact that we are making very heavy weather of what is a simple thing. May I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was not so very many years ago that people passed freely out of this country without having to have their baggage searched at all? It was the party opposite that, believing in tariff reform, and objecting to free trade, saw to it that, sooner or later, in some directions, at any rate, baggage had to be searched for things prohibited from coming in. Therefore, if any party is free, in so far as any party is free—except the Liberal Party—I think the occupants of these benches have the right to say that, originally, at any rate, they were the custodians of the right to come and go with whatever one pleased. But the point is that the prohibition is there now,. It was there before the war, and it was there during the war.
    The hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) put this question to me. He wanted to know whether this list was the existing list. In actual fact the items I listed are less than the existing list. During the war these things have been exported, where they have been exported legally, under export licences provided and issued by the Board of Trade, and that list, I am glad to think, is being shortened almost daily. We want to see it shortened, as far as we can, consistent with the safety of our exchange position. The list here is the existing list, and it does reinforce, and. in a sense, takes the place of, the licensing which previously has been operated through the Board of Trade. We are not prohibiting these things from being exported. We are not saying that ' in this Clause; we shall come to that in the next Clause.
    558
    We are not prohibiting people from exporting pictures, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. We are only too pleased if pictures are sent abroad and we get hard currency in exchange for them. We are all for that. All we are here trying to stop is somebody taking something out surreptitiously, which is robbing this country of exchange, enriching someone abroad at the expense of our exchange. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to look at it in that way, and to realise that this is nothing new, and that the articles to be prescribed will be prescribed with discretion. They may vary—I hope they will —as the years go on. To put them into the Bill would be a mistake. Therefore, for all those reasons, I think the wording is correct, and I hope that the Committee will allow us to stick to it.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I really think that the Financial Secretary has not met the point which has been put to him. He has satisfied me, at any rate, that something is needed here. We are not pleading for one moment that this loophole should not be stopped; but that does not in any way justify the words he has put into the Bill for that purpose. There is no reason at all why he should not list in this Clause the things he wishes to stop. I think he has given two reasons, and two reasons only, why he does not wish to list them. The first reason is that he might, by listing them, give them permanence, so that subsequently if he wished to diminish the list he would not be able to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may also conceivably wish to add something to the list in the light of experience. He is being grossly unfair, however, to the Parliamentary draftsmen if he thinks that they would have the least difficulty in accomplishing both those objects by a Clause that did not, as this does, enable him to stop everything. Let me give the sort of words that would do it:
    "Such of the articles, jewellery, stamp collections, pictures … as may from time to time be prescribed, and such further articles of value as may from time to time be prescribed."
    Mr. Dalton Mr. Dalton rose—
    Mr. H. Strauss: May I finish the point first? In that way we should include the articles in the present list; which I am content to leave to the Treasury to operate, as it will no doubt do quite properly

    559
    and safely, and there will also be power to relax. Additions to the list would not be wholly at the discretion of the Government because, if the Clause were properly drawn, it would be construed by the courts by the ejusdem generis rule, as to whether the articles prescribed were articles of value of the same sort as those enumerated, and that would cover what I think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put in.
    Mr. Dalton: I am anxious to understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. I should have thought that his suggestion would not help his case alt all. As I understand it, in effect he proposes to insert an additional category. He would not in fact get rid of paragraph (f) at all.
    Mr. H. Strauss Mr. H. Strauss rose—
    Mr. Dalton: May I state what I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say; if I am wrong he will correct me. He would wish to insert these articles which he enumerated, articles of gold or platinum, diamonds, stamp collections, etc., and then he would go on to add "such other articles as may be prescribed from time to time." He would be adding a paragraph (g) as well.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I did not say "and such other articles as may be prescribed." but "such other articles of value," but if the words I proposed are not sufficiently accurate to cover the point I have in mind, the Parliamentary draftsmen will tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is quite simple to set out the sort of things he has at present got on the list and to add a general group by words which would be construed under the ejusdem generis rule to cover other articles so that the list could be varied from time to time. It would not enable him to start doing the sort of lunatic things which I do not suppose he wants to do, but it will not escape the right hon. Gentleman's quick mind that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) was suggesting that there might as well have been a one Clause Bill to enable the Treasury to do anything, there was loud applause from the representative of the totalitarian party. This Clause, as it is now in the Bill, could be operated by the totalitarians for
    560
    the sort of tyranny the totalitarians want. I acquit the Front Bench of wanting anything of the kind, and I cannot see why they axe causing all this suspicion of their actions by insisting on words which they do not need and which would enable them to do things which, if one may judge their intentions from the speeches made so far, they have no intention of doing. Such words as I have suggested, or similar words which may be suggested by the Parliamentary draftsmen, would cover the whole thing quite satisfactorily. I am not arguing against having a paragraph (f). We have no desire whatsoever to leave a loophole which it is in the national interest to stop, but we do not wish to give unnecessary and improper powers which would enable the right hon. Gentleman to do anything, merely on his assurance, which I accept, that he would not make improper use of them.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: In my view there is a lot of unnecessary apprehension about the wording of this Clause. The Clause itself is intended to cover the case of a dishonest person, and not an honest person at all.
    Mr. Stanley: Where does it say so?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: We listened to your unsupportable arguments, just listen to mine.
    Hon. Members: Order.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. and learned Member thinks I have been arguing, he is mistaken, for I have not spoken.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I should have said, we were listening to a lot of unsupportable arguments from the Opposition, and, therefore, they ought to listen to some of ours, which are very much better. The point is this. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman who raised this matter that naturally no one who is travelling abroad wants to be disturbed about the mere fact that he is carrying some personal jewellery. That is right, and it would be absurd, and quite wrong, to disturb anybody in that way, but this Clause is not intended to apply to such cases.
    Mr. Eccles Mr. Eccles rose—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Do not be in such a hurry; get used to listening for a while.

    561
    The Clause provides for the case I referred to in the words I will point out in a moment. This particular Clause confers upon the Treasury the right to prescribe a list of things which are to be dealt with under it. That is perfectly clear. In doing that, therefore, it will either be expressly stated that certain things are prohibited, and the mere fact that they are not in the list will show that they are not within the prohibition. It stands to reason that any list of this kind will certainly not include anybody's personal jewellery.
    Mr. Stanley: But it does.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: You cannot use the words "it does" in that way about a thing that is not yet in existence.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No, I cannot, because I did not draft the Bill.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Opposition cannot use the phrase it does about something that is not yet in existence. All I am saying, and I am certain that I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's agreement on this, is that his point is good to this extent—that the Treasury, in dealing with this matter and producing their list, or in using certain words in some document that has to be produced, must be very careful to see that the sort of apprehension the right hon. Gentleman feels about the cases he has in mind is covered, so that this personal and obviously unjustifiable disturbance does not take place.
    Mr. Stanley: I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have been told quite categorically by the Financial Secretary that that kind of case will not be covered, and the list, as far as I can make out, does, and will in the future, cover exactly those pieces of personal jewellery to which the hon. and learned Member has referred.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not think that the Financial Secretary's words can be given that meaning.
    Mr. Stanley Mr. Stanley rose—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: We cannot both be speaking at the same time.
    Mr. Dalton: Let my hon. and learned Friend continue.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The list of prohibited articles has not been issued, the
    562
    Opposition's time for protest has not arrived yet. I do ask the Opposition to treat this matter seriously. [HON MEMBERS: "We do."] This far-fetched idea that we are to use words in this Clause to include such articles as diamonds and jewellery or something of that kind, and then go on to say "or such other things as may be prescribed," of course, is not draftsmanship at all. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) knows that it is merely making more confusion, and that it is not clarifying the matter at all. I must say that I listened with surprise to his statement that the doctrine of ejusdem generis would apply. In my view it would not do so in a case of this kind at all. Where you have a recital of specific articles or goods mentioned in a context of this general kind it does not follow that the use of comprehensive general words are to be read ejusdem generis at all. I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hardly thought that the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) lived up to his usual high standard of argument in what he has just said. As I understand it, there is in existence at present a list of articles, and if I understood the Financial Secretary, it is proposed to prescribe a list of articles at least comparable to that. I fail to see that there is anything in the Clause, or anything in the list, which would prevent an intolerable burden being put upon the bona fide traveller, which I am perfectly certain the Government do not wish. It is in vain that the Government suggest they are aiming only at dishonest travellers, because there is nothing in the Clause which refers to a person's intentions, and there can be nothing in the list, because that power would be ultra vires. The Government are seeking to prevent people converting their money into articles of value and selling them abroad. As I understand it. there is no difference between the two sides, because that is a practice which it is desirable to prevent. Suppose that I went abroad to Paris for a fortnight, or to Switzerland, and I wanted to take a valuable camera or wristwatch in order to enjoy my holiday, or suppose that my wife wanted to have a brooch or a string of pearls to wear on holiday. What can there be in the list, simply from the

    563
    description of the articles, which would allow the bona fide traveller to take out such articles, and would prevent a man from taking out the same articles for resale? That is what I do not understand.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels Mr. Turner-Samuels rose—
    Mr. Hogg: I am asking the Government a question. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester is always anxious to help them, but I would rather have an answer from the Government, although no doubt there will soon be no difference. At present the hon. and learned Member is not on the Front Bench, and I prefer to have an answer to my question from, the Front Bench. Where, in the description of an article, can there be anything which will allow a bona fide traveller to take out an article, and prevent the traveller taking out precisely the same article for resale? It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he desires to stop an undesirable practice, and I sympathise with him in his intention. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is making use of the services of a third Law Officer of the Crown before he has been appointed.
    Mr. Dalton: I have surplus legal advice.
    Mr. Hogg: How is it possible to specify an article merely by the description, so that it is possible for the bona fide traveller to take it out of the country for the purpose of enjoying his holiday, and, at the same time, prevent a person taking out the same article for the purpose of resale? If it were a camera, there is nothing in the description which could possibly be mentioned, because any article which is permitted to be exported could be taken out of the country by a dishonest person. If it be said that it is intended only to punish the dishonest person, is there anything in the Clause which confines it in that way? However much one may sympathise with the desire of the Government to stop an undesirable practice, one must recognise that we have a duty in this House to the ordinary bona fide person who wants to carry on his ordinary bona fide business. It may well be that although the Government have their eyes on a genuine disease which they are proposing to remedy, it is going to make life intolerable for those who do not suffer from the disease.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Dalton: I should like to answer the point put by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). Very shortly, the answer is this: We must not make easy the way of transgressors. There are a lot of clever people hanging about who read HANSARD. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was not particularising locally. There are those who would like to know just how they can defeat this Measure of national financial defence, and many possibilities are ventilated in such a discussion as this. Ingenious legal minds in all parts of the Committee can make play with this and that.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Not ejusdem generis?
    Mr. Dalton: We wish to retain the power to drop on crooks, and if we have that power it must be strong and not circumscribed by the introduction of too many qualifying words. There is no essentially new provision here, except that we are putting on to the Statute Book what previously has been in a Defence Regulation. If the hon. Member for Oxford has not travelled abroad recently, any of his honourable Friends who have will be able to reassure him that this is not interpreted by the officers charged with the administration of Defence (Finance) Regulations in a harsh or unreasonable fashion, nor will it be now.
    I know that we are apt to ask much when we ask for the confidence of the House too often, but if we fail to justify that confidence there are many methods, from a Vote of Censure downwards according to the gravity of the situation, which may be invoked. We must ask for a very wide discretion here, and particularly in this part of the Bill where crooks and unpatriotic people, advised by highly skilled advisers, are most likely to bore their way through the defences we are seeking to maintain. I must be excused from commenting on any particular suggestions as to how this can be dodged. It is not desirable that there should be too much discussion in public on how the crooks may become more crooked. I must ask the House not to accept this Amendment, for reasons Members will appreciate we cannot go into in more detail.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: I apologise to the Committee for not being here for a long time, but I have been on

    565
    a Committee upstairs. I want to ask the Chancellor—and perhaps he will tell me whether I am right or wrong—a question regarding the exchange position in France. As I understand it, under Treasury regulations a person can take £5 in British Treasury notes to France and, on the black market, sell one of the £1 notes for 700 or 800 francs. This will give—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I fail to see what the hon. Gentleman is now saying has to do with the Amendment.
    Sir W. Smithers: Then may I raise this point on the Motion that the Clause should stand part of the Bill?
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must wait and see.
    Mr. Eccles: I moved this Amendment in a reasonable way, because we on this side felt that certain powers are required. But the Debate has shown that there is a general feeling that these words are too wide. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) said that the Subsection was designed to cover dishonest persons. We feel that in the process of covering those persons every honest traveller will be stripped. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will take this Amendment to a Division.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 124.

    Division No. 24.]

    AYES.

    [6.22 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Daggar, G.

    Holman, P.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Daines, P.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    House, G.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Hoy, J.

    Austin, H. L.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Deer, G.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Baird, J.

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Irving, W. J.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Diamond, J.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Barton, C.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

    Battley, J. R.

    Donovan, T.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Benson, G.

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Berry, H.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Keenan, W.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Dye, S.

    Kenyon, C.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Edelman, M.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Kinley, J.

    Boardman, H.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Farthing, W. J.

    Leonard, W.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Field, Captain W. J.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Follick, M.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Gallacher, W.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Longden, F.

    Burden, T. W.

    Gibbins, J.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McAdam, W.

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Gilzean, A.

    McAllister, G.

    Byers, Frank

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Callaghan, James

    Goodrich, H. E.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Carmichael, James

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Mack, J. D.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Grey, C. F.

    McLeavy, F.

    Chater, D.

    Grierson, E.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Guy, W. H.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Collick, P.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mathers, G.

    Collindridge, F.

    Hall, W. G.

    Medland, H. M.

    Callins, V. J.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Messer, F.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Harrison, J.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

    Haworth, J.

    Monslow, W.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Montague, F.

    Crawley, A.

    Hicks, G.

    Moody, A. S.

    Crossman, R, H. S.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Tiffany, S.

    Murray, J. D.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Tolley, L.

    Nally, W.

    Royle, G.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

    Sargood, R.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Scollan, T.

    Usborne, Henry

    Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

    Viant, S. P.

    O'Brien, T.

    Sharp, Granville

    Wadsworth, G.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Walkden, E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Walker, G. H.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Skeffington-Lodgs, T. C.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Pearson, A.

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Perrins, W.

    Solley, L. J.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Piratin, P.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Popplewell, E.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Stamford, W.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Steele, T.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Stephen, C.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Randall, H. E.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Willis, E.

    Ranger, J.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Rankin, J.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Woodburn, A.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Woods, G. S.

    Reeves, J.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Yates, V. F.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Rhodes, H.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Richards, R.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Robens, A.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Mr. Joseph Henderson and

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Thurtle, E.

    Mr. Hannan.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Grant, Lady

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Rayner, Brig R.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)

    Baxter, A. B.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Renton, D.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

    Beechman, N. A.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Ross, Sir R.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Herbert, Sir A. P.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Boothby, R.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Bower, N.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Snadden, W. M.

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

    Spence, H. R.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hurd, A.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Carson, E.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Challen, C.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

    De la Bère, R.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Is. of Wight)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Touche, G. C.

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Turton, R. H.

    Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

    Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Drayson, G. B.

    MacLeod, Capt. J.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Marples, A. E.

    Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Maude, J. C.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Gage, C.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    York, C.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    Pickthorn, K.

    George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. C. Williams: Before we pass from this Clause, I should like to ask if it is seriously intended to keep in paragraph (c), which has reference to postal orders. We had a warning just now from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he said, with his utmost pomposity, that we must not make easy the way of the transgressor. No one wants to do that. This Clause is not doing that, but it is making almost every human being a possible transgressor. All I am asking is that between now and the Report stage consideration should be given to this paragraph. It prohibits the export of postal orders, which cannot be very much in amount, because if great wads of postal orders were sent abroad notice would be taken of them and the necessary action could be taken. I would ask the Government to look again at this little bit of the Bill to see if it is really necessary to include postal orders, as to do so seems rather ludicrous and absurd.
    Mr. McKie: I am glad to support the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in what he has said. I hope that he will be successful in dragging some little concession from the Financial Secretary. It would be out of Order for me to go at any length into paragraph (f), as we have already had a long Debate on that, but I would like to say that I was very disappointed with the way in which the Financial Secretary dealt with it. We are discussing now the whole Clause, so perhaps I may say that I do not think the Financial Secretary was particularly generous in the way in which he dealt with us earlier in the Debate.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Touche): I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot repeat the Debate.
    Mr. McKie: I hope that the Financial Secretary will have something to say in reply to the hon. Member for Torquay, and I was endeavouring to show that under this and paragraph (f) the most fussy and unnecessary restrictions are being imposed.
    The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is repeating the argument, and I do not see any reason
    570
    why he should start a Debate on his own account.
    Mr. McKie: I was saying these final words not by way of blessing, but of condemnation.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I would again ask the Financial Secretary two questions on this Clause to which I did not receive a reply earlier. The first is as to why the exportation of documents that have been cancelled is to be prohibited. As he probably knows, there is a considerable trade in ancient certificates, some of which are, say, 150 years old, which are exported to foreign countries as souvenirs. The Americans pay a very high price for them. It seems to be a pity to make an exclusion under the Bill of documents which could provide currency for us.
    My second question relates to paragraph 1 (a), which says:
    "any notes of a class which are or have at any time been legal tender."
    When I raised this question on another Clause, the answer was that certain notes may or may not be legal tender at any given moment, and the Bank of England may have an obligation to redeem them, even if they were obsolete. There is a considerable trade in very old bank notes as souvenirs, and people outside this country, both in the Dominions and America, collect them. It is a great mistake to put such a phrase as "at any time" into this paragraph, and I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary would look at this between now and Report stage, and see if he cannot substitute some date like 1900. If he would answer those two questions I should be very grateful.
    Mr. Eccles: The Clause says that no policy of insurance may be exported. There is one class of assurance policy which I think ought to be made an exception. It has now become customary when British engineers and the personnel of companies are operating overseas to take out for those people assurance policies, and we should not like to put anything in the way of the reasonable conditions which British technical personnel have become accustomed to receive when they go abroad to work in foreign countries.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will answer, first, the question put to me by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). Life

    571
    assurance policies are included in this Clause, and. that is done because, in certain conditions, they can be turned into foreign currency. It is possible, if they are exported, to assign them to another individual, or to sell them for cash before their due date. Therefore, in order to stop up all loopholes, it was thought fit and proper to include those policies. At the same time, in the case of a policy of the sort which the hon. Member envisaged, which I gather is quite legal and proper, nothing would be done to prevent such a transaction from taking place. All that a person would have to do would be to go to the proper authorities and tell them what he wanted to do, and if the transaction was legal and proper, they would give him full permission to do it. The provisions of this Bill are very drastic, but unfortunately, they are essential in the present troubled state of the world. We want to use the powers conferred with the utmost discretion, and to try, if we can, to see that they do not hurt any person going on his lawful occasions.
    The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) asked about bank notes. I do not know whether he was in the Committee when I answered that question when it was put by another hon. Member. The hon. and gallant Member has asked the question in reverse, but the answer, of course, is the same. I tried to explain that the reason we want to prevent the importation of sterling notes is that it is a corollary to the prohibition of their export, and that if we allow them to go out it means that black marketeers will find a method of getting them in. The same thing applies to bank notes. I would add that where the bank notes are so old that they become valuable not because they are currency, but because they are things of interest either to a museum or a collector, they enter an entirely different realm, which is covered by Clause 23. They become articles for sale, and they cease to be money in the strict sense, and we would be only too glad if someone possessing such things found a buyer in the United States. We would do everything we could to assist him, so that the things would go to America and we would get dollars in exchange.
    572
    Of course, postal orders are small things. They axe included under one of the Defence Regulations, and we have continued the ban in this Clause. Postal orders have a short life of three months, and they are not negotiable, and therefore, they do not come into the same category as some of the other securities, but, here again, there is a loophole, and we see no reason for not including postal orders under the present Clause. Some people might want to send them abroad, but, on the other hand, facilities for sending abroad foreign money orders are quite good. All people have to do is to go to a post office, and the control between the post office and the Bank of England acts very well. Anybody who wants to send money in the form of a foreign money order can do so with the utmost facility. I hope that with these explanations the Committee will agree to this Clause standing part of the Bill.
    Mr. Assheton: Would the Financial Secretary be good enough to refer to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) about documents, including any document that has been cancelled?
    Mr. Hall: I have dealt with that matter once.
    Mr. Assheton: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I do not think he has dealt with it.
    6.45 p.m.
    Sir Peter Bennett: I am not quite happy about the answer which the Financial Secretary has given in regard to insurance policies, which is a much more important question than he realises. I feel that it would be possible to do something to cover legitimate cases which arise when people are sent overseas. I am anxious to protect British employees. What would happen is that the man would proceed overseas and the insurance would be effected at one of the offices in other parts of the world from funds standing there, which, instead of their coming to England, could be used for that purpose. I am most anxious that nothing should be done which would put anything in the way of our extending insurance to men who are sent overseas. I hope the Financial Secretary will have this matter looked into with a view to covering it.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I can give an assurance now, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that we are very willing to look into this matter. I would, however, add that we have looked into the matter already, and we have been in touch with the life assurance offices on the matter. The hon. Member will see that when we reach Clause 28, which deals with this particular type of security, there are on the Order Paper certain Amendments on which a discussion can take place, if hon. Members are so minded. I will, in addition, call my right hon. Friend's attention to what has been said. I can assure the Committee that all legitimate transactions will be allowed, and that every facility will be given for them.
    The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) suggested that I had not answered the question about cancelled documents. I have dealt with it, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Committee when I did so. The reason we have included them is that, here again, there is a loophole. It would be possible for a person to connive with a resident abroad who might have bearer securities. If he had a security registered in his name, and he wanted in some way to obtain the cash or to get the security back to this country, one way of doing so would be for him, with the connivance of a friend in this country, to inform the registrar that the certificate had been lost, perhaps during the troubles in Germany, or when the war reached a certain town in Italy, and to get the registrar, on declarations and affidavits made, to issue a new certificate, which could be issued in the name of a person here quite easily. [Interruption.] One could have cancelled certificates of that kind. It could be assumed that the certificate was cancelled abroad, or it could have been lost or damaged in some way or another.
    Mr. Brendan Bracken: Is the Financial Secretary asserting that when a certificate is cancelled, it can once again be encashed? He must know also that in fact before a certificate or bearer bond can be paid, not only an assurance must be given that the document was genuinely lost, but a guarantee must be given to the company—and the guarantee must come from a responsible financial institution—that in the case of any fraudulent transaction, the person who pays can recover.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: All that is true, and the person giving the assurance would be only too willing to do so, because he would be one of the parties to the fraud. I do not say this sort of thing would happen often. One could get cancelled documents as between one registry abroad and another here, in the case of a company which perhaps operated in South Africa and also had a London office. All sorts of transactions are possible. I will not particularise, because these things are technical, and one does not want to go into them, and nor, indeed, am I the best person to go into them; but I am assured by my advisers that these words are essential, that there are transactions of this kind which could take place, that the things could be declared to have been cancelled abroad, burned, or destroyed in some way, which made it essential that a new certificate should be issued here in London and that the new certificate of the registrar here would rely on a declaration which might in various particulars not be correct.
    There might, for example, be resident here in this country a man who is not an Englishman or not of our nationality in the strict sense of the word—and this thing does not go by race; we are not dealing with nationalities throughout the Bill but with areas—who had securities in this country and oh going abroad was anxious to get them out or transfer them to someone- else in this country. Many of these methods I am told can be adopted and we want, if we can, to prevent them.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does the Financial Secretary suggest that a used cancelled certificate should be used in any sense to obtain a new certificate, because the object in company law of cancelling a certificate is to render it null and void, and it is of no use to anyone unless to the bearer for sentimental or some such reason? I suggest that the Clause should be taken out of the Bill, because there is no point in having it there. When the Financial Secretary was speaking on the last Clause he touched on other questions and I followed his arguments, but I appreciate that they do not apply to the cancelled certificate. Once a certificate is cancelled it is of no value whatever, and I suggest that if the Government think that a cancelled certificate, cancelled on the main register in South Africa, is going to be of any value to the London Registrar in issuing a new

    575
    one, that is sheer nonsense. Their only value is in export, and that is what is prevented under this Clause.
    Mr. C. Williams: I am not sure whether I ought to be pleased or sorry with the Financial Secretary. I think he could have accepted—and I will not venture the arguments over again—my suggestion to get out of the postal order difficulty. He has now helped me still further by giving me an explanation which makes it even more ridiculous than ever. The Financial Secretary said he wanted to stop up a bolt hole. In point of fact, he is shutting up something infinitely more minute than a pin hole. We have had the refusal of the Government to meet it, and this is one of the most marvellous illustrations of the desire of the Government to control even a few shilling postal orders moving freely out of this country. While this remains in this Bill it is simply and purely an illustration of how the Government really confine our movements in every way.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Unfortunately I could not be here all the time and so I did not hear all of the reply, but might I ask whether an explanation has been given as to whether personal articles like watch chains and so on can be prescribed?
    Mr. Dalton: It has been answered.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I do apologise, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell us if, in fact, that can be done or whether the Government are willing to do so?
    Mr. Dalton: I apologise to hon. Gentlemen who have heard the previous discussion. Any of these things might be prescribed, and the reason for keeping the power to prescribe is in order that we may catch crooks. The great majority of innocent people will be able to pass quite freely, but there is a minority guilty of unpatriotic attempts to diddle their country and we are going to catch them.
    Mr. Assheton: I should like to express to the Financial Secretary my regrets that he has not been able to satisfy me with regard to cancelled documents, and I would ask him to look into the matter again before the Report stage, when it may be possible for him to come forward with a suggestion for alternation.
    Mr. J. Foster: There are a number of administrative exceptions which are granted under the corresponding Regulation No. 3 of the Finance Regulations. One point is that the Isle of Man is not in the United Kingdom, and I believe that there is a provision for allowing through export of these things to the island.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: And to Eire.
    Mr. Foster: When the Chancellor comes to Clause 31 perhaps he will deal with that and also with the large number of things granted exception not by Treasury Order but by permission of the Bank of England. For instance, one is the sending of postal orders to the sterling area for civilians only. I would ask the Chancellor when he comes to the financial statement to go into details like that under this Clause as shown on page 30 of Howard on the Defence (Finance) Regulations.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Payment for exports.)
    The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the first Amendment to Clause 23 and the three following Amendments were taken together, namely:
    In page 16, line 9, at beginning, insert:
    "The Treasury may, if in their opinion there are circumstances rendering it necessary or expedient so to do in relation to any person, prohibit."
    In line 10, leave out from "any," to except," in line 11, and insert "territory by or on behalf of such person."
    In line 16, leave out "prescribed," and insert "ordered."
    In line 16, leave out "class or description," and insert "person."
    Mr. Eccles: I beg to move, in page 16, line 9, at the beginning, to insert:
    "The Treasury may, if in their opinion there are circumstances rendering it necessary or expedient so to do in relation to any person, prohibit."
    I was not intending in any case to move the fourth Amendment, but I am grateful to be able to speak to the first three. This is certainly a crook catching Clause, and what we on this side of the House object to is its present form, because, although the Treasury has to have power to catch certain exporters, the result of such wide

    577
    powers will be to embarrass a very large number of perfectly innocent and genuine exporters. The Amendment will make it necessary for the Treasury to presume to have some knowledge of a person's probable guilt before exercising the power. The two powers which the Treasury take are for the purpose of securing an adequate and rapid monetary payment for any goods exported from this country. Under Clause 1 (a) the exporter is required to secure payment not later than six months after the date of exportation. The Treasury has the power to vary that period, but that is to be a rule which exporters are to watch. We think that exporters know a great deal better, than any civil servant in the Treasury what sort of credit they ought to give to a particular customer with whom they are dealing.
    It may be once in a way that some exporter sends goods abroad and deliberately does not collect payment, hoping, I presume, that at a later date he could go to that country and perhaps say that half the goods have been damaged or that only half payment is due, taking the other half and spending it on his holiday. I think the proper remedy in cases of that kind is for the Government to deny to such a person any more export licences if once he is caught out. What is, in my judgment, bad for the trade of a great commercial country like ours is to have a rule from Whitehall as to what is the length of credit our exporters should give. There should be no rule in the giving of credit. In some cases one has to nurse a client along, and if one can give a little longer credit it sometimes makes just the difference between getting the order oneself and someone else getting it. It is not, in our view, likely to conduce to the export drive if every time a man needs to give more than six months' credit he has to go to the Treasury and ask for permission. While he is getting that permission the deal may be lost.
    7.0 p.m.
    But, bad as is Subsection 1 (a), 1 (b) is worse. Under it the Treasury has power in respect of every single export from this country to see that the amount of the payment made in respect of that export is such as to—and these are the words of which I complain—
    "… represent a return for the goods which is in all the circumstances satisfactory in the national interest."
    578
    What on earth does that mean? Of course, here again, the crooked man can invoice a motor car from this country at half its price, be paid half, and then, when he goes abroad, collect the other half. That would be bad for the national. interest, but as the Clause stands nobody can fix any export price without the possibility of the Treasury coming along and questioning it. Not only will the Treasury have to go into the costs of the manufacture of the article concerned, but they will also have to tell him whether he has made a big enough profit. That is a very peculiar obligation to place upon the Treasury.
    I can imagine this Clause being used in one or two ways which would be very injurious to trade. For instance, the words "satisfactory in the national interest" may mean, to the Treasury, that an exporter had better sell his goods in a hard rather than a soft currency, although when the hard currency is converted he may stand to receive very much less for his goods than if he had sold them in a soft currency. This is not the kind of Bill under which to direct exports to one country rather than to another. If that is to be done it must be done by export licences. Further, I can imagine that a man who exports goods to Hungary might be told by the Treasury, "We are not interested in pengoes; we are interested in their turkeys in the national interest. If you are to get a return for your goods which is satisfactory to the national interest you will kindly sell them for turkeys and not for Hungarian currency".
    Mr. Benson: Christmas turkeys?
    Mr. Eccles: If they arrived in time they would be. Under 1 (b) the Treasury can force the exporter to sell his goods in barter for something else. There again, it might be necessary in the national interest that we should have some barter transactions at some time, but it is not the right place to take such power under an Exchange Control Bill.
    I cannot help thinking that this Clause opens up an entirely new area of disputed territory between traders and the Treasury, and that is a bad thing. We are much in need of the largest possible volume of exports, and we do not want to put more obstacles in the way of people sending their goods abroad. The long and

    579
    short of it is that there are a few crooks —there always will be—and in order to catch them the Treasury is taking power which will interfere with the business of 99 per cent.—in fact I should think 999 out of every 1,000—of the transactions that are undertaken in the export trade.
    For that reason we should like to see some words inserted in the Clause which protected the innocent person from having to go to the Treasury to ask for these various permits, length of credit, and so on. I am not sure that the words we have suggested are exactly the right words, but we had 10 put down this Amendment in a considerable hurry. What I want from the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an undertaking that he will look at the Clause again and so frame it that the anxiety caused to the general run of exporters is removed.
    Mr. Benson: The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) said that this Clause was a crook-catching Clause, but it is something much more important than that. It lays on the exporter to hard currency countries the duty to bring home the value of the goods he exports. If this Clause did not exist there would be no legal power for the Treasury to insist—nothing, in fact, except a pure moral obligation on the exporter—that hard currency should be brought into this country. This is one of the vital Clauses of the Bill and one which gives us power to earn hard currency. What is the machinery adopted by the Treasury under the Bill? The whole question is left in the hands of the people who are accustomed to dealing with imports and exports—the Board of Customs and Excise. It leaves to this normal machinery the business of seeing that the bilk of lading and other documents are in order. There is no other way of dealing with this. It ensures that hard currency shall come to this country when it should come in the ordinary normal way, and provides for the customs investigation of documents. That is perfectly simple and straightforward.
    What does the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman propose? First, it says that nobody who exports to any part of the world whatever, whether in the scheduled areas or countries outside them, has any legal duty to bring in any currency whatever as the result of exports. In other
    580
    words, every pennyworth of goods we export is to be taken out of the purview of the Treasury; the whole of the proceeds can be left abroad.
    Mr. Eccles: Does the hon. Gentleman really maintain that if he exports something to America and receives dollars he is not under an obligation, under another part of the Bill, to surrender those dollars? He knows he is. It is nonsense to say that if he exports whiskey, for example, for which he receives 100,000 dollars, he can leave that money in the bank in New York. As a British citizen he has to put it into a pool.
    Mr. Benson: This is the machinery by which he has to do that.
    Mr. Eccles: Not at all.
    Mr. Benson: Then what is the position?
    Mr. Eccles: It is a question of time.
    Mr. Benson: It is more than a question of time. The friends of the hon. Gentleman have been using all kinds of fantastic arguments, but his arguments have, as a rule, been sound and serious. When he suggested that the Treasury should issue an order to an importer to bring in turkeys, I at first thought. "Good heavens, as that a currency? I have never heard of it before." I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman was being facetious.
    Mr. Brendan Bracken: It is a much better currency than a lot of pictures.
    Mr. Benson: It is not a matter for the Treasury. With regard to export licences, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to think were a safeguard, I would point out that while the Bill will be a permanency, export licences will not be permanent. One hopes very much that they will not be permanent but will be got rid of as soon as the material shortages of the world are removed. The financial shortages of this country will last a great deal longer than the material shortages of the world. Export licences will go long before we can afford to give up exchange control.
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's argument is getting wide of the Amendment.
    Mr. Benson: The Amendment would do away with the general powers and would leave it to the Treasury to try to catch

    581
    crooks, whereas the powers under the Clause must be very much wider.
    Sir Arnold Gridley: I must say a word or two about this Clause because, in recent years, I have had a good deal to do with the export trade. I am alarmed at the precautions I shall have to take if the Clause goes through as it is, in warning members of my staff—
    The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a Debate upon an Amendment, not upon the Clause.
    Sir A. Gridley: I appreciate that. I am supporting the Amendment, whether or not the actual wording as put down is altogether suitable to achieve the purposes which my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has in mind or not. Perhaps I may express the reasons why I support it. First, I should like to refer to the words:
    "unless the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied."
    Is it not a novel thing that, if a firm contract to send overseas a large amount of machinery which they have to erect in that country, the Customs and Excise Commissioners should have the proper knowledge to be able to satisfy themselves whether, in all the circumstances, the price that was quoted is right?
    Moreover, I notice that the payment has to be made not later than six months after the date of the exportation. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that it frequently takes two months, and sometimes three months, for goods despatched from this country to reach their destination. That leaves only a period of three months from the actual delivery of the goods on the site, to the moment when the exporter must ask the customer to make payment in full for the goods
    7.15 p.m.
    Then again, are the Commissioners of Customs and Excise the right people to decide, when they see the prices, whether, in their opinion, the profit included is the right profit or not? I am surprised that a Socialist Government should put into a Bill anything which touches profit at all. Profit, according to them, is most reprehensible. We should never work for profit. On the other
    582
    hand, I realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in framing his Budget must hope for very considerable profits which he can tax. The taxpayers of this country would be in very great difficulty if we did not make as much profit as we can out of the goods we export. Another difficulty may arise under the Clause. It is not infrequent that valuable machinery sent overseas may suffer damage on the way, or in transport from the port to the site, perhaps 500 or 600 miles away. One insures against risks of that kind, but a consequence may be that one may make a bôna fide reduction in the price which the customer will ultimately have to pay, because of the damage which has been done and which has impaired the value of the machinery which the customer has purchased. Who is to decide in the Customs and Excise Department whether the exporter has done right or wrong in making a deduction in the payment for defects which no one could possibly help?
    Another situation may arise. In the export of goods overseas, it frequently happens that one has to employ subcontractors in the carrying out of the contract. One may have to provide for a certain amount of railway construction. One may have to employ local subcontractors. We cannot send a man out from this country to build a road bridge, which may be a part of the contract. Have we to satisfy the Commissioners of Customs and Excise over here that the arrangements we have made and the payment which we are going to make to the subcontractors, are fit and proper? It seems to all of us who are accustomed to the export trade that exporters will be in an extremely difficult position, if the Clause remains unamended. The Chancellor should know what tremendous efforts are being made by the makers of capital goods in this country to do everything possible to assist the Government to expand the export trade.
    A provision like this in a country which has a high commercial integrity, and put into a Bill like this, may stamp us as a community which is dishonest and which requires to be circumscribed in all its-transactions by provisions about "without the consent of the Treasury" and the overriding approval of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Parliament will be foolish and will be stultifying itself if it leaves a Clause like

    583
    this to go into the Bill without suitable amendment.
    I may be told—I do not doubt that I shall be told—that it is not intended to impose such restrictions as the Bill endeavours to secure power to impose except upon the dishonest. But if the great community in this country are in general honest—as indeed they are—it is not unreasonable to ask the Chancellor to treat us, who are doing this work, as honest people. Let him go for the dishonest people by all means and punish them with maximum severity, but let him leave without these formidable restrictions the people who are carrying on their work honestly.
    The Temporary Chairman: The Debate has gone rather wide. I thought that would be convenient to the Committee, but I hope it will not be repeated on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. J. Foster: I should like to repeat my plea that the Chancellor, when he explains the prescriptions, should make some authoritative statement on the system of special accounts and sterling area accounts. It is important to the exporter to know how the payments are to be prescribed. I believe that registered accounts no longer exist. No matter is hidden in the practice of the Bank of England and it is very difficult to find out whether registered accounts have gone, and what the difference is between a sterling account and a special account. With regard to Subsection (1a), does the Chancellor wish to make payment within six months alternative to the prescriptive date? In the Clause the Customs and Excise have to be satisfied that payment is made in the manner prescribed, or in six months. I do not believe that is intended. Under the old regulation it was cumulative. It seems to me that a person could say, "I am not making a payment in the prescribed manner because I am making it in six months." If the exporter was to be paid by notes held by the importer, the object of the regulations would be circumvented, because it would be paid, not out of sterling acquired by the purchase of foreign exchange but by some nest egg of notes in this country. I should have 'thought that the word "or" should be "and."
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will certainly look into that point and see whether the word is wrong. As you said just now, Mr. Touche, the Debate has strayed rather wide. In order to answer the main questions that have been put I shall, with your permission, have to stray as widely as earlier speakers have done. This Clause definitely deals with payments for export. The marginal note says so and the whole Clause is directed to that end, and there fore it is a most important Clause. It is one of the vital Clauses of this Bill, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said. It is not designed, in spite of what the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) said, to stand in the way of imports. When the hon. Member talked about the present system and the forms stultifying the exporters in their effort to build up the export market of this country, I could not help thinking of the actual figures, which I think are pretty good. If we look at them, it is apparent that there is not much stultification there. I am not in the export market, and so all I can say is what I hear secondhand. I am afraid the same criticism would apply to quite a lot of hon. Members of this House, but I am informed, on evidence that I can believe, that this system has worked for the best part of seven years, and has worked well. The form which is issued is very simple. It is well-known to all those engaged in this type of industry, and is well understood by them, and the proof is that it has been used and is still being used, with great effect by hundreds of exporters from this country.
    The real reason for this Clause—and the Amendment goes right to the root of it— is that it is essential, if we are to export, and for the protection of our exchange abroad and the wealth of this country, that we should have some sort of control over the goods which leave these shores. If we are to export our goods we must look to have payment for them, and payment according to the methods of the various industries which are exporting the goods concerned. Ultimately, out and beyond that, we must have some sort of residual power, which gives us not only some claim to the payment but, if payment is not made in the propert time and proper way, we must have some control over the goods themselves. This Clause does those things on behalf of the nation at large, and I think what it does is very

    585
    good. [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh. If any of them are in the export market I can assure them that they would find the provisions laid down in this Clause, which are the arrangements now in effect, extremely useful.
    Mr. Stanley: Did the hon. Gentleman say "beneficial"?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Everything this Government does is beneficial. What do the Amendments seek to do? If one takes the Amendments that have been moved, together with the one that follows, the Clause would read as follows:
    "The Treasury may, if in their opinion there are circumstances rendering it necessary or expedient so to do, in relation to any person, prohibit the exportation of goods of any class of description from the United Kingdom to a destination in any territory by or on behalf of such person except with the permission of the Treasury, unless the Commissioner of Customs and Excise…."
    If that means anything, what the mover of the Amendment wants us to do is to allow anyone to export unless they happen to have come up against the Treasury, in some form or other, and got on to what might be described as a black list. No one would have to fill in any forms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the Customs and Excise would never know what goods were being exported and how much for and how soon payment might be expected. There would be complete freedom. That is how we read the new Clause.
    Mr. Stanley: Then the hon. Gentleman is against it.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: These are very wide powers to give the Treasury. They could put an individual completely out of business. If in their opinion the circumstances rendered it necessary or expedient so to do in relation to any person, they could prohibit him following his ordinary practice. That means the compilation, quite definitely, of a black list; it would mean that the Customs and Excise or the authities concerned, would have to go through day by day, every list to see whether these names were on them. We think that it would be a shocking imposition on the Customs and Excise and that it would also be grossly unfair. Only delay and confusion the very things which hon. and
    586
    right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to avoid—would result. Therefore we think this Amendment should be resisted. It is absolutely essential in our view, if this Clause is to work properly, that CD.3 should be continued As I said earlier, it is a simple form, and trade and business are used to it.
    Mr. Stanley: Only four pages.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It gives the Customs and Excise information they want, and it helps all concerned. Therefore we think the arrangement should continue, and we ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
    Mr. Eccles: I am sorry, but I cannot find the Financial Secretary's answer satisfactory. He said that the form was needed to collect statistics about what is going on. I have no objection to the Government collecting statistics about exports; what I have an objection to is their laying down rules about the length of credit for everybody. I would put this to him. It is really no good telling us that because a regulation worked well in the war, it is, therefore, a good thing in peace. You might as well say that the Coalition Government ought to be the Government now, because it worked well in war. We have been in a sellers' market, and it has not been at all difficult to sell anything which there was permission to export. There was no difficulty about getting cash under those circumstances, but now we are coming into a period when it will not be so easy to sell all the goods in the countries where we wish to sell them, and credit will once again be one of the balancing factors which will determine whether we do the trade or not. Therefore I could not accept the idea that because during the war this system of short credit worked all right, it will work all right in peacetime. This is a Measure which, most unfortunately, is to be permanent, and I think we have to be particularly careful what kind of powers arc put into a Clause like this. I am not satisfied with the reply, and I hope my hon. Friends will take this to a Division.
    Mr. Howard: There is one thing the Financial Secretary said in his reply with which we are all in agreement, that we must have some sort of controls, and it was made perfectly clear by my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment that

    587
    we accepted that point of view. It was only the nature of the controls that was at fault. Then the Financial Secretary went on to urge as an argument against our Amendment that it was a shocking imposition on the Customs and Excise, who are officials paid for doing this very work. He said nothing about the shocking imposition that the Clause makes on all the exporters of this country. He also said that the Clause as drafted was not designed to stand in the way of exports. I ask you, Mr. Touche, to look at the words of the Clause which we are seeking to amend. The Clause says:
    "The exportation of goods of any class or description from the United Kingdom…is hereby prohibited…"
    And the Financial Secretary told us that it is not designed to stand in the way of exports. Those are the arguments which he has ventured to put before this Committee as a reason for the Committee refusing to accept our Amendment. I am perfectly certain that our Amendment needs no further argument to show why it should be accepted.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 267.

    Division No. 25.

    AYES.

    [7.35 p.m

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Renton, D.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ross, Sir R.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Boothby, R.

    Hurd, A.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Bower, N.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Carson, E.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Challen, C.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Turton, R. H.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Is. of Wight)

    Vane, W.M. F.

    De la Bère, R.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

    Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G. (Penrith)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Drayson, G. B.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

    Drewe, C.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Maude, J. C.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Eccles, D. M.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    York, C.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

    Gage, C.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Pickthorn, K.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Gomme-Duncan Col. A. G.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Commander Agnew and

    Grant, Lady

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Major Conant.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Raikes, H. V.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Collick, P.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Boardman, H.

    Collins, V. J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Austin, H. L.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Crawley, A.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Crossman, R. H. S

    Baird, J.

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Daggar, G.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Callaghan, James

    Daines, P.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Carmichael, James

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Barton, C.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Bellenger, Rt. Han. F. J.

    Champion, A. J.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Benson, G.

    Chater, D.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Berry, H.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Deer, G.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Diamond, J.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Levy, B. W.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Sharp, Granville

    Edelman, M.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Longden, F.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lyne, A. W.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Ewart, R.

    McAdam, W.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Fairhurst, F.

    McAllister, G.

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

    Farthing, W, J.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Field, Captain W. J.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Solley, L. J.

    Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

    Mack, J. D.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Follick, M.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Foot, M. M.

    Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Gaitskell, H. T. N.

    McLeavy, F.

    Stamford, W.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Stephen, C.

    Gibbins, J.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Gilzean, A.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Swingler, S.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Mathers, G.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Grey, C. F.

    Medland, H. M.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Grierson, E.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Messer, F.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Gunter, R. J.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

    Guy, W. H.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Montague, F.

    Thurtle, E.

    Hale, Leslie

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Tiffany, S.

    Hall, W. G.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Tolley, L.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Murray, J. D.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Nally, W.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Hardman, D. R.

    Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Usborne, Henry

    Harrison, J.

    Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Viant, S. P.

    Haworth, J.

    O'Brien, T.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Walkden, E.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Walker, G. H.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Wallace G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

    Holman, P.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Horabin T. L.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Weitzman, D.

    House, G.

    Pearson, A.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Hoy, J.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Parrins, W.

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Piratin, P.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Hughes. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Popplewell, E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Irving, W. J.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Randall, H. E.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Ranger, J.

    Williams, W.R. (Heston)

    Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

    Rankin, J.

    Williamson, T.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Willis, E.

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Rhodes, H.

    Woodburn, A.

    Keenan, W.

    Richards, R.

    Woods, G. S.

    Kenyon, C.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Yates, V. F.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Robens, A.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Kinley, J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Royle, C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Sargood, R.

    Mr. Collindridge and

    Leonard, W.

    Scollan, T.

    Mr. Coldrick.

    7.45 p.m.
    Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 16, line 40 to leave out Subsection (3).
    When I first read this Subsection, and glanced at the first paragraph of the Clause which prohibits
    "The exportation of goods of any class or description from the United Kingdom to a destination in any such territory as may be prescribed."
    590
    whatever those words may mean, I could not possibly understand how any contracting firm would be in a position to inform the Commissioners of Customs and Excise what would be the ultimate destination of the goods they had despatched overseas. Suppose, for example, I enter into a contract with some firm in Russia, or some purchasing commission representing the Russian

    591
    Government, and the goods are delivered at a Russian port. How can I possibly let the Commissioners know whether those goods will ultimately be used in Siberia, Manchuria, or any of the satellite countries with which Russia has now surrounded herself? Suppose I make a contract to supply a large quantity of goods to an importing firm of merchants, say, in Penang. How do I know where those merchants may ultimately send those goods? Some may be used in Malaya, some despatched to Siam, or some may be sent into Burma, which is now crying out for goods.
    This Subsection is an absurdity and, unless we can have an explanation which has some real substance in it, I shall have to ask my supporters to divide the Committee on this Amendment. I hope the Chancellor will, however, be able to satisfy us that he can get all the control he wants without this seemingly absurd Subsection, or that he can give us very sound and convincing reasons which justify its retention.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has misunderstood what the Clause means by the word "ultimate." We are not thinking of the absolute and ultimate destination—
    Mr. Birch: That is what it means.
    Mr. H. Strauss: It is the word used.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will come to that. It has to be read with the rest of the Clause. The rest of the Clause, as we have now got through the last Division, and assuming that the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill is agreed to, requires anyone who is going to export some class of goods to fill in the form CD.3, which hon. Members opposite found slightly amusing when we were dealing with the last Amendment. The exporter has to make a suitable declaration. He has to give the nature of the goods, their destination, and the estimated time when he expects payment. It may be within six months, but it will follow the customs of the trade for that class of goods between one exporter and another, and, if so desired, with the connivance of the Treasury, payment can be spread out over a longer period.
    592
    It is a question of doing what is reasonable in the circumstances. Clearly, it is necessary that if the destination is put on the form that destination should be its real destination, and not an intermediate destination that is put there, as sometimes might be the case, by exporters who wanted to defraud. For instance, in the case of something going out to Calcutta, the ship may call at some intermediate port, but obviously the goods are destined for Calcutta, and what the merchant in Calcutta does with them does not matter. They have passed out of the jurisdiction of the exporter here; he has performed his task in a free and open manner. So far as he knows he has, in fact, sold those goods to a merchant in Calcutta. We should, and he will, look, in course of time to that merchant for payment for these goods. Whether that merchant ships them somewhere else, say, Hongkong or Singapore, has nothing to do with the case. All that we are saying in Subsection (3) is that when these forms are filled in the ultimate destination, so far as the exporter here is concerned, should be disclosed.
    There are various reasons why it is essential that that should be so, and why legal enactment should be given to that provision. It is essential, and it is part of the bargain, that we should receive payment in the currency of the country to which the goods have been sent. For example, if the goods are sent and sold to Holland, the Control here will expect that payment, in due course, will be made in Dutch guilders. Therefore, it is essential, for that and other reasons, that the destination should be inserted and that it should be the real destination, and not some intermediate one which, not always, but occasionally, may be put down in order to evade what should be a legal obligation.
    Sir A. Gridley: I think that we should be in agreement with the reasons why there should be some control, such as the Financial Secretary has advanced. But that does not apply to the use of the word "ultimate." We would be quite prepared to meet him in regard to the control he seeks to secure, but we think that the word "ultimate" is wrong. If he is prepared to look at this matter again, and choose a word which will convince us and satisfy him that what he is asking for can still be obtained, we are prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It might shorten the Debate if I say that if that is all which is standing between the hon. Member and the Government, we will, of course, look at it. We do not know what the word should be, or what other word could take the place of the word "ultimate," but we are not wedded to a particular word, so long as what we want to accomplish is achieved.
    Mr. Stanley: I think my hon. Friends will require a little more assurance than that this point will be looked at That assurance commits the Financial Secretary to nothing more really than just looking at the reasons which his officials will give why no change should be made. We feel that here is a real point. There is really very little difference between what the Government and ourselves want to get at, but we feel that the wording of this Subsection goes far beyond what the Government need. I cannot myself claim that I am any lawyer. I am afraid I am not like the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), or perhaps I am like the hon. and learned Member. I should have thought that any court would interpret a reference to the destination of goods as being the real destination, and that they would not permit—perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us—the insertion of some intermediary stage obviously designed to defraud. I should have thought that in construing any Act of Parliament reference to destination would be to the real destination. I cannot help feeling that the use of the word "ultimate" must mean something more than the real destination, which is the meaning which the hon. Gentleman chooses to attach to it.
    Mr. Mikardo: The ultimate destination— surely, dust unto dust.
    Mr. Stanley: So far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, I think that his ultimate destination and his real destination are probably the same, but I do not think we can carry that analogy too far.
    We are genuinely concerned that the use of this word "ultimate" may impose an obligation upon the exporter which he is really not in a position to carry out. It may mean his being required to trace these goods beyond the destination which, I gather, is the place of first sale. We really do not see why the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in what happens
    594
    to them afterwards, so long as they are exported to a place which is permitted, and so long as he is certain that at that place the exporter will receive payment on the terms which are required. I cannot see that it is really necessary to pursue those goods any further. So far as I am concerned, unless the Financial Secretary can give a pledge that before the Report stage he will produce some Amendment which will eliminate this word "ultimate," I shall feel obliged to divide on the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I ask the Financial Secretary another question, as he is to have another look at this matter? When replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), he gave as an instance a cargo consigned to Calcutta. He said that something might happen at Calcutta, that the cargo might go on to Hong Kong, and that although that occurred it was Calcutta which would be the ultimate destination within the meaning of this Subsection, which I have found a little difficult to follow on logical or geographical grounds. But suppose, as so often happens, that while that cargo is on the high seas the exporter may wish to divert it, and there is a cable or wireless message that the ship is required not at Calcutta but at Rangoon or Madras. Is the unfortunate exporter to get into difficulties and into trouble with Treasury officials because he has put Calcutta as the destination of the ship on this blessed form, and she is then diverted to Madras or Rangoon? Or will it be sufficient to put the country of destination, which is what I am trying to get at, without specifying any particular port? It often happens that ships while on a voyage are diverted. It might even be diverted—
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. and gallant Member will pardon my intervention, he says that it often happens now. If he will think of what happens now, he will know what will happen in the future.
    Lieut. -Commander Braithwaite: If I may say so, the Financial Secretary has entirely missed the point. What happens now is that every ship is under charter to the Government in one form or another— is under the Ministry of Transport. But the time will come when that is not the case. The Government have said that they do not intend to nationalise the shipping industry. It will continue, to a large

    595
    extent, under private ownership. It is a frequent practice, in time of peace, for ships, after sailing, to be diverted. The Financial Secretary asked what happened now. The answer is that everything is done under the orders of the Ministry of Transport. Obviously a man cannot get into trouble, even under this Government for obeying the Minister of Transport and contravening the instructions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Obviously that cannot happen, or should not happen, even under Socialism. I wish to ask a specific question. Under normal trading conditions, in time of peace, which is not the position now—we are still operating under wartime regulations—supposing a ship sails, say, from the Port of London with a cargo to Calcutta, and during that voyage the owners receive instructions that the cargo should be diverted to Colombo; if the exporter puts on his form "destination Calcutta" and the cargo is in fact despatched to Colombo, will there be a hullabaloo or will the man manage to keep out of prison?
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course, there will will not be a hullabaloo. We must keep our heads in these matters and treat these questions with common sense. If the exporter has acted in a bona fide manner and the ship originally was going to one place and, for a very good and sufficient reason, was directed to another, all that can be explained and put right and no one would get into trouble.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The Financial Secretary says it is a matter of commonsense but, really, it is a matter of law that we are considering. I am sure the Committee would like to hear the hon. and learned Solicitor-General on this point. The point I wish to put, to which I am sure there will be universal assent, is that a Clause that subjects the exporter to criminal penalties if he makes a mistake ought, at least, to be sufficiently precise for the exporter to know what it means. With regard to the words "ultimate destination," it may be that they are plain because they have been judicially construed in this context. I do not profess to have looked up the point. I know the Solicitor-General will be able to enlighten us, and if he will say that they have been judicially construed and what they mean, as far as I am concerned that will go a
    596
    long way towards convincing me that this is safe. In the absence of a judicial construction, I should have thought there was considerable uncertainty about it.
    From one of the speeches made by the Financial Secretary, I thought he meant that the ultimate destination was the point at which the exporter ceased to have any legal control. I do not know, but, if that is so, perhaps it might be made plain. It might have some reference to the place at which the property passes, though I do not think it does in this case, but I think we ought to be told quite definitely either that this has a perfectly plain meaning, because it has been judicially construed, or, if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is unable to give us that assurance, then I think there should be an undertaking to make the words more plain than they are now.
    Sir P. Bennett: I hope that the Financial Secretary will carefully consider this point. In the answers which he has given, the suggestion is that the exporter will understand and know. People do not seem to realise that the exporter, meaning the chairman or the principal, will not handle these matters himself. I am staggered to think what will happen when the clerks who do this work are told that when they give the "ultimate destination" it does not mean the ultimate destination at all. I could not take a clerk to task for refusing to book "Hong Kong" when he or she knew perfectly well that the goods were going on past there. I should expect them to say, "But that is not the ultimate destination." I should expect the same thing if certain goods were going to South Africa and part of the consignment to Rhodesia, or if a consignment was sent to Sydney and part of it was then going to other places. I cannot see how we can expect our labour—today it is "green-mill," as the Americans call it—our junior clerks, to understand when they see a form that the words "ultimate destination" do not mean the ultimate destination to which a consignment is despatched, but some intermediary spot where payment in a certain currency is expected. I think in fairness to the people we have to employ, there should be no ambiguity. of this sort in an Act which has to be administered by these people.
    Mr. Birch: I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and

    597
    agree with the hon Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett). This is not really a matter of law but of English. The words "ultimate destination" have a perfectly clear meaning. Surely, they mean that the goods never move on beyond a certain point. What we gather from the Financial Secretary is that the words do not mean that at all. He says that what one has to state truly is the country, or place of residence, of the person who is to pay for the goods which are sold. That is a very reasonable thing to ask. But to ask somebody to say what the ultimate destination is when it is perfectly clear in many cases that he cannot possibly know, is asking something which is impossible. It is rendering someone liable to prosecution for something of which he, clearly, could not be guilty. It he puts one place and it is passed on to another, how is he to know? This goes against the plain

    Division 26.

    AYES

    [8.07 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Crawley, A.

    Hardman, D. R.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crowe)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Daggar, G.

    Harrison, J.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Daines, P.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Austin, H. L.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Haworth, J.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Holman, P.

    Baird, J.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Deer, G.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    House, G.

    Barton, C.

    Diamond, J.

    Hoy, J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Benson, G.

    Donovan, T.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Berry, H.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Irving, W. J.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Edelman, M.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Boardman, H.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

    Bowles F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Ewart, R.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Keenan, W.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Farthing, W. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Follick, M.

    Kinley, J.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Foot, M. M.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Burke, W. A.

    Gaitskell, H. T. N.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Byers, Frank

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Leonard, W.

    Callaghan, James

    Gibbins, J.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Carmichael, James

    Gibson, C. W.

    Levy, B. W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Gilzean, A.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Champion, A. J.

    Goodrich, H. E.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Chater, D.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Lipton, Lt. Col. M.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Longden, F.

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Grey, C. F.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Grierson, E.

    McAdam, W.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    McAllister, G.

    Collick, P.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    McEntee, V. La. T.

    Collins, V. J.

    Gunter, R. J.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Guy, W. H.

    Mack, J. D.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

    Hall, W. G.

    McLeavy, F.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    meaning of the English language and I hope that we shall have some further answer.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: On a point of Order. May I call your attention to the fact that on both occasions when you put the Question, no, hon. Member shouted "Aye," but, in each case you announced that the "Ayes" had it? I would have called your attention to the point before this, but I was not covered.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I heard "Aye."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Nose, 93.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Tiffany, S.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Rhodes, H.

    Tolley, L.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Richards, R.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Mathers, G.

    Robens, A.

    Ungoed Thomas, L.

    Medland, H. M.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Usborne, Henry

    Mellish, R. J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvenshire)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Messer, F.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Viant, S. P.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Royle, C.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Sargood, R.

    Walkden, E.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Scollan, T.

    Walker, G. H.

    Montague, F.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Wallace, H. W. (Waithamslow, E.)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Sharp, Granville

    Warbey, W. N.

    Murray, J. D.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Nally, W.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Weitzman, D.

    Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.

    O'Brien, T.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Smith. S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Solley, L. J.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Stamford, W.

    Williamson, T.

    Pearson, A.

    Stephen, C.

    Willis, E.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

    Perrins, W.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Woodburn, A.

    Piratin, P.

    Swingler, S.

    Woods, G. S.

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Symonds, A. L.

    Wyatt, W.

    Popplewell, E.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Yates, V. F.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Randall, H. E.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Ranger, J.

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

    Mr. Collindridge and

    Rankin, J.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Mr. Coldrick.

    NOES.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Rayner, Brig R.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Renton, D.

    Birch, Nigel

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Ross, Sir R.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hudson, Rt Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Scott, Lord W.

    Bower, N.

    Hurd, A.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Snadden, W. M.

    Carson, E.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew E.)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Llyod, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Conant, Maj R. J. E.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Is of Wight)

    Thorneycroft. G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Turton, R. H.

    Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

    Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Drewe, C.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Erroll, F. J.

    Marples, A. E.

    Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Maude, J. C.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gage, C.

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    York, C.

    Grant, Lady

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grimston, R. V.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Sir Arthur Young and

    Commander Agnew.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Birch: I wish to raise one short point. It appears that under Clause 23 (1, b) the Commissioners of Customs and
    600
    Excise have the duty of seeing whether goods of any sort whatever have been sold at the right price or not. That seems to lay open a rather depressing prospect of very minute supervision of the prices

    601
    of any goods sold abroad. Of course, there are a great many reasons for selling goods abroad today at prices which, normally, would not be satisfactory. For instance, many firms have sold goods abroad at prices lower than would cover their overheads simply in order to keep their organisations going and their staffs employed. I would like to know how the Government visualise this Clause being interpreted, how close the supervision is going to be, and whether, in fact, it would cover cases where, for business reasons and human reasons, manufacturers may want to sell at a price which, on the bare face of it, is not altogether satisfactory.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Normally, where there are what are called "arm's length" transactions of this sort, the Customs and Excise authorities would not be concerned to go closely into the matter of price. Surely, other things being equal, that can be left to the parties concerned? An exporter is not in the export business for the sake of his health. He wants to get the proper price for the goods he exports, and I think we may rely upon him normally to ask a price which he thinks reasonable and, afterwards, with the help of the Treasury, if necessary, to get it. Therefore, the Customs and Excise authorities would not, in the normal way, enter into the transaction at all. They would be perfectly satisfied that the transaction was legitimate and that the price was the correct one. What they would occasionally be on the look out for—in fact, are always on the look out for, and what I hope they would rarely find, if one's belief in human nature is to continue at a high level—would be where transactions of this kind were used to cloak some sort of arrangement which, quite definitely, would be an evasion of what will then be the Act, that is. the export of capital by giving a much higher price for something than was necessary. If they did find a transaction of the kind envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, where the price did seem to be out of all proportion to the goods, and the reason was as he stated, then, obviously, they have only to go into it with the authorities concerned for everyone to see it is a bona fide transaction, and one which should be allowed.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Duty to collect certain debts)
    Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 17, line 3, to leave out "or refrain from doing."
    We have now come to the Clause which, as I pointed out on Second Reading, makes it a criminal offence to forgive our debtors. But the implications of that rather startling fact will be more appropriate, as I am sure you would rule, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill than on the Amendment which I am now moving. This Amendment is intended to make what is to be criminal conduct more clear than it is under the very wide words which we now have. These words make it criminal, not merely to do certain acts but to refrain from doing acts with intent. Now, when somebody does an act he is conscious of it at the moment he is doing it, and can consider the legality of what he is doing; but refraining from doing something even with stated intent, is something which can cover weeks or years. The prospect it holds out is most alarming and vague, when it is remembered that it is creating a criminal offence. Of course, there are many precedents for making it a criminal offence wilfully to neglect to do something which is a well known duty for somebody to do, or wilfully to neglect to do something after the person has perceived from a notice that he ought to do it. At the moment, I cannot think of any criminal offence as vaguely worded as this, where merely refraining from doing an act is made criminal in this way—and refraining from doing an almost unlimited number of acts.
    It would be arguable, I suppose— although the prosecution might not like to take on the burden of proving intent— that a person might become liable to criminal penalties under this Clause if, because of laziness one night, he did not answer a letter. I do not know how far the Government wish this definition of this new criminal offence to go. This crime is committed if someone refrains from doing any act in order to secure that the receipt of certain payments should be delayed—merely delayed. Now, is he doing that or is he not, if, being a person not having great confidence in his debtor who ought to put his lawyers on to the debtor, or ought to issue a writ, he neglects to do so? It seems to me that the

    603
    Clause as it stands is so far-reaching in the vague threats that it holds over people, and is so vague in the offences which it creates, that it is quite intolerable. I am very glad to see that the learned Solicitor-General is the Minister who is to reply, because I am certain he will refer us to such precedents, if any, as he can find. However, I hope he will not merely refer us to precedents, but will tell us that he agrees that these words, as they stand, really create an offence of quite intolerable vagueness; that it really does offend against the whole principle of our criminal law that a man should be made liable to criminal penalties, merely because he does not do something, when the something which he does not do is a thing which for centuries the Christian religion has actually suggested it is a virtue not to do.
    I do not wish to labour the point, because I want to hear what, if anything, can be said in defence of these words. I hope that if the Government cannot accept our view—though I hope they can —at least they will say they will define accurately and precisely that which they wish to hit. If they say that a person offends if he refrains from doing, after he has received some notice, that which he ought to do, that would at any rate introduce some clarity. If they make criminal some wilful neglect of a duty which is defined, it will create some clarity. But simply to leave the words as they stand would be, I think, to pass legislation in this House which would be quite unworthy of a civilised people.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman has called attention to a Clause which, admittedly, is stringent. I will try to put before the Committee our reasons for thinking it necessary to have those words, and for thinking that we cannot do with anything less than those words. Suppose goods are consigned abroad, by a resident in the United Kingdom, with the result that a debt becomes due from the consignee of the goods to the consignor. Without words such as the words in this particular Clause there is nothing at all to stop the consignor, either from specifically waiving the payment of the debt—
    Mr. Strauss: That is doing something.
    The Solicitor-General: That is doing something—or, achieving precisely the
    604
    same result by doing nothing. Now, the offence is refraining from doing something with intent. That is to say, before a person can commit an offence under Subsection (1) of Clause 24 he has to do something, or to refrain from doing something with intent; that is to say, he must, when he does or abstains from doing, have the intent of bringing about the mischief which the Clause is designed to prevent. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I believe my hon. Friends, would accept at once the position that, suppose, in that case, the consignor deliberately did something, such as waiving the payment of the debt, which would have the consequence of preventing the currency being received in this country, even though the Clause is stringent there is justification for it. There is justification for making it an offence in a case like that for the consignor deliberately to waive payment of the debt. I feel hon. Members would accept that that would be justifiable.
    If it is justifiable it does, I submit to the Committee, follow as a necessary consequence from that—it is logically a necessary consequence—that it should be equally an offence to do deliberately the same thing in another way; that is to say, if it is an offence to waive a debt, to write to the debtor and to say, "You need not pay," equally, it should be an offence not to send in the bill to him. The bill is not sent in to him for six months, a year, two years, three years or four years, with the intent that he should not pay the foreign currency to which the consignor is entitled. That is the justification which I put before the Committee in asking the Committee to approve what are admittedly stringent powers. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) said there would be cases in which considerable hardship would be imposed. He instanced the case of laziness in writing a letter. Suppose that were the case; suppose the consignor, in the case which I have instanced, did not write a letter, but did not write it because he was lazy, or because his bookkeeping methods were inefficient, or for one reason or another it slipped his mind. Clearly, he would not have committed an offence, because he would not have had in his mind the necessary guilty intent. In that connection I would particularly invite the attention of hon. Members opposite to the

    605
    words which import the necessity of intent, and which appear in Subsection (1) at the top of page 17:
    "shall do, or refrain from doing, any act with intent to secure"—
    If the Clause really made it an offence by inadvertence to fail to do something, then I would concede at once that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made out his case, but the qualification here is that there must be a refraining with intent. In other words, there must be a deliberate act of abstention.
    8.30 p.m.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman then may say, "Surely, sometimes it may be desirable, for a perfectly legitimate object, deliberately and with intent, to do something which will have the result of postponing payment of the debt." That, of course, may come about. If that be the case, then those would be the circumstances in which the Treasury would very readily give permission for the debt to be allowed to drag on. That is just the case. So that the result comes about that a person only commits an offence under the words "refrain from doing" when he deliberately abstains from doing something necessary to get his debt, intending to bring it about that he does not get the debt, and having no valid excuse for so doing. If he has any valid excuse at all he will certainly get permission straight away from the Treasury not to do that very act.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman just answer these two points? Will he indicate to us a precedent for these exact words? Secondly, will he indicate whether he is now submitting to the Committee that "refrains from doing" is equivalent to saying "wilfully neglects to do"?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, I do say that. To refrain from doing something with intent to bring something about is the exact equivalent of deliberate abstention from doing something it is a duty to do.
    Mr. H. Strauss: But the precedent?
    The Solicitor-General: If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Finance Act he will find words which are similar up and down the Finance Act. Not the same words. I cannot give him any exact precedent. I am afraid I cannot
    606
    respond to his invitation to give him identical words. But there are expressions used which are not wholly dissimilar. That is the case I make for these admittedly stringent powers.
    I want to supplement that by making two other observations. In many cases— I do not say in all cases—but in many cases there will be provisions under the contract providing for delay in payment. Payment may be due in six months or nine months, and there will be terms of credit, and so on. Of course, this Clause does not require the creditor to demand payment before payment is due under the terms of the contract. That is quite clear. He cannot seek to advance the date of payment. In normal commercial transactions there are terms of credit allowed, longer or shorter. There is express provision in the first proviso in the Clause:
    'Nothing in this subsection—
    (i) shall, unless the Treasury otherwise direct, impose on any person any obligation … to procure the payment … at an earlier time than is customary in the course of that trade or business."
    There is that safeguard, for what it is worth.
    I frankly confess the powers are drastic, but, after careful consideration, and for the reasons I have endeavoured to put before the Committee, we have come to the conclusion that nothing less would really be sufficient to enable us to operate this. One is always faced with this difficulty, that if one takes powers that are not adequate one makes a mockery of the whole thing; and yet, if one does not have power to do what we set out to do, it means that the honest trader is penalised, and that the dishonest trader, quite ready to take advantage of any position he can turn to his advantage, profits at the expense of the honest trader. Having set out to impose this control we have thought, for the reasons I have given, that this is the way we should propose to do it, in order to operate it efficiently; and that we could not operate it efficiently without taking these powers. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to say his Amendment should not be pressed.
    Mr. Assheton: We are much indebted to the Solicitor-General for the explanation he has given us with regard to this Amendment, and I think he could make his task easier by making a little concession; he was good enough to say that

    607
    in his view the words "wilfully neglect to do" have the same meaning as "refrain from doing." That would at any rate be somewhat better. I do suggest that the words we have here are really creating a kind of offence which is intolerable, an offence merely to refrain from doing something. In the case of collecting a debt, I can recollect many occasions in the past when people have quite innocently failed to collect debts. I remember one case of a shoemaker who did not send in a bill for 17 years. My own doctor sends in his bill most reluctantly; there is nothing criminal about that, there is nothing wrong about that. But they are refraining from doing something which, in this case, might be an offence.
    The Solicitor-General: That is not an offence.
    Mr. Assheton: I suggest that it would be under the terms of this Clause if it were the case of a doctor who was refraining from collecting a debt from a client who was on the other side of the Atlantic. I hope that before we come to the next stage the learned Solicitor-General will see if he can do something to make this Clause better.
    Mr. J. Foster: I think that one can agree with most of what the learned Solicitor-General has said, namely, that certain acts, the instances which he gave, should be stopped by this Clause. It is the object of this Clause to stop the consignor refraining, with intent to delay payment, from doing something which it is his duty to do. The mischief of this Clause is, I think, in the drafting. It is difficult to summarise it, but I think that it is reasonable that, if a person shall do, or refrain from doing, any act with intent to secure—who deliberately does an act with intent to secure—delay in payment, he should be prosecuted and convicted. It is also reasonable that any man should be prosecuted for refraining from doing any act which it is his legal or commercial duty to do. That is the effect of what the learned Solicitor-General said.
    The Solicitor-General: The Clause makes it a duty.
    Mr. Foster: No, that is where the draft-in? of the Clause does not fit in with what we think is reasonable. I would
    608
    ask the learned Solicitor-General to consider the point I am making, if I am making it clear, and I hope I am. The Clause says that a man can be prosecuted if he refrains from doing an act which it is not his duty to do. Let us take an absurd instance, but one which will fit in. The consignee who owes the consignor some money writes to him and says, "I am in difficulties about paying you, but I shall be in Milan next Thursday, and will have some money with me. If you will meet me there I will give the money to you." The consignor may not go to Milan and so payment would be delayed. He refrains from going. The Solicitor-General could say he should be prosecuted because he ought to be bound to go to Milan. In other words, the Treasury is imposing a duty on persons who are due to receive money and who, for one reason or another, would like to delay payment, or who postpone doing something, or do not do a number of acts which lazy people or ignorant people do not, in any case, have to do.
    In my submission, the way the Clause should be drafted is so that it shall mean that a man shall do any act, or shall not refrain from doing any act, which it is his legal or commercial duty to do, or which is his legal duty, and which is in accordance with commercial practice. That would fit in exactly with the explanation the learned Solicitor-General gave us. The learned Solicitor-General talks about an act which it was his duty to do, and in my submission this allows a man to be prosecuted for not doing an act which it is not his duty to do.
    The Solicitor-General: Would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the Clause contained words like "It shall be the duty of everybody to take reasonable steps to get in his debts?"
    Mr. Foster: Yes.
    The Solicitor-General: That is exactly what the Clause does say.
    Mr. Foster: With respect, it is not, because if the debtor, say in Italy, puts up some wild or fantastic scheme which will enable the consignor to get his money, and if he refrains from taking part in that scheme, with intent to delay payment—
    The Solicitor-General: With intent.
    Mr. Foster: Yes, but I am talking about taking a step, or not taking a step, which I say is not reasonable. Suppose the debtor says that if the consignor puts on a paper hat and walks down Bond Street in it he will get his money, and if the consignor refrains from doing that, and prefers to delay payment, he is liable to prosecution, and is taken to court. There the prosecution will say that they have a letter from the debtor in Milan saying that the consignor was to walk on Thursday morning with a paper hat on down Bond Street, and a letter from the consignor to one of his friends saying that he would not do that but would like to delay payment. He is prosecuted for refraining from doing an act which it is not his legal or commercial duty to do. I ask the Solicitor-General to look at the Clause from the point of view I am taking at the moment. Perhaps one can never see that fallacy in one's own arguments, but at the moment I cannot see that the man who is asked to wear a paper hat and walk down Bond Street in it has any defence at all if he does not do so, although I agree it is an absurd illustration.
    The Solicitor-General: The result of the hon. Gentleman's argument would be that, if the debtor said to the creditor, "If you will stand on your head for three hours in the middle of Piccadilly I will pay the debt," and the creditor said, "No, I will not do that," he would be committing an offence. That is quite obviously absurd. If he refuses to stand on his head in the middle of Piccadilly for three hours he is not refraining from doing an act which it is his legal or commercial duty to do because he does not want payment; on the contrary, he would want the debt to be paid, but would refrain from doing that act in order to avoid making himself ridiculous, and in order not to comply with a ridiculous request.
    Mr. Foster: But suppose he writes to a friend, "I have not the slightest objection to walking down Bond Street wearing a paper hat, because it would amuse my children, but I am not going to walk down Bond Street wearing a paper hat because if I do not it will delay payment, and I do not mind that a bit." In the case suggested by the learned Solicitor-General, if he refuses to stand on his head in Piccadilly because he does not want to look ridiculous, naturally he is not committing
    610
    an offence. But if, as I have suggested, he writes a letter saying that he does not mind doing it but will not do it because he does not want payment immediately, what is the position then?
    Mr. Callaghan: I hesitate to interfere in a legal battle, but to my simple lay mind it seems to me that the whole point is the intention of the refusal, "I want to delay payment." That seems to me to be the operative phrase; it is morally wrong for him to do so. If he says, "I refuse to walk down Bond Street in a paper hat because I think I shall look a fool, and therefore I am not going to do it." it is an entirely different proposition.
    Mr. Foster: A lot of people do things which are morally wrong but are not convicted of offences, and in the criminal law we have found that it is very undesirable that whatever is morally wrong should be made a criminal offence. One must take into account that moral turpitude is often not a criminal offence. I still challenge the learned Solicitor-General to deal with the position of the man who may write, in his own handwriting, "I am not going to walk down Bond Street in a paper hat on Sunday morning because I want to delay payment, not that I should not otherwise be very pleased to do it, because I do not think I should look very ridiculous and it would amuse my children whose birthday it is."
    Mr. Scollan: Would the hon. Gentleman please explain what kind of consignor he visualises who would send goods to the Continent, or to any other country, with an agreement that the consignee would be able to place restrictions on the payment in the manner he has just outlined?
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Foster: Admittedly the consignee is in default, and this is a more or less absurd instance, but suppose the consignee says to the consignor, "I am sorry I cannot pay when I should, but I will pay you in Milan next Monday morning. I shall have some money there then, and if I slip it to you quickly I shall not put it on the races that afternoon." Or he may say, ''I will meet you in Milan because I want to ask you a favour." Very often debtors, all over the world, in a sense blackmail their creditors by saying, "I will not pay you unless you do something extra." Suppose the something

    611
    extra is a social service? The debtor may say, "I will pay you tomorrow if you will meet me in the street and introduce me to so-and-so"—or do this favour or that, possibly give some advice. If the man refrains from doing it, with intent to delay payment, if he says that in ordinary circumstances he would agree but in this case he does not mind delaying payment, he has committed an offence.
    Naturally the deliberate doing of an act with intent will be an offence in any case, and the man who does it with intent to avoid payment should be prosecuted and convicted, but in the proposed form of words a man who refrains from doing an act only commits an offence if he refrains from doing one which it is, to put it shortly, reasonable for him to do. If it is unreasonable he can take advantage of its unreasonableness, even though his object is to delay payment.
    Mr. Eccles: I am afraid I was not here when the argument on this Amendment opened—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: You were lucky.
    Mr. Eccles: Not at all. Listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, I have come to the conclusion that I am a criminal, and I want to ask whether that is so. I was on the staff of His Majesty's Embassy in Lisbon at the time France fell, and a great many refugees passed through Lisbon at that time. The members of the staff of His Majesty's Embassy were constantly asked—and indeed they had no choice but to agree—to lend money to people in the most distressing circumstances. I have written, and I shall go on writing, letters to certain of these people, telling them that they need not pay me back. I do not care in the least what is put into this Bill, I have no intention whatever of collecting money from people to whom I lent it if I think they are really not in a position to pay, and remembering the distress they were in when I lent it to them. It does not concern myself only; I think almost every British citizen in Lisbon at that time did the same thing. Are we criminals if we write letters—which I hope all my friends who did the same thing will continue to do—saying that we let people off certain debts?
    Mr. Birch: I would like to expand the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). The learned Solicitor-General talks about refraining from doing things which it is one's commercial duty to do, the assumption being that it is always one's commercial duty to put the screws on anybody who owes money to make him pay up as quickly as possible. I do not believe that is true. There are many cases where it pays, and is in fact one's commercial duty, to husband a debtor, as it were, and give him time to get on his legs. For instance, I have no doubt that in the learned Solicitor-General's younger days his tailor had to wait a certain time before he got paid, but that tailor may well have appreciated that the learned Solicitor-General would rise to wealth and power, and therefore it would pay him, and would be his commercial duty, not to put the screws on him and take him into the county court, but to wait. It appears to me that one of the troubles about this Clause is that it puts the obligation on someone to act against his better commercial judgment. Again and again, it may be that by waiting and showing sympathy you will get the money and a good deal more business out of a man. If you put the screws on him you will ruin him and lose his custom, and thereby be doing something which is the very reverse of your commercial duty and commercial interest.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. C. Williams: I have looked at this, and I have been amazed how close the lawyers are to each other on this matter. I have been extremely interested, and I wonder whether the Solicitor-General could not say that between now and the Report stage he will once again look into this matter. I do not for one moment suggest that I can put the argument as clearly as my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), but it seems to me that under this Subsection, with these words omitted we shall not necessarily accomplish what either side wishes. I gather that the purpose of the Government is that where there is a clear duty to collect a debt it shall be enforced that you collect the debt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) said, we are really pressing people, whether it is in the interests of trade or not, at once to become debt collectors. It is being enforced on them to become debt

    613
    collectors, whether it is in the general interest of trade or not, and if that is the case, it seems to me that the Government have not thought this out as fully as they might. The Government are out to rope in those of criminal intent, but not to rope in those who are genuinely desirous of increasing our foreign trade. That being the position, and having listened to the whole of this Debate with great care, I would ask the Government whether in the circumstances they are not enforcing a lot of people to collect debts unwillingly. It seems to me that we need some clearer definition which will enable it to be laid down quite simply, that where it is the duty of the individual to collect these debts and it is expedient in the widest national sense, he shall do so from the point of view of trade as a whole. It should not be beyond the wit of the Treasury to do this, and if the Solicitor-General can give this assurance, we can then dismiss this Amendment.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I think that the point pressed by previous speakers about giving extra time is extremely important. What I wish to put to the Solicitor-General is that under the Clause as it stands creditors are constantly to be put in the most difficult position. Suppose that a creditor can collect today three-quarters of his debt, and that possibly by waiting a month he could collect the whole. He will not know whether by giving time he may not be refraining from doing an act within the mischief of the Clause. I think that the Solicitor-General ought to have been struck by the fact that he cannot find a precedent for these words. I accept what he says that in certain Finance Acts he finds provisions which are not very different. But I think he will find them sufficiently different to prevent him from saying with any certainty that he has the right words here. He told me that in his view these words were equivalent to "wilfully neglects to do." Those words would be better in my view than the words now in the Bill. I agree, however, with my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) that the real confusion is introduced into this Clause by combining the "intent" with two separate things, namely, the doing and the refraining from doing. My impression is that the Clause would have to be recast to make illegal the doing of the act with this intent, and to make illegal also refraining from doing acts which it is a
    614
    duty to perform. Alternatively, the Treasury could give some sort of notice to the man that he is required to take some action, and, if he refrains after that, he could be guilty or they could take over the debt due to him. It seems to me it is a hard thing that he can be guilty of an offence if he merely refrains from doing an act which he does not feel it his moral duty to perform: indeed he may feel it is his moral duty to do the opposite. Nor is there any clear legal duty. For these reasons I should be prepared to advise my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment if we obtain some clear indication from the Solicitor-General that he is going to put in better words. Unless the Solicitor-General can give such an undertaking my view is that we should divide.
    The Solicitor-General: Hon. Members opposite have asked me to take back this Clause and reconsider it. There is always a great temptation to say that one will do that, but I do not think it is fair, when I know that this thing has been gone through over and over again. We have considered it with the greatest of care, as we naturally would in taking powers which are drastic. I have listened with interest to the arguments which have been adduced —and they have been weighty—and they will be carefully considered, as we always consider arguments which are seriously put forward. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) suggests the words "wilfully neglect." What improvement would that be? The position would be the same with a creditor who goes out of his way not to do something with the intention that he shall avoid getting in a debt due to him. The safety valve is permission of the Treasury. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) asked whether he would have committed an offence. The answer is that in the case of specified currency he would have to get permission of the Treasury if he went out of his way to forgive debts.
    The view the Government take is that in the present condition of the world, and in the foreseeable future, it is their duty to insist that persons resident in this country shall get in foreign currency which is due to them in certain cases. That is why we take this power. I would willingly say that we will take the Clause back to see whether we could improve it,

    615
    but for the fact that it has already been considered with the greatest possible care. I hope Members opposite will accept that from me.
    Quite frankly, I cannot give anything like an exact precedent; it is impossible to do so. I could investigate the case to see if I could find the nearest thing to a precedent, but I cannot give the undertaking for which I was asked. We thought of the arguments which have been adduced be fore we came to the House to ask the House to accord us these powers. We have asked for drastic powers, and we rely on Clause 31, which is one of the most important in the Bill, as it is an exemption Clause. We shall use it in such a way as to insist on payment only in cases where it is reasonable and proper to do so. What we want to avoid is creditors going out of their way to prevent foreign currency which is due to them being collected in
    this country. We will use the powers given under this Clause in such a way as to prevent that, and nothing else.
    Mr. C. Williams: If this matter had been gone into as fully as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, surely there must be a precedent for it. I have never heard the Government put forward a matter of this sort, and say it has been carefully considered when they have not been able to give an excellent precedent for it.
    Mr. Assheton: In view of the very un satisfactory reply which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just given, we have no alternative but to divide on this Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 84.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Thurtle, E.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Tiffany, S.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Rhodes, H.

    Tolley, L.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Richards, R.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Mathers, G.

    Robens, A.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Medland, H. M.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Usborne, Henry

    Mellish, R. J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Vernon, Maj W. F.

    Messer, F.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Royle, C.

    Walkden, E.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Sargood, R.

    Walker, G. H.

    Montague, F.

    Scollan, T.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Murray, J. D.

    Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Nally, W.

    Sharp, Granville

    Weitzman, D.

    Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

    Simmons, C. J.

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.

    O'Brien, T.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Smith. S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Pearson, A.

    Stamford, W.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Stephen, C.

    Williamson, T.

    Perrins, W.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Willis, E.

    Piratin, P.

    Swingler, S.

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Symonds, A. L.

    Woods, G. S.

    Popplewell, E.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Wyatt, W.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Yates, V. F.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Randall, H. E.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Ranger, J.

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rankin, J.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Mr. Michael Stewart and

    Mr. Hannan.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Grant, Lady

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Assheton. Rt. Hon. R.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Renton, D.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Ross, Sir R.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Bower, N.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Hurd, A.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Bullock, Capt M.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Carson, E.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Tay'or. C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Is. of Wight)

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

    Drewe, C.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Marples, A. E.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Maude, J. C.

    Gage, C.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Sir Arthur Young and

    Major Ramsay.

    The Deputy-Chairman: It would be of advantage, I think, if we transposed the next two Amendments in page 17, line 7, and I called first the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley).
    Mr. Stanley: Could not the two Amendments be discussed together?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I intend to call first the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Bristol, but the two Amendments can be discussed together.
    Mr. Stanley: I think it would be more convenient if you called first the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant

    619
    Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) and allowed that Amendment and my Amendment to be discussed together.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: For the sake of clarity, Mr. Beaumont, to which Amendments are you referring?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am referring to the next two Amendments on the Order Paper below the one we have just taken —the Amendments in the names of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness and the right hon. Member for West Bristol, in page 17, line 7. These Amendments have been printed in the wrong order, and, therefore, I propose to call first that in the name of the right hon. Member for West Bristol. If the Committee wishes, the two Amendments can be discussed together.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I beg to move, in page 17, line 7, after "delayed," to insert "for a period exceeding three months."
    I will, as you sugggested, Mr. Beaumont, discuss together this Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend, and the Amendment in my name, because we on this side of the Committee are anxious to assist the Chancellor in achieving his target for tonight. I will endeavour to do so without venturing into either Bond St. or Piccadilly, both of which highways are of dangerous reputation to the guileless and innocent When we were discussing the last Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General endeavoured, with his soothing words, to remove the impression of harshness which the Clause gives in its present wording. The object of these two Amendments is perfectly simple. It is to make it possible for a debt to stand over for a period of three months without pressing for immediate payment. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the arguments already put. The chief one is that it is often bad business to keep pressing a consignee to pay. We are endeavouring to introduce by this Amendment a rather less harsh method of seeking payment.
    9.15 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: The objection to the insertion of the words proposed would be that it would make it quite easy to evade control by allowing successive periods of less than three months. It will
    620
    be perfectly possible if these words were inserted in the Clause for a creditor to allow two months and when those two months came to an end to allow another two months and so on ad infinitum, thus postponing the debt for ever. The Amendment will completely nullify control, and for this reason I would ask the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. Stanley: Might I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this matter further consideration? I accept the Solicitor-General's argument that this Amendment in its present form is not acceptable, because it will go further than intended. All we want—and I think it is a point worth considering—is some little laxity given to an exporter, say, six weeks or six months or whatever brief period would be dictated by the nature of his business. If he were forced to seek a longer delay he would be able to do so with the permission of the Treasury. It does not seem that within such a short period the Treasury would really suffer very much.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should like to say straight away that that is exactly what happens. All this Clause does is to operate the law of what one might call showing due diligence. So long as due diligence is shown no one is going to be pressed to exact times or be squeezed into certain limitations
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: What the Financial Secretary has stated entirely justifies us in putting this Amendment down. He has—and not for the first time in this Bill—shown that a Clause meant something entirely different from his own interpretation. However, his words are on record to be studied and in the interests of progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Howard: I beg to move, in page 17, line 21, to leave out Subsection (2).
    The object of moving this Amendment is to get an explanation of one minor and two rather more important points in this Clause. The minor point is that towards the end of the Clause the Treasury obtains
    "the right to receive the currency or payment"
    while it does not have the right to receive part. The point is that while the Treasury

    621
    can get the right to take the whole of any sum it would appear from the words in the Subsection that it cannot take only part of the amount. That is the minor point, and it should be borne in mind that on some occasions it might be necessary to have the right to receive only part of what is due rather than the whole.
    The two points of much greater significance are these. First, there is this apparently new right of assigning to the Treasury which appears to amount to the right to confiscate any payment or exchange which arises. That does seem to require some explanation. The third point arises from the first line of Subsection (2), which reads:
    "where a person has contravened the provisions".
    At what point has contravention taken place? Is it clear that contravention has not taken place until a court of law decides that it has, or can this be interpreted to mean that the Treasury has the right to decide whether contravention has in fact taken place? The purpose of moving this Amendment is to obtain some explanation on these points.
    The Solicitor-General: With regard to the third question asked by the hon. Gentleman, the provision applies when there has clearly been a contravention, even though that has not been decided by a court of law. On the second point about the Treasury not having power to direct part of a debt to be assigned, the greater includes the less, and if it has the power to direct that the whole shall be assigned, that also includes a part. The other point made by the hon. Gentleman was that this came very close to confiscation. However, if the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 27, Subsection (2), he will see that the Treasury, if it does exercise its rights, is under an obligation to pay over the amount which it receives upon a disposal to the person to whom the direction is assigned. Therefore, it is not really confiscation. The Treasury can direct that the assets shall be assigned to the Treasury, but has to pay over the proceeds realised from the disposal.
    Mr. J. Foster: I do not know whether I interpreted the Solicitor-General correctly, but I understood him to say that contravention might occur without conviction in a court of law. That seems to me very wrong in principle but, of course, we are assuming a case where the
    622
    Treasury wrongly think that there has been a contravention. They then enforce their right to the securities or the goods, and under Clause 27, Subsection (2), they pay over to the person concerned the net proceeds only. But suppose they had done it in a more expensive way. The person in question, who has not contravened the provision—finds his goods realised through more expensive brokers, or on a falling market—after all, the Treasury can play about with these goods —and although innocent he finds that he has suffered a financial loss. Are the Treasury prepared to reimburse an innocent man for such a loss? The same kind of thing arose when we were discussing an agricultural Measure the other day where a man who had offended against certain orders in the agricultural world was to have his property seized. The Undersecretary on that occasion gave us an assurance that an innocent man would not suffer. I think we should have a similar assurance here.
    The Solicitor-General: If the Treasury purported to give a direction when there had not in fact been a contravention, the direction would be null and void and the person against whom it was given could ignore it entirely.
    Mr. Dalton: It would be a good defence.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, it would be a good defence. With regard to the reimbursement of any loss that should be a matter of arrangement, and we will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. J. Foster: Because "A" has been guilty of a contravention the direction might be given to another person—who is not the offender—and this places all third parties in a very difficult position. The person who receives the direction does not know whether "A" has in fact contravened or not It is not for him to inquire whether or not "A" is guilty, and he undertakes a very great responsibility in contravening a Treasury recommendation. On the other hand "A" cannot refuse to pay, because the direction is not given to him. So, we have two people; "A" contravenes, and "B" gets the direction. The direction is wrong, because the Treasury are mistaken. They may be mistaken, upon what they call reliable evidence, and no blame attaches to them. "B" has to

    623
    do what the Treasury says, and "A" loses money. That, I think, is an unfortunate result.
    The Solicitor-General: The position would not arise in fact, because the direction would be given only in a clear case. What the hon. Gentleman has said about loss will be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Birch Mr. Birch rose—
    The Chairman: I think the Committee are prepared to come to a decision.
    Mr. Birch: I think I can help to dispose of this question of property being assigned to the Treasury, and if we get a proper answer it will dispose also of Amendments to other Clauses and to points which might be raised on Clauses 26 and 27. I would like to know in what circumstances it is contemplated that this power will be used. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was quite all right because there is a provision in Clause 27 which meant that the Treasury paid over what they took. At the beginning of Clause 27 these words appear:
    "Under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act."
    In actual fact, the power is already taken in Clause 2 (5).
    It does not appear, as one reads the Clause, that it would apply to the first part of the Bill. Can we be told exactly why the power is taken, and what the mechanism is going to be? To shorten the thing still more, I would ask why the Treasury has power to take goods over without any charge or mortgage? How is this to be done? The answer to that might enlighten us on other points we have in mind.
    The Solicitor-General: I hope that I can dispose of all the points which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The power under Clause 27 to direct an assignment to the Treasury, and a vesting and a realisation, and the obligation to pay over the proceeds of the realisation, relate, as the hon. Gentleman says, to the Clauses in Part V. That Part includes Clause 24. It also relates to Clause 26, which is another Clause which deals with the infringement of a duty imposed by the Bill
    That being so, what happens, when there is a clear contravention, is that a direction will be given. In the event of
    624
    it being necessary, goods will be disposed of and the proceeds paid over to the person from whom they were taken. I hope that that answers what the hon. Gentleman asked with regard to goods being vested free of any encumbrance. The charges of the encumbrancer would remain against the proceeds of the recovery and he would be able to enforce them against the proceeds accordingly. The Treasury pay as a matter of administrative arrangement.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Eccles: I cannot let the Clause go without giving it as my personal view that it is a thoroughly bad thing to put on the Statute Book a provision which makes it criminal to forgive a debt. On the Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) pointed out that that is contrary to the Christian religion. [Laughter.] It certainly is. I deplore the possibility that somebody who forgives somebody else a £10 debt may be regarded as a criminal under the Bill. I hope that provision goes out.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Duty not to delay sale or importation of goods.)
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I beg to move, in page 18, line 9, to leave out sub-paragraph (i).
    It is impossible in practice to say what is a delay that is unreasonable, having regard to the ordinary course of trade. "Unreasonable" is an extraordinarily wide word. Nobody knows what it means. It may mean anything, and may be capable of any one of a hundred different explanations. I invite the Solicitor-General to give us one of them.
    9.30 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: The question as to what is an unreasonable delay is one which has to be determined by reference to the circumstances. All I can say with regard to that is that no powers will be exercised except in a clear case Supposing the range of trade practice extended to sales over a period of six months. If anybody delayed for three or five years.

    625
    that would obviously be an unreasonable period of time. What will be looked for is something which cannot be justified on any ordinary common sense view of trade practice.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am very glad to hear the Solicitor-General say that. Here is another example where his bite is far worse than his bark. The wording in the Bill is more severe than the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. I feel that this sort of thing ought to be amended on the Report stage.
    Mr. Stanley: I should like to say a word —[Laughter]. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think this very amusing we are perfectly ready to continue it for a very long time, not this evening, because we have not the opportunity; but on Monday we shall be quite content to provide hon. Members with free, gratis amusement till any hour of the morning they like. We do not regard this as very amusing. We think it is a very serious subject, and it may be that the haste with which we are passing through these Amendments in order to try to leave the field clear on Monday for the very important statement of the Chancellor is not giving a proper impression of the seriousness with which we regard it. I regard this as one of the worst examples we have come across in the whole Bill, because in all the other instances, however unreasonable it may be, the man does know that he has been made a criminal. He knows he is a criminal when he takes his gold pencil abroad and he knows he is a criminal when he allows anybody to postpone the payment of his debt for a week, but here he has no idea. He may find afterwards that what he considered perfectly reasonable the Treasury considers unreasonable, and that therefore he has committed a crime for which he is entitled to be prosecuted. He may be taken before the courts, and the Treasury will have to prove that it is unreasonable. That being so, I do not know whether it is possible to devise something which would give a little more certainty to the minds of people in this position and enable them to know before and not after the act whether what they arc doing is infringing one of these provisions. I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman for that at this stage, but if he would consider the point, about which I feel very strongly, to see whether any greater precision could be given by the
    626
    time we get to the Report stage, it would give a great deal of relief to me and my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Dalton: I will look at it. I do not want to prolong discussion now because we are cooperating to try to make an arrangement which will meet the general wish of the Committee. I will certainly look at it, but my advice at the moment is that this is not a harsh situation into which to place a man, because it has got to be proved in a court of law. Very often the complaint has been that the courts are nor sufficiently brought in and that the Treasury may make an arbitrary decision. That is not so in this case, and in fact a case may be dismissed with costs against the Treasury. However, I will look at it. I say this by way of safeguarding my own position so that I shall not be charged with breach of faith if I cannot make a change. I will look at it open-mindedly to see if something can be done to meet the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking that he will re-examine this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. Foster: I beg to move, in page 18, line 13, after "made," to insert "substantially."
    This Amendment raises more or less the same point as the previous one. I hope that when the Chancellor is considering the point he has just mentioned, he will also look into the substance of this Amendment to see whether it will be possible to introduce the word "substantially," so that a man who does something which is intended to ensure that payment of an account shall be made in a manner slightly different from the manner specified in his application, shall not have committed an offence. For instance, if a man makes application to the Treasury for leave to export goods and get payment from a foreign country, specifying 90 days' bills on London, and wants to change the method of payment by having an irrevocable letter of credit, it would be unreasonable for that to be considered an offence and also, if he were made to go to the Treasury for every slight alteration. If the word "substantially" is put in the Bill, that is a thing

    627
    which a court of law could judge perfectly well. Would the Chancellor look at that when he is considering the other point?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, I will, but here I have legal advice which up to the moment is that this Amendment would introduce an element of doubt into the interpretation of the Clause, and that, it is felt by those who advise me, would be undesirable. However, I will look into it and see whether there is any means by which the particular case instanced could be met.
    Mr. Foster: I appreciate that, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. However, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether, if unreasonability is in doubt, probably substantiality does not arise.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Property obtained by infringement of Act.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Eccles: I think this is a new power in Clause 26 which enables the Treasury to catch the crook who obtains money abroad, buys something with it, and sticks to it in a foreign country. The only question I have to ask is, Should not there be some limitation in time? Is it right that this power should go back retroactively to seize the property of a British subject in a foreign country without there being a limitation of time when it is legal to do so?
    The Solicitor-General: The difficulty about imposing a time limit is that frequently it may be that the breach is not discovered until some considerable time afterwards. If some time limit were imposed, it might well be that a number of persons who had successfully concealed a breach would get off, whereas those who were not so successfully concealing it would find themselves within the purview of the Clause. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to say that a time limit ought not to be introduced.
    Mr. Foster: Why then is the direction not made applicable to the State? If the man dies and it is found that during his life he has accumulated a lot of property
    628
    with the proceeds, ought not justice to demand that his estate should be directed?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It might arise in this way. Supposing a British citizen inherited property, and money was left under a will in North America, his plain duty under this Bill would be to see that the dollars came to this country, and were offered to an authorised dealer. But it might well be that he might try to buy a necklace. Although that would be a natural thing to do in ordinary circumstances, it would be an infringement of the provisions of this Bill, and we must be able to follow that individual up and, as and when the necklace is sold, see to it that the dollar? are handed over.
    Mr. Stanley: Am I right in assuming that the situation is the same under Clause 26 as it is under Clause 25? That is to say, that the Treasury may issue the direction before it has been found in a court of law that a man has either infringed (a) or (b), but that it would be a good defence for the man who refused to obey that direction to prove that in fact he had not done either (a) or (b)?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes.
    Mr. C. Williams: A case was cited of a will made in America leaving money to someone in this country. Suppose the will laid it down that in no circumstances was the money to be taken out of America? What happens then? Suppose the Americans had a law which made it illegal to take money out of their country. How are we to prosecute the fellow and lock him up for life because he cannot do the thing which he is not able to do?
    The Solicitor-General: There is a legal maxim:
    "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia."
    The law does not require of anyone that he should do the impossible.
    Mr. Williams: I am very sorry, but all through this Measure the law is doing nothing else.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does the Financial Secretary imply that his motto is the same as that of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and that he always "gets his man"?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Provisions supplemental to preceding provisions of Part V.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Eccles: I think this Clause wants looking at. As I understand it, if the Treasury find that somebody owed a sum of money in another country, and his debtor said, "Take this house in exchange for the debt", the Treasury can seize the house and give the creditor whatever sum they like for that property. Very often a debtor parts with some property to settle his debt, and that property is in a bad state. It may not be sold there and then. Why should the Treasury have the power to take it over at their own valuation at once? I think it necessary to know that in administering the Clause the Treasury will have due consideration to the particular piece of property the debtor is being given, and whether it is right to sell at once. Otherwise, we might find, not only that the man would get less than his debt, but the country would suffer, if an intelligent view were not taken.
    The Solicitor-General: I can give the assurance for which the hon. Member asks, that in disposing of any asset taken over the Treasury will act reasonably in the matter, not to incur any avoidable loss.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 28.—(Transfer of annuities policies, etc.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 20. line 36, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Subsections (2) and (3) of Section eighteen of this Act shall apply in relation to any transfer prohibited by this Section as they apply in relation to a transfer prohibited by this Act of a security."
    If hon. Members will turn back to Clause 18, they will find that that Clause provides for the giving of certificates declaring that transactions are valid. I seek to introduce analogous provisions into Clause 28, in order to protect life assurance companies. It may often be that a life assurance company pays out or a policy which has been assigned by the original policy holder to an assignee. He will find himself in a difficult situation if he cannot rely on the protection of a certificate as provided under Clause 18. The Amendment is designed to protect
    630
    them, and to avoid their being found in a position where, having paid out money, they again have to pay. If they get a certificate, they have protection against that.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. Stanley: We are certainly grateful for this Amendment, small as it is. It is something that even at this hour some protection is to be inserted in this Bill for some small part of the community.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Settlements.)
    Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 20, line 45, to leave out from "territories," to the end of the Subsection.
    That is to say, I am moving to omit the prohibition of the exercise of any power of appointment. At this late hour I do not want to argue all the cases where this Clause will work absurdities. I think that it will be sufficient if I give one example of what is possible under the Clause as it stands, which I cannot help thinking will make the Government think that the words I am seeking to delete are far too wide. The prohibition applies to every person resident in the United Kingdom. Of course, a non-British subject can be resident in the United Kingdom. An American citizen can be resident here. The example I wish to put to the Solicitor-General, if he is to reply, is the case of an American citizen resident here, who has a power of appointment under an American settlement dealing with property in the United States, and the power of appointment can be exercised as between two American citizens both resident in the United States. Why on earth do the Government wish to prohibit him from exercising his power of appointment, and what does the Solicitor-General think will be the effect on the American public when they understand that our Government are introducing a provision making such an action illegal. As I wish to give the Government every opportunity to reply, I will content myself with that example, though many others could be given.
    The Solicitor-General: The first comment I have to make is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has only complained about the exercise of a power of appoint-

    631
    ment. If, and in so far as his argument is valid, it would also apply to the creation of any settlement other than a settlement under a will. If, in these circumstances, a power of appointment is objectionable, so equally would be the creation of a settlement by an American citizen resident in the United Kingdom. The two stand on the same footing.
    Mr. H. Strauss: The exercise of a power of appointment is not a matter of which I am complaining. It is the Government who are saying that they intend to make it a criminal offence under this Clause.
    The Solicitor-General: I do not want to split hairs. The Amendment seeks to deal with that part of the Clause which relates to the power of appointment. It was in that sense I used the expression which I did. I said that the Amendment deals with one part of the Clause, and that if the argument which supports it is valid, it should equally result in the deletion of the whole Clause. What is struck at is the settlement of property in favour of persons resident outside the United Kingdom by persons resident here. The object of that is easy to discern. Otherwise, one could, by creating a settlement, or by exercising powers of appointment, transfer abroad large capital assets from this country. As hon. Members will have noticed, here again the Treasury, in an appropriate case, have power to permit what is a reasonable and proper settlement. That power, as in all other cases in the provisions of this Bill, will be exercised reasonably. A case where obviously an American citizen should be entitled to exercise a power of appointment in respect of property not in this country, would be a case which the Treasury would consider very carefully.
    Mr. H. Strauss: I feel sure that the Solicitor-General can scarcely have overlooked this. Without committing ourselves to approve even that part of the Clause of which we are not suggesting the deletion at this stage, I would point out that what that part prohibits is the making of a settlement after the coming into force of this Statute, but in the words that I am proposing to delete the Government are prohibiting the exercise of a power of appointment under a settlement that may be already in existence. There is all the difference in
    632
    the world between the two cases. This Clause purports to legislate about American citizens and how they are to exercise powers of appointment over trusts in their own country, and to say that the Treasury would not refuse to allow them to do what obviously they ought to be allowed to do seems to be a most extraordinary defence of the Government's action.
    Mr. Stanley: I am afraid I am very dense upon this particular Clause, but I really cannot see whether either the power of settlement or the power of appointment makes any difference to the foreign exchange. Assuming that I settled part of my property on an American, the mere fact of settling it would not transfer the money across the Atlantic. There are many other provisions in this Bill already which would prevent that money being transferred to America. What is the actual result on the exchange position between ourselves and America of my settling a part of my estate on an American, even although, through other parts of the Bill it is quite impossible for me to transfer it?
    The Solicitor-General: The answer is that property under this Clause is not confined to currency or money. In the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) in fact permission would always be given. With regard to the other point, that is dealt with under Clauses 1 and 2. whereas this deals with property.
    Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that this point has been cleared up satisfactorily and it occurs to me that possibly the learned Solicitor-General might undertake to look at the matter again, as he has done in respect of other matters. In his original answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) I understood him to say that what he was seeking to get at was the transfer of property out of this country elsewhere. He has not dealt with the situation either in relation to settlements or to powers of appointment of property which is already elsewhere, but over which, for some reason or another, a person resident in this country may have certain powers of disposition. It is not, in my submission—and I think probably the learned Solicitor-General, if he is in an agreeable mood, will agree— it is not enough to say that the Treasury,

    633
    if they are asked will in fact permit American citizens to dispose of property in the United States over which they may have power of disposal. It really is not enough to say that.
    We ought not, by legislation, to deprive them of such a right unless some very evident principle of public policy requires us so to do, and I must say the learned Solicitor-General has not persuaded me that any such evident principle of public policy so requires us. On the contrary, what he has persuaded me on is that, seeking to prevent a fairly definite and restricted evil, he has cast his net so wide that he necessarily restricts, apart from the permissive Clause, a number of things which are by no means evils but are self-evident rights of foreigners and others whom we permit to be in our midst. Obviously, all I ask is that he should look at this matter again in the light of the criticism which has been made and, asking that, I hope that I may receive a favourable reply.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Although I was not present when the hon. and learned Solicitor-General first spoke, there is a point which I understand has not been raised and on which I should like to have a reply. As the Committee is aware, there are two kinds of powers of appointment. There are a general power of appointment and a special power of appointment. A general power of appointment, of course, enables the person who is able to exercise that power to deal with the property pretty well as though it were his own. But a special power of appointment is of quite a different characer. When a person has a special power of appointment, he can only exercise it in favour of the objects named in the settlement. Usually, it will be exercised in the favour of children or of remoter issue of some person named, but it may be exercised in favour of a number of classes of people. In the case of a general power it may well be that the arguments which the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has put forward are valid because there we are dealing with the property of the person exercising the power.
    But where there is a special power, very different considerations arise. It may be that the person concerned can only exercise it in favour of two or three people and, under this Clause as it now
    634
    stands, it may well be that the only person in whose favour he does not wish to exercise it is a person resident in this country. Therefore, I submit that if he is properly to exercise a special power, and such power is, of course, of a fiduciary character, he must not be cramped by anything in this Clause. I do not know whether the Government have given consideration to this point, but I think we should ask them what their intention is, whether they intend to distinguish between these two classes of power, and whether they propose to deal specially with the special powers so as to enable all those who can exercise them to do so in favour of any particular person.
    The Solicitor-General: The Government have certainly considered the distinction of a power of appointment between a limited class and a general power of appointment. Whether they would exercise their permission depends upon the circumstances. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) the permission would certainly be granted. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), in reference to the American, in respect of whom power is taken, I would point out that power is only taken in respect of an American, or, indeed, of any other foreigner, who is resident in this country. The policy is based upon the view that a person who is resident in this country and accepts hospitality from this country accepts, by so doing, correlative responsibilities and obligations. It is for that reason that it should be assumed, in theory, that per-mission, may not be given. In practice, permission will be given in the case of an American resident here who seeks to dispose, whether by power of appointment or settlement, or in any other way, of property situated in the United States.
    Mr. J. Foster: Would the hon. and learned Solicitor-General say whether a release of the power is included in the exercise of the power? I should like an answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 84.

    Division No. 28.]

    AYES.

    9.58 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Nally, W.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Grey, C. F.

    Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Grierson, E.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Attewell, H. C.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

    Austin, H. L.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Awbery, S. S.

    Gunter, R. J.

    O'Brien, T.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Guy, W. H.

    Oldfield, W. H

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Hall, W. G

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Baird, J.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Parkin, B. T.

    Barton, C.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Bechervaise, A E.

    Hardman, D. R.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Benson, G.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Pearson, A.

    Berry, H.

    Harrison, J.

    Peart, Capt T F

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Perrins, W

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Haworth, J.

    Piratin, P.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

    Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Boardman, H.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Hobson, G. R.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

    Holman, P.

    Randall, H. E.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Ranger, J.

    Bramall, Major E. A.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Rankin, J.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    House, G.

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hoy, J.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Bruce Maj. D. W. T.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Burden, T. W.

    Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

    Robens, A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)

    Irving, W. J.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Callaghan, James

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Royle, C.

    Champion, A. J.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Sargood, R.

    Chater, D.

    Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

    Scollan, T.

    Chetwynd G. R.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Clitherow, Dr. R.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

    Coldrick, W.

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Sharp, Granville

    Collick, P.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Collindridge, F.

    Keenan, W.

    Silverman, S. S (Netson)

    Collins, V. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Key, C. W.

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W)

    Kinley, J.

    Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Snow, Capt J. W.

    Crawley, A.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Grossman, R. H. S.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F

    Daggar, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Daines, P.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Stamford, W

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Levy, B. W

    Steele, T.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)

    Stephen, C.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Swingler, S.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

    Symonds A. L.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Deer, G.

    Longden, F.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Delargy, Captain H. J

    Lyne, A. W.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Diamond, J.

    McAdam, W.

    Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

    Dodds, N. N

    McAllister, G.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Donovan, T.

    McEntee, V. La T

    Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Mack, J. D.

    Thurtle, E.

    Edelman, M.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Tiffany, S

    Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

    Tolley, L.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    McLeavy, F.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Ewart, R

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Usborne, Henry

    Fairhurst, F.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F

    Farthing, W. J.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Viant, S. P

    Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Follick, M.

    Mathers, G.

    Walkden, E.

    Foot, M. M.

    Medland, H. M

    Walker, G. H.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Mellish, R. J

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Messer, F.

    Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

    George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Gibbins, J.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Weitzman, D.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mitchison Maj. G. R

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Gilzean, A.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Morley, R.

    White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Goodrich H E.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.

    Gordon-Walker P. C

    Murray, J. D.

    Wigg, Col. G E.

    636

    637

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Willis, E.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Woods, G. S.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Wyatt, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Yates, V. F.

    Mr. Michael Stewart and

    Mr. Popplewell.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Grant, Lady

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Aitken, Hon. Max

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Birch, Nigel

    Hollis, M. C.

    Ross, Sir R.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Bower, N.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

    Smithers, Sir W.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Hurd, A.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Carson, E.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Turton, R. H.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Is. of Wight)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Drewe, C.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Eccles, D. M.

    Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Erroll, F. J.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    York, C.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gage, C.

    Marples, A. E.

    Sir Arthur Young and

    Major Ramsay.

    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 21, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Subsections (2) and (3) of Section eighteen of this Act shall apply in relation to a settlement or the exercise of a power of appointment prohibited by this Section as they apply in relation to a transfer prohibited by this Act of a security."
    The Amendment seeks to introduce into this Clause a similar protection to that which was introduced into Clause 28 in the case of life assurance companies. The protection will in this case inure in favour of a settlement which will create a settlement of property.
    Mr. C. Williams rose—
    It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    TRAFALGAR ESTATES BILL
    Mr. Benson, Mr. Callaghan, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth and Mr. William Wells nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Trafalgar Estates Bill.— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

    SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
    Resolved:
    "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932 to the Urban District of Malvern, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd December, be approved."
    Resolved:
    "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Wantage, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd December, be approved."
    Resolved:
    "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Windsor, a copy of which Order was presented on 3rd December, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

  DISABLED EX-SERVICEMEN (PENSIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
  10.12 p.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: On Tuesday the Minister of Pensions announced quite important but, viewed as a whole, minor

  639
  concessions in our pensions code, and I would like to start by offering him the thanks of ex-Servicemen for those concessions. During the last few years both the Coalition Government and the present Government have been reluctant to meet the points which have been put before them by the British Legion, St. Dunstan's, and by ex-Servicemen's organisations generally, but under pressure from this House, and in particular owing to the persuasion of the House of Commons branch of the British Legion, Ministers of Pensions and Chancellors of the Exchequer have made concessions. I want to claim credit for these two Parliaments, the Coalition Parliament in which the Conservative Party predominated, and this Parliament in which the Labour Party predominates, because I want it to be known amongst ex-Servicemen throughout the country generally that we have found it possible in this House to deal with these matters relating to disabled ex-Servicemen to a very large extent on a non-party basis.
  The Coalition Government added to the flat rate pensions an unemployability supplement of £1 a week, which for those who cannot undertake a job of work effectively raised their flat rate pension from £2 a week to £3 a week. The present Government have added 5s., making the flat rate which the private soldier receives £2 5s. if he is able to work and £3 5s. if he is unable to work. There are wives' and children's allowances in addition, and where a man is disabled in a most severe degree, as, for example, when he has lost his eyes and a hand, or, in some tragic cases, two hands, he may receive a very substantial attendance allowance in addition. I think it will be generally agreed by hon. Members on all sides of the House, and by the responsible leaders in the ex-Servicemen's movements, that the pensions and allowances now payable in the case of the most gravely wounded are not unsatisfactory.
  There remains the flat-rate disability pension paid in the case of 100 per cent. disability—that is the man who has lost both legs, or both eyes, or both arms, who, if he is able to take a job of work that brings him more than £1 a week, is still on the rate of £2 5s. It may be said by hon. Members that if he has a job of work, why does he need more? I hope
  640
  to show the answers to that question. First of all, the rate has been at £2 since 1918, and the rise of 5s. is not an adequate reflection of the rises in the cost of living. Many of these men are able, with great courage and perseverance, to undertake a job of work, but in many cases the jobs they are doing, for men of the first World War for 30 years, is a job lower in standard than they might have been doing if they were not so severely disabled. In London, 100 blind soldiers of the first World War are working as telephone operators, and splendid operators they are. They worked throughout the blitz, and stuck to their jobs. They are getting the wages of telephone operators, and men of that calibre, courage and determination might well have been doing very much better than the difference between what they get and the £2 5s. When one thinks of the cost of living, outside rations and the cost of living index, one cannot help thinking that it is time for an adjustment in pensions. I have one further comment, namely, that when the 5s. rise was given, it was given as a flat rate for private soldiers and N.C.O.s up to the rank of warrant officer. There was no proportionate rise for warrant officers on account of their increased flat rate, and there was no rise at all for commissioned officers. I think that these anomalies should now be corrected.
  I wish now to refer to four or five minor points, although they are not so minor Since Mr. Justice Denning gave judgment in the High Court in a case which went from the appeal tribunal, and since he gave that judgment against the Minister of Pensions, there has been a marked rise in the number of cases in which the appeal tribunals are throwing down the Minister. The percentage has gone up from 30 per cent. to 42 per cent That shows that the Minister is not giving proper attention to the implications of the judgment, because if he was, it would not be necessary for the appeal tribunals to throw him over more frequently than before. I ask him to make a statement on that.
  On Tuesday, he stated that he was going to grant attendance allowances in a larger number of cases than hitherto. I want to congratulate him on having accepted the theory we have put before him, and which my organisation, St. Dunstans, have put before him in particular, that an allowance should be paid for

  641
  attendance rather than as hitherto for a constant attendant. There are a great many ex-Servicemen who do not need a constant attendant, but who need some assistance in their homes. I should like to ask how far the Minister's statement goes, and if he is going to raise the attendance allowance to be paid to severely disabled men above the level at which it has stood for many years. For example, the attendance allowance paid to a totally blinded soldier was 10s. a week when the maximum possible was £1 a week. I am hoping the Minister will raise that to £1 a week now that the maximum has been raised to £2 a week.
  I pass now to the question of the seven years' limit. When seven years have passed after the time a man was disabled, he has no legal right to make a claim in respect of a disability which then shows itself. That is wrong in principle. If a disability is incurred in His Majesty's service, the claim for it should exist for ever. Surely, the claim is based upon the disability and not upon the time when a person happens to put in his claim. This longstanding grievance is now beginning to be relevant to this war, because we are reaching the time when there are men who were wounded seven years ago. In spite of the action of previous Governments of all parties, the Minister ought, even now, to get rid of this very wrong principle.
  I want now to say a word about paraplegics. Those are men whose spine has been broken and who are chair-ridden or bedridden. In spite of their terribly grave disability, it has been found that some of these men can undertake useful work. Many of them can work some hours a day, and the British Legion has set up a small fund and a small committee to encourage and help them. The Ministry of Pensions so far have shown sympathy and given some encouragement, but they have not taken active steps to get these men to work and to help them to work, and that, above all, is what they need to give them back their self-respeect and whatever measure of independence their very serious wounds will allow.
  I have now a new and unusual suggestion to make. If a person loses one eye, he receives 40 per cent. of the fiat rate. If he loses two eyes, he receives 100 per cent., plus allowances, so that the one-eyed rate is not really as 40 is to 100, but is much less. I make no complaint of it.
  642
  But if a person loses one eye in His Majesty's service, and subsequently loses the other eye from a natural cause, he still has to live the rest of his life in blindness on a 40 per cent. pension. Nature provided us with two eyes, as with two of many other organs in our bodies, partly to see with and partly as a safeguard against total blindness, and total blindness is an infinitely graver disability than the loss of one eye Nelson had one eye, an editor I know, who worked for 30 years in the City of London, had one eye, Wiley Post, who flew round the world, had one eye. It is not a very great handicap, but the anxiety lest he should lose the other eye is, and my view is that a man who loses one eye should not only be given the pension for that eye, but an insurance policy that will make certain that, should he lose the other eye, he will get the full rate. Those are the only points I want to submit to the Minister, and I hope he will give them a sympathetic reply.
  10.24 p.m.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I wish to devote a few moments to the subject of homes for permanently disabled ex-Servicemen. In general, I agree that these homes are, on the whole, very well run indeed, and I would like particularly to commend that in my own constituency, Giffard House. There are, however, certain regulations that govern the running of these homes which are laid down by the Ministry of Pensions, and I very strongly suggest that the time has come to overhaul the whole of those regulations, because they require looking into. The Ministry probably is aware of a particular one which I had altered, through his good offices, the other day, but there are others, and I ask that my suggestion should be carried out. I also ask the Minister to realise that the accommodation in these homes throughout the country is now totally inadequate to meet the needs of the recent war. I ask him to urge the Minister of Health to grant all licences for which applications are made for extensions to these homes, and furthermore, to go on buying houses which can be made into suitable homes of this nature, such as the one which has just been opened, I understand, in Eastbourne.
  Finally, I would bring to the notice of the Minister the case of a man about whom I have been in communication with

  643
  him. This man has been suffering agonies of mind for a long time in the home in which he now is. He was transferred for a short period to Worthing, where he was extremely happy. He was not allowed outside the home in which he was for five and a half years, and when he went to Worthing he was allowed out every day, and there is no reason why he should not be. He is now back in the home where he was, and, as I have said, is suffering agonies of mind. I would ask the Minister to use his powers of nomination to say that this unhappy man may be allowed into the new home, Chaseley, at Eastbourne.
  10.25 p.m.
  The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I would like to thank the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) for the kind things which he said about my Department, and what we have done during the last few years. I want to deal with the particular points which he raised. With regard to the flat rate of 45s., I think that most people—I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of this- in particular—misunderstand the purpose of this pension. I frequently meet with this misunderstanding when I am speaking in the country, and I am often told that 45s. is not sufficient for a man to live on. The general impression is that the 45s. flat rate is all that the man has to live on. That is not the case. In an overwhelming number of cases of disabled men and women, these people have work, even those who are severely disabled, and the 45s. or a lesser amount if the disability is less than 100 per cent., is in addition to the ordinary earnings or wages of the person concerned. The same applies if a person is unemployed. By virtue of the fact that he has been working, he draws unemployment pay, like an ordinary workman, plus the pension of 45s., or a lesser amount. The same applies in the case of a sick person. That person draws sickness benefit, like an ordinary workman, plus the pension, so that in a case of a man who is working, his pension of 45s. is in addition to his ordinary wages and is not in many of these cases all that he has to live on.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of a man who, because of a disability, has to accept some employment which is less well paid than the employment he
  644
  had previously. We have tried to meet that to some extent this year. We have put into operation a hardship allowance. It is true that this does not apply to the man with 100 per cent. disability. If a man gets less than 45s., and by reason of disability he has to go into a job with less pay than before his disability, he can get a' hardship allowance up to us. 3d. a week. There was up to 1943, when the biggest alteration in the Warrant was made, a class of case, arising from the last war in particular, in which a totally disabled person, or one disabled 80 or 90 per cent., had never been able to work or earn. In that case the man had to live on his pension. If he was married his wife and children received, in addition, the appropriate allowance.
  Sir I. Fraser: Not until later.
  Mr. Paling: If the man was married before his disability, in that case, of course, there was hardship. If he had to live on his pension it was, I agree, almost impossible; but we altered that. We brought into operation the unemployment allowance whereby the man could get another 10s. in addition to his 45s.
  It was later increased in certain circumstances. If he was not getting any other money, or an old age pension or sickness pay or money from some social service, that was increased to £1. His wife also was given an allowance, even if he was married after the disability. She was given a full allowance of 10s. Even in cases where the man was only 70 or 80 per cent. disabled and where the allowance would have been seven or eight shillings, she was given 10s. The children were also given a full allowance, and later the 10s. was raised to 16s. except in very extraordinary circumstances. So, a man gets now instead of the 45s., 65s., and the wife gets 16s. In addition, if he is so badly disabled he has a certain constant attendance allowance. He can get up to a maximum of £2. This man has been placed in a much better position than ever before. He deserves it. He was the man who was really badly off and suffered hardship. We have tried to help, and what we have done in the way of these attendance allowances help him in that direction.
  I would refer to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman about officers. It is true we did not give commissioned officers anything. We had a certain amount of money

  645
  at our disposal and we tried to allocate this money in the best manner possible. We decided the best thing to do was to allocate this money by giving most to those whose need was greatest and those who had received least. Those people were the privates and the non-commissioned officers. Because of that they got an increase. It is true, as the hon. Member says, that it was only from 40s. to 45s. Perhaps it was not in accordance with the cost of living, but the hon. Member knows that the 40s. was paid at a time when the cost of living stood at 215, and it was understood that if the cost of living came down the pensions would come down also. But they never did come down and no Government ever brought them down, and the 40s. has been raised to 45s. The increase does not reflect the rise in the cost of living, because if a man is working he has a cost-of-living allowance by the rise in wages. There is not much left on that side of the argument.
  The hon. Member raised a point about the number of cases which are allowed by the tribunals. If the facts were just as they had been baldly stated by the hon. Member it would look rather a serious proposition. I am not disputing his figures, but I should like to explain how it arose. In order to keep the tribunals going— there are, I think, 23 or 24 tribunals—hon. Members will easily realise that we had to have a big pool of cases ready for them to take. We had to make preparations and 10,000 of these cases which had been passed by us were ready for the tribunals. Then came the Denning judgment, and that made a big difference. But we could not take all these cases back. They were ready for the tribunals, and we could not have gone through them again, or the tribunals would have been stopped. They would have been in chaos. That was mainly the reason why the numbers have gone up. If we could have drawn them back and re-examined them on the basis of the Denning judgment a good many would not have gone to the tribunals at all. Where they have gone before the tribunals, the tribunals have given a bigger percentage than they would otherwise have done.
  Sir I. Fraser: I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister gives the impression that the purpose he had in view was to provide work for the tribunals.
  Mr. Paling: No, I did not have that in view; I did not intend to give that impression. It would have created chaos. I would like to say that I have been attacked—but perhaps that is not the right word—I have been pressed in this House to get these cases before the tribunals as quickly as possible. If we had interfered with all this business it would have meant some delay. But now, we are probably reaching the time when we are getting to the point where cases put to the tribunals are examined in the light of the Denning judgment, and when this sort of case comes before the tribunals the high percentage which has been referred to will go down.
  As I said on Tuesday, we raised the allowance for attendance about a year ago from £1 in the case of other ranks up to £2 as a maximum, and we found that a good many of these people were getting as low as 5s. constant attendance allowance, and we have raised that to 10s. A large number of these people will get 10s. The hon. Member also raised matters about the blind. I understand that we have had a memorandum presented at the Ministry putting forward this case and this principle in great detail. At the present time we are considering that memorandum and we hope to foe able to give an answer in a short time.
  Dr. Morgan: This refers to the blind. On the constant attendance allowance what has happened? — [Interruption.]—What I was going to say was that sometimes the eye lost may be the master eye. Sometimes the eye damaged is the master eye, and if that is so it is more serious than if the master eye is uninjured.
  Mr. Paling: I do not know if the memorandum to which I have referred raises this particular point, but we shall look into that. The hon. Member spoke also of the seven years' limit. So far as the Great War cases—the 1914–18 cases— are concerned, the position is that a mart can make a claim at any time. The real point is that if more than seven years-elapses there is no right of appeal. But, in all these cases which come before us relating to the Great War, we do not refuse to consider any particular cases Indeed, at the present time, we are granting them. Last year we dealt with or provided treatment in the case of 70 new claims from the disabilities of the

  647
  1914 war. In another 50 cases we agreed to provide treatment should necessity arise, despite the fact that nearly 30 years had elapsed. Appeal to a tribunal is, I agree, not allowed, and I understand that if it were to be allowed it would need legislation from this House. So, although the seven years' limit is supposed to be in operation, we are still dealing with these cases. With regard to the seven years' limit of this war just finished, raised by the hon. Gentleman, that point is under consideration, and I hope to make an announcement in a short time. I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend raised the question of paraplegics or not.
  Sir J. Fraser: Yes, I did.
  Mr. Paling: I am very glad he did. These cases are, I think, one of the outstanding things we are doing at present in my Ministry. I have a statement here, but it is too long for me to read in the time at my disposal. I think I am right in saying that some years ago, if a man was so severely injured as are paraplegics—special cases, mostly with broken spines—he was looked upon as being helpless and hopeless, and one for whom nothing could be done. The same applied to men who were similarly injured in industry. I was connected with the mining
  648
  industry for a good many years before I came here. Broken spines were very common among miners, and a man who received such severe injury was considered to have come to the end of all things, and it was not long before he was dead. If he managed to live, he had to be wheeled about and looked after in every way until the end of his life.
  But we are doing remarkable things for these cases today. We have a place at Stoke Mandeville where we are treating them specially. We are getting these people about. We are getting them to work, and we are getting them into positions where they can earn really good wages. I think, and I have no cause to suspect that I am wrong, that there is no reason why a good number of these cases should not live for a good many years; and instead of being helpless and hopeless, their outlook is very different today.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.
  Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.