HC Deb 05 December 1946 vol 431 cc576-601
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 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. 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 (Chesterfield)

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 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 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 crooks, whereas the powers under the Clause must be very much wider.

Sir Arnold Gridley (Stockport)

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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.

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 (Reading)

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 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 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 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 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 (seated and covered)

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 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 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.