Commons Sitting of 19 December 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  SPECIAL JURIES (QUALIFICATIONS)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Attorney-General if he will consider revising, in the light of modern circumstances, the qualifications required of members of a special jury.
  Mr. Piratinasked the Attorney General whether he will introduce at an early date legislation to abolish the property qualification for special jurors.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): The matter referred to has been for some time under consideration, but no final decision has yet been reached.
  Mr. Driberg: Do I take it that my hon. and learned Friend is sympathetic to the general view expressed in the Question?
  The Solicitor-General: There are arguments which are strongly in favour of it, and there are also arguments the other way round, and all of them will be taken into account.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Have not special juries as at present constituted recently carried out their duties in an admirable fashion?
  The Solicitor-General: That is not for me to say.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not the answer to that question depend upon what their duties are conceived to be and does my hon. and learned Friend think it possible long to continue in this country
  2144
  two different standards of justice, dependent on a property qualification in the tribunal?
  Sir Peter Macdonald: What is wrong with the present system of choosing special juries, by which people are chosen because they are people of substance?
  The Solicitor-General: That is the very thing which is said to be wrong with it.
  Mr. Piratin: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when he expects to be able to make some announcement on the findings of the investigation?
  The Solicitor-General: As soon as possible.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it to be inferred that the Solicitor-General is suggesting that these special juries, in recent actions, did not abide by the oath they took?
  The Solicitor-General: I make no such suggestion.

  LIBEL AND SLANDER CASES (COSTS)
  Mr. Harrisonasked the Attorney-General what proposals the Government have for making accessible to the ordinary citizen the protection of the law courts in cases of libel and slander, in view of the prohibitive legal costs of such actions that at present prevail.
  The Solicitor-General: Legal costs in actions for libel and slander are governed by the same rules as govern legal costs in other types of civil action. To some extent it rests with a party whether he incurs much or little expense in establishing his own case. If he loses, the process of taxing costs protects him from having to pay costs of the winning party in so far as they were extravagantly incurred. With regard to legal costs generally, the Rushcliffe scheme, on which I answered a Question asked by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) on 28th November, is designed to assist persons of small income; and legislation based on the general principles of the Rushcliffe scheme will be introduced when possible, although it will not be possible to do so this session.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the Solicitor-General consider the suggestion I have made before, which I think is an important suggestion, that costs should

  2145
  not be awarded against an unsuccessful litigant in civil cases unless the judge certifies that the action should not have been brought?
  The Solicitor-General: I can only repeat the answer I gave before, which my hon. Friend can find in HANSARD.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Would not legal costs be substantially reduced if it were possible to fuse the two branches of the legal profession in the way in which it is done in many other countries?

  COUNTY COURTS (CAUSE LISTS)
  Mr. William Wellsasked the Attorney-General whether he will institute an inquiry into the congestion of the cause lists in county courts and into possible means of alleviating it.
  The Solicitor-General: I am not aware of any congestion in the business of the county courts. On the contrary. I am informed that throughout the country as a whole the work of these courts is being discharged without delay, but if the hon. Member has any particular court in mind I shall be glad to hear of it.
  Mr. Wells: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that it is often a matter of two months before a case is taken in the county courts, and when, the list is reached it very often happens that the case is not taken on the day for which it is set down, and therefore, the witnesses concerned, and sometimes expert witnesses, such as surveyors, for all of whom the client has to pay, are kept hanging around; that it is often quite indefinite at what time the case will ultimately be reached; and that in consequence there is a tremendous waste of time, money and manpower?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does my hon. and learned Friend take into account the fact that county court judges are now trying divorce cases and that that is bound to slow up the county court lists?
  The Solicitor-General: I hope that I take all relevant considerations into account. With regard to the first supplementary question, sometimes, unfortunately, a case cannot be heard on the date for which it is fixed. That is regrettable, but it is unavoidable.

  JEWISH PUBLICATION (CARTOON)
  Sir Stanley Reedasked the Attorney General whether his attention has been directed to "Jewish Struggle, Jewish Fighting Organ" No. 7, September, 1946, with a cartoon, "Palestine 1921–29–36 Pogroms, incited by the British"; and whether action will be taken against the printers and publishers.
  The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the publication to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am at present giving this matter consideration.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Solicitor-General say whether the allegations attached to this cartoon are being officially investigated?
  The Solicitor-General: The whole matter is under review.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Empire Tobacco
    Sir Peter Macdonaldasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider arranging for a substantial increase by the Colonies of their tobacco production in exchange for a guarantee of purchase by the Government of the United Kingdom or private interests for an appreciable number of years.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): We should, of course, be ready to consider any such specific proposal put forward by tobacco producers or importers.
    Sir P. Macdonald: Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman give encouragement to Colonial and Dominion producers of tobacco in view of the importance of maintaining our foreign currency balances and the fact that they must have markets if they are to grow more tobacco?
    Sir S. Cripps. I appreciate that, and it the hon. Member wishes us to undertake a further measure of State trading it is something we must consider carefully.

    West Indies (Imports and Exports)
    Sir P. Macdonaldasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what percentage of the imports of the British

    2147
    West Indies and Bermuda are supplied by the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., respectively;
    (2) what percentage of the exports of the British West Indies and Bermuda are purchased by the United Kingdom and the U.S.A., respectively.
    Sir S. Cripps: In 1945, which is the latest period for which these figures are available, 14 per cent, of all imports into the British West Indies came from the United Kingdom and 28 per cent, from the United States. Corresponding figures for Bermuda are seven and 66 per cent. In the same year, the United Kingdom took 37 per cent., and the United States 12 per cent, of exports of British West Indian produce. Practically all exports from Bermuda went to the American con-tinent.

    North Wales Development
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he has considered the report on the industrial needs and resources of North Wales submitted to him by the North Wales Development Council; and when he proposes to make a statement on the matter;
    (2) if he has considered representations made to him by the North Wales Development Council urging that special attention be given to the, industrial problems of the Nantlle Valley; and whether he will make a statement on the matter.
    Sir S. Cripps: I hope to write to the North Wales Development Council within a few days and will let my hon. Friend have a copy of my reply.

    Clothing Coupons
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade, if it is his intention that ex-Servicemen demobilised since 13th June, 1945, who have lost their clothes ration vouchers through causes other than burglary and fire, shall forfeit their right to the additional allowance of coupons.
    Sir S. Cripps: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which I gave to similar Questions on this matter on Thursday last.
    Mr. Swingler: Is it not totally unfair that ex-Servicemen who have inadvertently lost their vouchers should have, no opportunity whatever of proving their bona fide claims for this allowance?
    Sir S. Cripps: If my hon. Friend will read the answer he will see that that is not the position.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: What is the position of ex-Servicemen who have never received their first voucher—and I know there are some?
    Sir S. Cripps: If they are entitled to it they should apply for it.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange that ex-merchant seamen be granted the additional clothing coupons to which ex-Servicemen are entitled.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am satisfied that the special treatment already given to merchant seamen is fair, both during his time at sea and afterwards, and I am afraid I cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will bring great disappointment to a fine body of men who have given very distinguished service during the war, and would he reconsider it? Should not these ex-merchant seamen be put on a par with other ex-Service-men?
    Sir S. Cripps: Ex-merchant seamen are in a very much better position that other ex-Servicemen, and I will remind the hon. Member what the advantages are. In addition to an allowance of coupons for an initial outfit, the merchant seaman receives 109 coupons a year for his personal use. On discharge to civil life he has a personal assessment through a needs test by the Customs up to 153 coupons, and his losses at sea may be met up to 300 coupons.

    Milk Bottles
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for the supply of half-pint bottles to be increased sufficiently during the next five months to enable milk to be delivered daily during the summer to persons living alone.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food arranging for an increased supply of milk, bottles during 1947, and I hope that there will be enough half-pint bottles to satisfy the needs of persons living alone.
    Mr. Peter Freeman: If there is no alternative supply of milk bottles, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider supplying cartons, which are very much cheaper and do not entail the same dangers and disadvantages as bottles?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is not a matter for me, but for the Minister of Food.

    Factory Allocation (Grantham)
    Sir John Mellorasked the President of the Board of Trade why he reversed the decision of his two immediate predecessors in office that a factory at Grantham should be allocated to Aveling-Barford, Limited, and allocated it instead to Grantham Productions, Limited; and what steps he took to satisfy himself that the latter company had sufficient capital available for the mass production of motor-cars.
    Sir S. Cripps: Of the applicants for this factory, Aveling-Barford, Limited, at first put forward the strongest case. Subsequently, however, Grantham Productions, Limited, who were associated with the occupying contractors, supported their claim to retain "the factory for peace time production with evidence of improved financial and production resources. Having regard to all the circumstances, I decided that Grantham Productions ought not to be denied the opportunity they sought and that they should accordingly be allowed to remain.
    Sir J. Mellor: In view of the lamentable result of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's decision, will he place the files in the Library so that hon. Members may examine what happened for themselves?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it not a claim that State control would prevent the losses which, it is said, used to be incurred under the private system of industry, and is this an example of how State planning would prevent bad investment?
    Sir S. Cripps: It has no relation to State control whatever.
    Mr. Stanley: Was this not directed by the Board of Trade, and is that not State control?
    Sir S. Cripps: This was a question as to who should have the allocation of a Government factory which became available for private enterprise.
    Mr. Stanley: Was that decision not taken by the President of the Hoard of Trade, and was it not, as it turns out now, the wrong decision?
    Sir S. Cripps: It was taken by myself; whether it was wrong or not anybody can judge.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon and learned Friend invite the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter on the Adjournment in order that we can tell the nation the full story, which includes the fact that Prince Ponitoski sold guns to both Germany and Britain?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Osborne.
    Sir J. Mellor: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be so good as to do what I ask and place the papers—
    Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. Gentleman was about to announce his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I had called the next Question.

    Italy (British Exports)
    Squadron-Leader Kinghornasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to establish long-term arrangements for expanding imports of British herring into Italy, during the negotiations with the Italian trade delegation now in this country.
    Sir S. Cripps: The steps necessary to facilitate the resumption and expansion of our traditional exports, including herring, are among the matters now under discussion with the Italian trade delegation.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to take pilchards into consideration when these discussions are taking place?
    Sir S. Cripps: We are taking everything into consideration.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that wider powers are given to the Herring Industry Board to cover these sales in other countries in Europe as well as Italy?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is not a matter for me.

    Stockings
    Mr. Bowdenasked the President of the Board of Trade if the production level and general stock position of silk, artificial silk and nylon stockings will now permit a reduction in the number of clothing coupons required for these articles.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir.

    Artists' Materials
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulty which artists and schools of art have in obtaining canvas, brushes and paints; and whether, in their interests and in the interests of British art, he will reduce the proportion of these things which is exporter.
    Sir S. Cripps: Demand is exceptionally high, and I am aware that there is some shortage, though production is above the level achieved before the war. The industry is making every effort to increase production further, and we are giving them what help we can. The exports of these goods are a valuable source of exchange and we are not prepared to reduce them.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that a British picture exported is much better for British trade and British art than paint and brushes exported, and until the picture is painted how can he know whether it is exportable or not?
    Sir S. Cripps: Both are valuable exports, but we are certain of the brushes.
    Mrs. Nichol: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that the shortage is felt very keenly in schools other than specialised art schools, and that teachers have to resort to all kinds of measures?
    Sir S. Cripps: I quite appreciate the difficulties, and that is why we are trying to stimulate production as fast as we can.

    Children's Shoes
    Mr. Yorkasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of children's shoes, particularly sizes two and three, in Harrogate; and whether he will take steps to relieve this shortage
    Sir S. Cripps: There has been a steady improvement in supplies of children's
    2152
    shoes since last year, In addition, crêpe rubber for soling is available in increasing quantities, and more Wellingtons and plimsolls are reaching the shops. Except in the more expensive types, for which leather and manufacturing capacity are still considerably behind demand, the position is improving and will continue to improve. I am not aware of any special shortage of particular sizes in the Harrogate area, but, if the hon. Member will give me details of any specific complaints he has received, I will look into them.
    Mr. York: Is the President aware that I have been at his Department for the last 18 months particularly pressing his attention to these two sizes, and will he not take steps to see that the production of smaller sizes is increased in the North?
    Sir S. Cripps: We are taking those steps and I think there has been a satisfactory improvement

    China Bristles
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade why it is necessary for British manufacturers buying bristle in the free market to undertake to purchase 25 per cent, of their requirements from stocks held by his Department; and whether he will state the average difference between the prices from the two sources.
    Sir S. Cripps: In order to ensure an orderly liquidation of Government stocks, it has been agreed with importers of China bristles that they will take 25 per cent, of the value of their imports from the Board of Trade at prices which are broadly in line with replacement cost.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is this not another example of the folly of Government purchase? Will the President of the Board of Trade say why the trade should be burdened with the results of the Government's incompetence in this direction?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is not so. Nor is the trade burdened, because the prices are the same substantially as those at which they are purchasing now.

    Utility Furniture
    Mr. Haleasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to amend the rules relating to the issue of dockets for utility furniture so

    2153
    as to make them available for any persons, whether widow, widower or spinster, who desires to furnish a home for himself or herself.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that supplies would not justify the very wide increase in the number of applicants for utility furniture which my hon. Friend's proposal would involve.
    Mr. Hale: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that widowers or spinsters who desire to set up a home, having lost their homes in war circumstances, are unable to do so because of this restriction, and will he make this small extension in order to send the junior Member for Oldham happily home for Christmas?
    Sir S. Cripps: Such a concession would open up such a wide area that it would mean depriving the present people of the furniture they are now able to get.

    West African Furniture
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade why the importation of furniture from West Africa is limited to types which can be sold at the prices of British-made utility furniture.
    Sir S. Cripps: While British furniture manufacturers are subject to severe restrictions as to the types of furniture which they are allowed to manufacture and the prices which they are allowed to charge, it would be unfair to permit the importation of more expensive types except in very special cases. It is for this reason that imports from all sources are normally limited to types comparable in quality and price with British-made utility furniture.
    Mr. Keeling: But has not the Minister just implied, in answer to a previous Question, that we want more furniture than we can now get? Does not his policy amount to mediocrity for mediocrity's sake?
    Sir S. Cripps: It amounts to getting the maximum quantity we can, and we find we get that out of utility furniture of good quality.

  GAS AND ELECTRICITY
  Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the estimated weekly tonnage and percentage
  2154
  saving in coal used by gas arid electricity undertakings since his appeal for a 10 per cent, voluntary reduction in gas and electricity consumption.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The normal seasonal increase in consumption, coupled with other factors, makes it impossible to gauge the extent to which consumers have responded to the appeal voluntarily to economise in their consumption of gas and electricity. Owing to the abnormal increases in consumption I have felt bound, after consultation with representatives of industry, to take additional measures. At the same time, I have made a further appeal to domestic consumers to exercise every possible economy.
  Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why, by S.R. &; 0., No. 2087, he has ordered industrial and other undertakings to restrict their rate of electricity and gas consumption during January, February and March, to 97½ per cent, of their rate of consumption during a period preceding 21st December, 1946, thereby penalizing each undertaking in proportion to its economy in the basic period; and if he will give an assurance that undertakings, which reduce consumption below the maximum permitted, will not thereby be prejudiced in subsequent restriction.
  Mr. Shinwell: The restriction on the consumption of gas and electricity will be so administered as to take full account of fuel efficiency measures already taken by industrial undertakings. Any undertaking engaged on work of national importance which is unable to secure the small additional saving of 2½ per cent, now required will be free to apply for a licence to consume larger supplies. It is my intention throughout to accord the most favourable treatment possible to firms which practice fuel efficiency.
  Sir J. Mellor: As under the terms of the present order those who have been wasteful gain an advantage over those who have been economical, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that this policy will not be repeated?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid the hon. Member is placing a wrong construction on the terms of the order. The order is

  2155
  designed to provide that those persons who are wasting in the sense that they do not promote efficient methods will be treated less favourably than others.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman effected any economy by calling a cut in supplies "shedding the load"?
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and learned Member is quite mistaken. It is not the Minister of Fuel who calls for the shedding of the load. That is a matter entirely in the hands of the Central Electricity Board.
  Sir. J. Mellorasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the Explanatory Note to the Electricity and Gas (Reduction of Consumption) Order, 1946, S.R. & O. 1946 No. 2087, is inaccurate and misleading; and whether he will substitute for the words, by z\ per cent., which, in the context, imply for each period progressive reduction, the words, to 97½ per cent., so as to show that the Order does not require reduction below 97½ per cent, of basic consumption.
  Mr. Shinwell: The wording used in the Explanatory Note was chosen as being clearer to the general reader than that necessarily employed in the body of the order. I am advised that the wording in the note cannot reasonably be construed in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.
  Sir J. Mellor: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of this order, I beg to give notice that I shall move its annulment, on Thursday, 23rd January.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Domestic Economy
    Mr. Cooperasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he proposes to take to obtain an economy in the coal consumed for domestic heating and lighting so that the risk of further cuts during the winter months for industrial purposes can be avoided.
    Mr. Shinwell: Every effort has been made to effect economies in the consumption of coal, including an appeal to domestic users to exercise the greatest care in the consumption of gas and electricity.
    Mr. Cooper: May I ask the Minister if he would consider the advisability of introducing an increased domestic tariff so as to encourage these economies?
    Mr. Shinwell: If we increase the domestic tariff, we must do so at the expense of the industrial users.
    Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister say to what extent he hopes to save fuel oil by an increased production of smokeless fuel for domestic purposes?
    Mr. Shinwell: We should be very glad indeed to use smokeless fuel in greater measures, but we have to produce it before we can use it.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Will the Minister consult the Minister of Supply about the installation of closed grates in all the new housing estates rather than the open grates which are supplied at the present time?
    Mr. Shinwell: These matters are the subject of discussion between the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Health.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is there any truth in the newspaper report that the Minister proposes to ban the purchase of electric fires in order to save consumption, and, if so, is it not a very sad commentary on the Government's planning?
    Mr. Shinwell: I see no reason for any sad or any other kind of commentary; I am not aware of that proposal.

    Coal Board (Staff)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of staff employed by the Coal Board at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have at present no information as to the number of staff employed or engaged by the National Coal Board. The main part of the staff will of course be taken over on the vesting date.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to obtain that information, as he is entitled to do under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, and give it to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Shinwell: The National Coal Board are in the process of engaging staff, and it will be some time before they complete their arrangements. We can see about this later on.
    Major Peter Roberts: Is the Minister not aware that in Yorkshire alone there are over 4,000 staff, without any proper offices, already piling up?
    Mr. Shinwell: That may well be, although I do not commit myself to the figure, but, if so, they are persons ordinarily employed in the coal trade.

    Distribution (Alternative Employment)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what action is being taken by his Department to assist in the obtaining of alternative employment by persons working in the coal distribution trade who will cease to be able to continue this work by reason of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Act, 1946.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have no reason to believe that as a result of nationalisation persons working in the coal distribution trade will find themselves in need of alternative employment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a definite case, will he take action to find alternative employment?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman means that somebody has lost his position and is seeking other work, there are of course the ordinary avenues for obtaining employment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Minister aware that I have already asked the assistance of his Department in this matter and that I have had no assistance whatever?
    Mr. Shinwell: At any rate, if the hon. Member sends me the case I will naturally look into it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

    Divisional Coal Boards
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his Department has information as to the qualifications and experience of members of divisional coal boards.
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. These appointments are made by the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not
    2158
    aware of the disquiet in many quarters caused by the giving of these appointments to gentlemen with no experience whatever of the coal industry, and does he not consider that these gentlemen constitute a load which might well be shed?
    Mr. Shinwell: Any feeling of disquiet that there may be as regards certain appointments can be dealt with as between the workers' organisations and the National Coal Board, but so far as I am aware there is very little disquiet.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the answer to my supplementary mean that the general public are not to be entitled to express their views on these matters?
    Mr. Shinwell: The general public can express their views through Members of this House, as I presume the hon. Member is trying to do.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that the trouble is caused by the fact that there seems to be a tendency to select Tories for these positions?
    Mr. Shinwell: As I have said frequently in the House, the appointments are not made by me. As far as the National Coal Board is concerned, it is quite impossible, when selecting persons who are suitable for administrative staffs, to consider their political views.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the appointments are not made by the Minister, how is it possible for Members of Parliament to get redress when grievances are placed before them as to the qualifications of those chosen?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is a matter that the Opposition might have considered when they were in controversy with me on this Bill in the Standing Committee upstairs.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider an amending Bill in order to give effect to this question?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the noble Lord has any views about an amending Bill he can make his submission at the proper time.

  PETROL

    Palestine (Exports)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much oil is expected to arrive in this country

    2159
    from Palestine during the six months commencing 18th November; what effect the recent terrorism in Palestine is estimated to have on this figure; and what steps are being taken to make good this deficiency.
    Mr. Shinwell: Owing to the inevitable fluctuations in shipping and supply arrangements and refinery production, it is not possible to give accurate forward estimates of imports from any one source, but arrivals of oil in the United Kingdom from Palestine are expected to average about 34,000 tons per month over the next few months. Recent terrorism has had no effect on exports of oil from Palestine. The third part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the 34,000 tons compares with the prewar figure?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Member puts that question down, I will give him an answer.

    Anglo-Iranian Oil
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much fuel oil is purchased by his Department from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company; what proportion of it is shipped to this country; where the balance goes; and whether he has any information to show what percentage his Department's total purchase bears to the whole production.
    Mr. Shinwell: My Department does not purchase any fuel oil. Supplies to meet current requirements in this country are all purchased by the Petroleum Board, who in the three months to the end of November purchased about 28 per cent, of the Anglo-Iranian's overseas production of fuel oil in those three months. The balance was shipped to a multiplicity of destinations.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES

    Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Fuel and Power in connection with the proposed new electricity generating station at Fifoots Point, Newport, when the first part of the plant will be started and the cost; what areas it will serve and what manpower will be involved; and
    2160
    whether he is satisfied that all the necessary material, equipment and labour will be available for it to be completed promptly, in view of the need of increased electricity in this area.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am informed that the Electricity Commissioners have not yet received any application for consent to the erection of a power station at Newport and I cannot therefore give the information asked by my hon. Friend.

    Poles
    Mr. MacLeodasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why a supply of poles and other material necessary to bring electricity to North Kessock, Ross-shire, cannot be supplied when the mains are only two miles away and it was promised a supply before the war.
    Mr. Shinwell: I understand that, though the Grampian Electric Supply Company have under consideration a scheme for supplying this area, they have not yet applied to the Electricity Commissioners for a licence to acquire the necessary poles.
    Mr. MacLeod: But I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade some time ago and he assured me that they would have poles last June. Surely they should know something about it by now?
    Mr. Shinwell: But if the company concerned have not made application it the poles, obviously it is their fault.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Mine Volunteers
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Minister of Labour why certain volunteers for service in the coalmines are ' not allowed to count such service for the purposes of Class A release from His Majesty's forces when persons directed to such service are allowed in similar circumstances to do so.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The reasons for confining to ballotees the concession that a period spent in the mines might count towards release from the Forces were explained in my statement to the House on 29th November, 1945, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement gives no explanation of the reasons for the different treatment allotted to those who accepted the Government's invitation to volunteer for service in the coal mines when they registered and the treatment given to the Bevin Boys? Is he aware that the optant working in the mine can be called up for service if released, and if he is discharged from the mines on medical grounds and is then called up he cannot count as part of his service the period spent in the mines?
    Mr. Isaacs: In spite of that information, I still refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given previously.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In view of the fact that the answer referred to in the Minister's reply was given over a year ago, and the Government have now a great deal more knowledge of this matter, would he not look at it again and see if the volunteer cannot be placed at an advantage?
    Mr. Isaacs: I can say that the matter is being looked at again.
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Minister of Labour the number of men who, on registering under the National Service Acts, in consequence of the Government's invitation, opted for service in the mines and are now serving in His Majesty's Forces and are unable, by reason of his decision, to count their service in the mines for the purposes of. Class A release.
    Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information is not available.

    External Students
    Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Labour why, in view of the fact that deferment of call-up for National Service is-granted to internal students of universities and technical colleges preparing for honours degrees, such deferment is refused to external students preparing for the same degrees.
    Mr. Isaacs: Students studying for external degrees can be granted deferment equally with internal students, provided they are in attendance at a recognised educational institution and, in the case of technical colleges, are pursuing a course of study approved by the Ministry of Education.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Mid-Week Sport
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the number of working days lost in 1946 by the promotion of mid-week football matches and other similar entertainments.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid I have no information on which to base an estimate.
    Colonel Hutchison: Does the Minister not think, in view of the general need for production, that representations by him to promoters of this sort of enterprise should be made with a view to their being restricted?
    Mr. Rankin: Would the Minister also consider covering golf matches, cricket matches, picture houses, racing and theatres in his investigation?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is because I have no information upon which to estimate what is happening that I hesitate to take any steps at all. I think it is right to say that we ought not unnecessarily to interfere with the pleasures of the people, otherwise, we might interfere with Question time.

    Local Government Service
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the 1,019,000 persons employed in local government service in September, 1946, he will arrange to have circulated in HANSARD the appropriate figures which his Department have prepared showing the numbers employed in regions, county councils, county borough councils, municipal borough councils and urban and rural district councils, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I made a very vigorous protest last week about the same matter, and will he in future never, never, never give information without publishing it in HANSARD? We are a democratic body here.
    Mr. Isaacs: I can never, never, never hope to give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer.

  LONDON POLISH GOVERNMENT (OFFICIALS)
  Major Bramhallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many former officials of the London Polish Government are being maintained by the British Treasury; and what is the total monthly sum expended in this way.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): 220 officials and their families are receiving monthly relief allowances, in common with other unemployed Poles in the United Kingdom. The monthly cost is about £3,600.
  Major Bramall: Will the hon. Gentle man say how the relief paid to these people compares with the relief paid to British subjects?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: There are variations. Many of these Poles have not their own homes and have to live in furnished lodgings. That does make a difference.
  Major Bramallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons are employed by the Interim Treasury Committee for Polish Affairs; how many of them are former officials of the London Polish Government; and out of what funds the organisation is maintained.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: 410 Poles, of whom 387 were officials of the former London Polish Government. The committee is financed by H.M. Treasury.
  Major Bramall: Would my hon. Friend say what consultations there have been with the Polish Government with regard to this organisation and the work it is performing?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend means the present Polish Government—
  Mr. Gallacher: He means the only Polish Government there is.
  Major Bramall: I mean the Polish Government to which His Majesty's Ambassador is accredited.
  Mr. Glenvi Hall: I should want notice of that question. I would add that it is well known that these people are in
  2164
  London and they have to live. The House is well aware of the present position and how it arose.

  PARLIAMENTARY BILLS (SCOTLAND)
  Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to make Parliamentary Bills available to His Majesty's Stationery Office in Edinburgh at an earlier date and in greater numbers, in view of the difficulty experienced by the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce in obtaining copies in good time
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have had no reports of such difficulties, but I will make inquiries.
  Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the unseemly haste of the Government in forcing the Exchange Control Bill through, this body was unable to obtain sufficient copies of the Bill before it reached the Committee stage? Can the Minister do something to prevent this kind of thing occurring?
  Mr. Hall: We are only too anxious to help, but the only quicker way of getting those documents to Glasgow would have been to fly them there. We do send them as quickly as we can, otherwise

  N.F.S. (EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL)
  Mr. Hobsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of regular fire officers in the London-region who have served in the Armed Forces and, on return to the Fire Service, have retained their former rank after re-assessment.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): These re-assessments are still proceeding. Up till yesterday the number of ex-regular firemen in the London Region who served in the Armed Forces and. have retained their rank on reassessment is 95.
  Mr. Hobson: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than one-third of the men who have returned from the Armed Forces have failed to pass this reassessment test and that they are returning to find their jobs filled by men who did not serve in London during the blitz, and that there is considerable dissatisfaction among them?
  Mr. Oliver: I know that some men have returned and have failed to retain their rank. I think the number is approximately 26.

  FOREIGN VISITOR (EXCLUSION)
  Mr. Nallyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Professor Johan Smertenko, vice-president of the American League for a Free Palestine is openly financing terrorist organisations of Palestine; and whether it is intended to allow this U.S. citizen to remain in this country and carry out his stated intention of forming a branch of his organisation in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. O'Brienasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Professor Johan J. Smertento, vice-president of the American League for a Free Palestine, on his own admission is in contact with leaders of terrorist groups in Palestine; that the American League for a Free Palestine financially supports illegal immigration into Palestine and underground resistance to the Palestine Government and that one of the reasons for his visit to Britain is to establish a British League for a free Palestine to collect funds for the same purposes; and what action he is prepared to take to curtail Professor Smertento's stay in this country.
  Mr. Oliver: This foreign visitor left this country on 13th December, and steps have been taken to exclude him for the future.
  Mr. Nally: While expressing my satisfaction with that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend whether any other steps have been taken to indicate the view of His Majesty's Government that this was a gross breach of traditional British hospitality and that it must not happen again?
  Mr. Oliver: In our view, the fact that steps have been taken to exclude this gentleman makes it clear that we do not regard him as a very desirable visitor.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise, in case I have missed something, but has it been made clear that the allegations made by this visitor against the conduct of British soldiers are quite baseless? Has that been publicly made plain?
  Mr. Oliver: That is a question which I cannot answer.

  PRISONS

    Holloway
    Mrs. Ayrton Gouldasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a woman in Holloway Prison, serving a sentence of one year, is locked in her cell alone from 4.30 p.m., when the last meal of the day is served, until morning and has no opportunity of attending classes or of doing any creative work during those hours; how many women in Holloway and elsewhere are serving sentences of three months and more; and if he will take steps, pending the provision of a full educational programme in all prisons, to instal wireless sets which will enable all prisoners to listen to B.B.C. broadcasts in their cells and to provide materials for women to employ themselves in various kinds of handicraft in their cells.
    Mr. Oliver: There are 333 prisoners in Holloway serving sentences of three months or more. Owing to continued staff shortages it is still necessary at this prison for suppers to be served at 4.30 p.m. but the suggestion that there is no occupation for the women after that hour and no opportunity for attending classes is mistaken. My right hon. Friend fully recognises the importance of providing a full evening education programme and opportunities for handicrafts and other creative work at all prisons. With the collaboration of the local education authorities much has been done in the last 12 months and more will, I hope, be done in the near future both at Holloway and elsewhere. Already at Holloway, in addition to the regular evening association available for certain classes of prisoner, there are a number of classes, lectures and discussion groups. As regards the use of wireless, this is available at all but a few prisons, but there are serious technical difficulties in the way of providing installations giving satisfactory reception in cells.
    Mrs. Gould: May I remind my hon. Friend that some inmates of Holloway Prison are unable to attend classes of any sort or have any occupation after supper? Will he tell the House what proportion they bear to the number of prisoners?
    Mr. Oliver: I cannot give my hon. Friend the proportion. I can only say that a full programme is provided.
    Mr. Shurmer: Does my hon. Friend think it right that women should be left from 4.30 in the evening until next morning, without a meal?
    Mr. Oliver: I pointed out in my answer that supper is served by 4.30. I think it is served in ordinary circumstances at 5.30. I would have the House understand that this is not the desire of the Home Secretary. These are steps which he is compelled to take by circumstances over which he has no control.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the medical officer of the prison thinks that no harm will come to persons who have to wait so long from one meal to another?
    Mr. Oliver: I do not think that is a matter which arises out of the Question.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the Minister think something ought to be done? How would he like to have to wait from half-past five till the following morning for a meal?
    Mr. Hale: Cannot my hon. Friend get this very small administrative problem put right? It shocks the conscience of the House to hear of this state of affairs. Will he also consider the abolition of the practice of locking persons in cells all night? It has already been abolished in good conduct prisons in most civilised countries.
    Mr. Oliver: I assure my hon. Friend that his observations will be represented to my right hon. Friend.

    Psychiatrists
    Mr. Haleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many penal institutions the services of a resident psychiatrist are available for, the treatment of the neuroses of persons detained.
    Mr. Oliver: There are no resident psychiatrists at penal establishments. The preliminary investigation of cases in which any question of mental condition arises is undertaken by the skilled medical staff, many of whom have special experience and qualifications in psychiatry, and cases which appear to be suitable for treatment are transferred to a prison in London where further investigation and treatment, if required, are carried out by visiting psychiatrists.
    Mr. Hale: Is my hon. Friend aware that prison doctors and others have made it quite clear time after time that sexual offenders are told that they will see a psychiatrist and get treatment when in prison, although in fact the treatment is not available and the prisoners never receive it?
    Mr. Hector Hughes: How many prisoners does each psychiatrist have to look after? What steps are taken to increase the number of psychiatrists?
    Mr. Oliver: I cannot answer the last part of my hon. and learned Friend's question. The view of the Department is, that it is a great advantage to have outside psychiatrists working inside the prisons. In the view of the Department much advantage has been derived thereby.
    Mr. Hughes: Can I have an answer TO the first part of my supplementary question?
    Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Member aware that the situation referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) is largely due to the fact that many psychiatrists get it into their heads that criminals who are perfectly healthy mentally are not responsible for their actions? Will he ensure that psychiatrists go about their work in such a way as not to take that view?
    Mr. Oliver: I was not aware that that was done.

  CLAPTON SYNAGOGUE (FIRE)
  Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement with regard to the attempt to burn the Clapton Synagogue on Friday night, 13th December; and what reports he has had from the police regarding the activities of the National Guard in whose name this outrage was perpetrated.
  Mr. Oliver: On the night of 12th December an unsuccessful attempt was made to burn certain parchment scrolls in Clapton Synagogue. Police inquiries are proceeding, and my right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to make any statement.
  Mr. Piratin: On the basis that the Minister is as anxious to clear up this position as is the whole House and the public,

  2169
  may I ask him to speed up the investigations, for there is deep anxiety in East London, not only amongst Jewish people, but amongst all people of good will, that this should happen in our country?
  Mr. H. Hynd: Before the Minister replies, is he aware that this is only one of many evidences of a recurrence of anti-Semitic action in that district?
  Mr. Oliver: The matter is now being investigated and I cannot comment on it whilst it is under investigation—
  Mr. H. Hynd: Is the whole matter being investigated?
  Mr. Oliver: —but the hon. Member may rest assured that all relevant facts will be taken into account.

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Chest Clinic, Kent
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the urgent need for a chest clinic in the Chislehurst-Sidcup urban district; and what steps are being taken to convert the existing first-aid post at White Horse Hill to a chest clinic at an early date.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Proposals were recently submitted to me by the county council and are under consideration.
    Mr. Wallace: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in Kent the facilities for the treatment of tuberculosis are very few and primitive, and are the result of neglect over a period of years, and that this disgraceful state of affairs must be remedied at a very early date?
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware of the fact that this is a long-standing grievance, and I am trying to take steps to deal with it, but of course at the moment I have inadequate powers.

    Milk (Welfare Centres)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health what percentage of the milk supplied to mothers and children through the Maternity and Child Welfare Centres is from tuberculin tested cows or heat treated.
    Mr. Bevan: The clinics usually provide only dried milk preparations which are adequately heat treated in the process of manufacture.
    Mr. Hastings: May I take it that no non-heat treated milk is supplied to these clinics?
    Mr. Bevan: I would hesitate to give a definite assurance, but I assume it is not.

    District Nurses (Salaries;
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that local health authorities have instructed village nursing associations that they must increase the salaries, of district nurses, retrospectively, as from 1st January 1946, and that an many cases the increase amounts to over 100 per cent.; that village nursing associations have not sufficient funds in hand to meet 'the increase; and what action does he propose to take in the matter.
    Mr. Bevan: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the increases in the salaries of district nurses recommended by the Rushcliffe Committee. Where these increases are paid by a nursing association the Exchequer pays one half of the expenditure involved and the local authority may if they wish contribute the remainder.
    Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that many of these village nursing associations are in danger of breaking down through this instruction, and the committees feel that they will have the greatest difficulty in raising the half that they must provide?
    Mr. Bevan: I am not aware of that.

    King Edward's Hospital Fund
    Sir John Graham Kerrasked the Minister of Health what, under the new National Health Service Act, are the intentions of the Government with regard to the King Edward's Hospital Fund.
    Mr. Bevan: The new Act does not alter any of the powers and duties of the Fund under its own statute. I hope that the Fund will continue its very valuable work —in whatever forms it may feel to be appropriate to the new service.

  HOUSING

    Bethesda
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that although the Bethesda Urban District

    2171
    Council, Caernarvonshire, are ready to proceed with their house-building programme, they are unable to obtain from the Welsh Board of Health official confirmation that the necessary loan will be forthcoming; and if he will secure an early decision so that work may commence.
    Mr. Bevan: The necessary details have now been submitted by the local authority and the application for loan has been put forward for Treasury consent and the approval of the Public Works Loan Board.

    Points System
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain local authorities have decided not to disclose the details 01 the points system by which their houses are allocated to tenants; and since this secrecy can only lead to suspicion on the part of the public, if he will circularise local authorities as to the desirability of giving full information on their letting plans.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 23 of the second report of the House Management Sub-Committee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee and to Circular 176/45 issued to local authorities. Copies of both documents are being sent to him.
    Mr. Shephard: Would not the Minister agree that the public have every right to know where they stand with regard to local authority points schemes, and in those instances where a local authority refuses to disclose its points scheme, can he bring no pressure to bear on it?
    Mr. Bevan: The sub-committee to which I referred recommended that the local authorities should make known the principles on which the tenants are selected, but not the weight they give to particular points.
    Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that, as the Minister himself admitted, this is the recommendation of a sub-committee which local authorities have not accepted as a directive, would he issue a circular to confirm the recommendation?
    Mr. Bevan: A circular from me would have no more weight than a recommendation. Hon. Members must realise that local authorities are their own bosses in this matter.

    Rent Tribunals
    Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a number of tenants who have applied to the rent tribunal are being given notice by their landlords after the three months; and whether he is considering extending the period until more accommodation is available.
    Mr. Bevan: The reply to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, I can hold out no hope of legislation to extend the period but these cases come under the closest scrutiny with a view to action under existing powers for the protection of tenants in appropriate cases.

    Local Authority Building
    Viscount Hinching brookeasked the Minister of Health what number of local authority houses it is estimated will be completed in the last four months of this year in England and Wales and in Scotland, separately, as the result of the drive announced by him on 21st September to finish all houses then up to roof level before the end of the year.
    Mr. Bevan: The actual figures will be given in the monthly return to be published at the end of January.

    Lexden and Winstree
    Mr. Charles Smithasked the Minister of Health whether it was upon direct instructions from his Department that the Lexden and Winstree Rural District Council suspended the issue of licences for house building; in which parishes this local authority has actually got houses in course of construction; how many there are in each parish named; and whether he is satisfied that the building capacity of this rural district area is being used to the full.
    Mr. Bevan: As the answer includes a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    I have asked the council not to issue more licences without my prior consent. The council have houses under construction in the following parishes: Boxted 2 houses, Copford 2, East Donyland 18, Messing 2, Stanway 2, Aldham 4, Ford-ham 6.
    In addition there are 16 houses in approved tenders which have not yet been

    2173
    started and 17 more sites which have been approved. If there is any building capacity in the district which is not being used for housing I shall be glad to look into it.

  COAST EROSION
  Mr. Spearmanasked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to deal with coast erosion throughout the country, which in many parts is causing a serious loss of houses; and if he is aware that at Robin Hood's Bay, Yorkshire, part of one house fell into the sea last week and many others are in danger unless immediate action is taken.
  Mr. Bevan: The Government hope to be in a position to make a statement on coast erosion policy immediately after the Recess. I am aware of the unfortunate situation at Robin Hood's Bay where, I am advised, measures for safeguarding the houses in immediate danger are not likely to prove practicable.

  BIRTH CERTIFICATES
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Minister of Health whether in any future legislation on the subject of children's birth certificates, he will bear in mind that if a man changes his name by deed poll his children's birth certificates cannot be altered and they must for all their lives on occasion show a name which they might otherwise never know that they had possessed, with a view to allowing the necessary alteration in the register.
  Mr. Bevan: The point raised by the hon. Member has been noted for consideration in any general review of the operation of the Registration Acts.
  Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are many people who have had to change their names for very good reasons, and that it means that their children, if they were already born, may find themselves unable to forget the fact which caused the change of name?
  Mr. Bevan: I am aware that there are quite a number of modifications of the Registration Acts that ought to be made, but I am afraid I cannot promise Parliamentary time for a very comprehensive Act just now.

  ALLOTMENTS, PATCHWAY
  Mr. Alpassasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the need for allotments at Patchway, he will give his consent to the loan being raised for the purchase of the land to which the Gloucester County Council has given its approval.
  Mr. Bevan: The proposal to acquire land at Patchway for allotments is at present under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. If he recommends that the scheme shall proceed I shall be prepared to give the necessary loan consent.

  EDUCATION

    Further Education and Training Grants
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Education whether she has investigated the case, brought to her attention by the hon. Member for Mile End, relating to a further education training grant, in which the applicant wrote on 13th January asking for an increase and her Department replied on 30th July, informing him that he would receive an increase of grant dating back to autumn term, 1945; if she is aware that at 11th December no such increase had been granted; why there has been a delay of six months in replying to the applicant; and why, after 4½ months, the increase of grant has not yet been paid.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): This student has up to the present been paid at the rate of his original award. Since last January he has made requests for six separate adjustments in his rate of grant, and the amount of his award has twice been reassessed. I very much regret the delay in making the additional payments due to him, but he has now been paid all the arrears up to date.
    Mr. Piratin: While I am glad to hear that the back payments have now been made, nevertheless, is this not a further indication that the Department should look into the whole question which was raised last week and still continues?
    Mr. Hardman: The whole question is being looked into very thoroughly and, no doubt, some more information will be received.
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Minister of Education how many times she has exercised her power under paragraph 7 (2), S.R. & O. 1291, to make an interim grant pending the determination of an award under the Further Education and Training Scheme; and whether, in view of the financial embarrassment caused to ex-Servicemen and their families by the delay in the assessment and payment of awards by her Department, she will exercise this power more frequently.
    Mr. Hardman: No record is kept of the number of cases in which interim grants have been made under the Regulation referred to, but small interim grants have frequently been made in cases of hardship. My right hon. Friend is always ready to exercise the discretion allowed under this particular Regulation, within the limits proper for the due safeguarding of public funds.
    Mr. Sharp: In view of the bottleneck in the Awards Branch of his Department, and the fact that there are many thousands of students anxiously awaiting remittances applied for months ago, will my hon. Friend ensure that the Minister exercises her power to make an interim grant on many occasions during the next few days?
    Mr. Hardman: I can assure my hon. Friend that the bottleneck is not only in my Department.
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Wherever the bottleneck is, could my hon. Friend say what is the average maximum award made under this interim grant?
    Mr. Hardman: No, Sir, I do not think I can be expected to give that detailed information today.
    Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it would be in Order for the House to congratulate you on giving England a much needed century?
    Mr. Sharpasked the Minister of Education whether she is aware that the Leeds Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour forwarded, on 23rd August, to the Awards Branch of her Department, the documents referring to the application made by Mr. Colin Johnson, Moravian Villas, Gomersal, near Leeds, for a Further Education grant to enable him to resume the training as a
    2176
    teacher broken by military service; that Mr. Johnson has a wife and child to maintain and, after one term at Leeds University, has already used up his savings because neither award nor payment has yet been made; that two reminders of his circumstances have been sent to the Awards Branch without effect; and whether, in view of the extenuating circumstances, she will exercise her power under paragraph 7 (2), S.R. & 0. 1291, and make an immediate interim grant pending a speedy determination of the award.
    Mr. Hardman: This student had already, before his war service, spent a year at Hull University College and has applied for a grant towards the cost of a full four-year course at Leeds University. I regret that, owing to the need for clearing up this aspect of the application, and to the very heavy pressure of work in my Department, a decision on this case has been held up. An interim payment of £25 has already been made to Mr. Johnson in the exceptional circumstances of his case, pending a final settlement of grant.

    School Canteens
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Education if it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government that school canteens should have equal priority with housing in the allocation of building labour and materials.
    Mr. Hardman: The provision of school canteens is in general essential and urgent as part of the Family Allowances Scheme. These projects are eligible on their merits for the highest priority in cases where the work cannot proceed satisfactorily without it.
    Mr. Driberg: Does that mean, taking the country as a whole, that progress is being made?
    Mr. Hardman: The answer to that is certainly in the affirmative.

  TROOPS, TEL-EL-KEBIR (TRIAL)
  Mr. Gallacher(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 10 soldiers have been arrested arising out of a demonstration against the slowing down of demobilisation at a R.E.M.E. camp at Tel-el-Kebir; whether he will state what process of selection was used to pick out the 10 who

  2177
  are charged, from the several thousand who took part in the demonstration; what special measures, if any, were taken to get statements from these soldiers, and what arrangements have been made for their court martial, and for providing them with adequate defence.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I am aware that 14 non-commissioned officers, including some from the camp at Tel-el-Kebir, are under arrest awaiting trial in connection with recent disturbances. These men were arrested because of their particular complicity in the disturbances, and I have no doubt that the activities of each individual will be made clear at the forthcoming trial. As, however, the matter is sub judice, I obviously cannot make a further statement. I am not aware of any unusual means being used to obtain statements, but I have ordered an immediate investigation into the allegations which the hon. Member has referred to me. I am awaiting details of the arrangements made for the defence of the accused which, I am sure, will be adequate.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there is an allegation from many sources that these men were interviewed while under close arrest, individually, and that each man was told that the evidence given by his friends against him would entitle him to 10 years' imprisonment unless he made a statement on the part he and they had taken in the affair? Will he have a full inquiry made into this, and see that these men get adequate defence when they come before the court martial?
  Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member has certainly made those allegations in a letter to me, and, as I said in my original answer, I am having them investigated. As regards the latter part of his question, I am doing my best to get them adequately defended.
  Lieut.-Colonel Kingsmill: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time that hon. Members in all parts of the House should support the course of discipline in the Forces, rather than automatically consider that men who do wrong are in the right?
  Mr. Bellenger: The trial has to take its normal course, and I think it would be very unwise and unfair for me to make any further comment on that point.

  SARAWAK (MR. ANTHONY BROOKE'S EXCLUSION)
  Mr. Teeling(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why Mr. Anthony Brooke has been refused entry to the Colony of Sarawak
  The Secretary of State for he Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): For some time past Mr. Brooke has sustained and encouraged the opposition to cession and the demand for the restoration of the Raj, with himself or his father as Rajah, which has been voiced by a small and unrepresentative minority of the people of Sarawak. This attempt to subvert existing authority can only confuse and distract the local population from playing their part in the urgent tasks with which the Colony is faced as the result of the war. It is clear that Mr. Brooke's purpose in seeking to enter the territory was to further his objective by personal efforts on the spot, thereby intensifying the harmful effects of his propaganda, and possibly causing strife and disorder. The decision that Mr. Brooke should be excluded from Sarawak was therefore taken in the interests of the territory and its inhabitants.
  Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he received a letter from this gentleman on 6th November which pointed out that he wanted to go to Sarawak in order to gain information for a libel action being brought against him by the former Rajah's secretary, who was used frequently by this present Government in its dealings on Colonial affairs, and that, in reply, the right hon. Gentleman never, as far as I am aware, stated that he could not go, but said that he could not have priority, especially in his letter of 13th November? Might I ask, as it was known that he was going at the end of November, why nothing was done until this man reached Manilla?
  Mr. Creech Jones: It is true that, in his application for priority passage, he said he desired to collect evidence for a libel action which was pending. But subsequently he made his purpose very clear. He gave interviews to the Press in this country, and, when he started on

  2179
  his journey, he gave interviews to the Press in America. It was perfectly clear from those statements that he was going for the avowed purpose of gathering opinion behind him for the purposes of upsetting the present decision. Indeed, in none of the statements made to the Press, or by his solicitor subsequently, has the plea been put forward that he was going to collect evidence for that libel case.
  Mr. Stanley: Is there any allegation against Mr. Brooke that he intended to use any but constitutional means to put forward a view which happened to be opposite to that of the Governor? Are we to understand that in future all British subjects are to be denied entry into a British Colony if they desire to further, by perfectly constitutional means, a political view which happens to be contrary to the Government? If that is the case, were there not times when the right hon. Gentleman, in his wilder moments, might have been refused entry into many British Colonies?
  Mr. Gallacher: By the Tories.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The question put by the right hon. Gentleman involves a series of assumptions which are not true in fact. It is not the case that Mr. Anthony Brooke is proceeding merely for the purpose of acquiring certain information. He has declared quite definitely that he is going for the purpose of establishing himself as Rajah.
  Hon. Members: Why not?
  Mr. Stanley: Constitutionally.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The assumption of the right hon. Gentleman is that all his proceedings are constitutional. A decision has been taken in Sarawak, by perfectly constitutional means, and the whole purpose of this business is to rally forces to build up organisations to upset that decision.
  Mr. Churchill: Is not that the same argument that is used by every despotic regime—that they have taken their decision, and no one must be allowed to do anything which agitates against it? Is that to be the position adopted?
  Mr. Shurmer: The right hon. Gentleman used to do that when he was boss.
  Mr. Churchill: In time of war many things had to be done which were deeply regretted, particularly I8B. I have always regretted that, for which I take my share of responsibility. [Interruption.] Hon. Members need not be afraid; the right hon. Gentleman opposite is bearing up all right. But great principles of habeas corpus can only be abrogated with the very greatest care, and in the most supreme crises of the State. What is the case here? Is not this gentleman to be allowed, by constitutional means, to do his best to form the opinion of the people there, and ascertain their will as to their future form of government? On what grounds has he been denied that right?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The answer is that nothing unconstitutional has been done by the Governor concerned in issuing his ban in regard to the arrival of Anthony Brooke. The procedure adopted is a perfectly legal and perfectly normal one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Normal?"] It is not peculiar to a Labour Government. It is in accordance with legislation which Governments representative of the other side of the House have allowed to go on the Statute Book for Colonies over a long period. In this particular case it is a deliberate effort in regard to a recent decision for the setting up of a new Constitution in order to deal with the aftermath of war to secure the basis of reconstruction. This is a deliberate decision to upset the work of His Majesty's Government in Sarawak and to make that reconstruction work completely impossible.
  Mr. Stanley: Are we to understand that if any man, or an hon. Member of this House, takes the view that a Colony ought to be independent, he will not now be allowed to visit that Colony, in case he might stir up trouble against the Governor or the Government?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No such deductions should be drawn at all, but each of such cases must be treated on its merits. This is an effort deliberately to overthrow the responsible Constitution set up by the Government in Sarawak.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the fact that this House has a responsibility to see that any citizen of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations has justice, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is basing his case upon statements made in the American Press?

  2181
  If not, can he tell us if at any time an authoritative statement has been made by this gentleman which is consistent with the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made at the Despatch Box this afternoon?
  Mr. Creech Jones: We did not rely for our evidence on the American Press only. We had evidence drawn from the British Press. We know telegrams which have been sent in Sarawak, and we have reports of the activities of Mr. Brooke in respect of the inhabitants of Sarawak from the Governor of Sarawak himself. The evidence is pretty complete.
  Mr. Churchill: If Mr. Brooke has influence with the people of Sarawak, and if he conducts himself in a strictly constitutional and law-abiding manner, is there any reason why his influence should not play its part in allowing these people to form, and later on to express, their opinion about this matter?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The urgent need of Sarawak at the moment is that reconstruction should go on, that health services should be established, and the people should not be confused at this moment with another constitutional problem.
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Churchill: This last statement, phrase by phrase, and line by line, is the very perfect declaration of tyranny.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the Minister mean that he has or that he has not some evidence that this gentleman intended to commit some criminal offence? If he has such evidence, does he mean to bring him to trial?
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot compel a Minister to answer. If he does not choose to do so, that is his affair.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: Do right hon. Gentlemen wish to connive against the authority of His Majesty's Government or do they want to cause the same mischief in Sarawak as they want to do in India?
  Mr. Churchill: We are not on the side of Russian tyranny.
  Mr. Teeling: Were the seditious statements supposed to have been made by Mr. Brooke made before he left this country? If so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman do something to tell him that he could not enter the country, instead of saying that he could not get priority?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The answer is simple. Certain of these statements were made before we had knowledge that he had left the country. Some of them were also made after he left the country,
  Mr. H. Strauss: May I have an answer to my question?
  Mr. Teeling: On a point of Order. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply may we, Mr. Speaker, move the Adjournment of the House?
  Mr. Speaker: Such a Motion has to be put in proper form, and I have to accept it or reject it after having seen it.
  Mr. Teeling: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 8, to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of His Majesty's Government to allow Mr. Anthony Brooke to enter Sarawak.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked permission to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 8 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of His Majesty's Government to allow Mr. Anthony Brooke to enter Sarawak. I have not had much time to consider this, but in my view it does not come definitely under Rule 8. Certain facts have to be taken into consideration. One is that the refusal of a Government is not a usual ground. It is generally some action of the Government which is brought up. The second is that the facts do not appear to be entirely known, and it does seem to me to be a continuing matter but a matter which can be raised now or later, and there does not seem to me that definite urgency about it that comes under the Rule. The point which no doubt it is desired to argue is whether the right of refusal to an individual is the point at issue. That, after all, is not Mr. Brooke. It is a general proposition, and Rule 8 does not apply to general propositions. I think it is mainly on that

  2183
  ground that I shall have to reject this application.
  Mr. Stanley: On a point of Order. May I respectfully submit, as regards the definite nature of this matter, that the House adjourns tomorrow for five weeks? Meanwhile, this gentleman is in the Far East, refused admittance both to Sarawak and, we understand, Malaya. If it is impossible to raise the matter now, he will have to wait for five weeks until the House reassembles, before the matter could be considered. I am not raising the general question. I am raising the case of this particular man who has been refused admittance. I gathered from the answer of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that he had had full consultation with the Governor on the matter and he knew exactly the reasons for which he had been refused admission—including, no doubt, the full statement by the Governor in this morning's Press.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that tomorrow is an Adjournment day. It is perfectly true that I have announced some business but it could be taken then.
  Mr. Churchill: Do I take it from you, Sir, that it will be open for hon. Members to raise this question on the Adjournment tomorrow?
  Mr. Speaker: I hope we will be able to arrange that. Of course, it must be understood that I cannot give the full time to this subject, but a reasonable time could be allowed.
  Mr. Teeling: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House any statement to make upon the Business when we resume?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes Sir. I am bound to say I was beginning to feel a little neglected.
Tuesday, 21st January.—Second Reading of the Statistics of Trade Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
2184
Wednesday, 22nd January.—Report and Third Reading of the Agricultural Wages Bill and Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Bill.
Thursday, 23rd January.—Committee and remaining stages of Pensions (Increase) Bill; Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords] and Greenwich Hospital Bill [Lords] and Motions to approve Purchase Tax (Exemptions) No. 6 and No. 7 Orders.
Friday, 24th January.—Second Reading of the Malta (Reconstruction) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider an early Debate on foreign affairs when we return? Two days would be required for it. I feel that we ought to receive some account from the Foreign Secretary. There are many grave matters which require the attention of the House, and we certainly ask for a two-day Debate.
Mr. Morrison: We shall be willing to consider that through the usual channels. The House will appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not yet back and we have to study his convenience. It is conceivable that some rearrangement of the Business which I have announced may be necessary, or an opportunity might come a little later. We should be willing to discuss the matter through the usual channels and we will consider it. I am not sure about two days but we will consider that.
Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to two notices of Motion standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself in reference to the Standing Order relating to the Committee stage of any Bill?
[That paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 46 be amended by leaving out from the word "to," in line 2, to the end of the paragraph, and inserting the words "a Committee of the whole House, unless the House on Motion otherwise order; and such a Motion shall not require notice, must be made immediately after the Bill has been read a Second time, may be made by any Member and may, though opposed, be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed busi-

2185
ness and, if such Motion be opposed, Mr. Speaker, after permitting a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves and from a Member who opposes such Motion, respectively, shall, without further debate, put the question thereon; provided that no such Motion shall be made in respect of Bills for imposing taxes or Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bills, or in respect of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders."]
[That the order made by the House on 18th December, 1946, committing the Transport Bill to a Standing Committee of this House be read and discharged, and that the Transport Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.]
The proposal is that the first paragraph of Standing Order No. 46 should be amended so that ordinarily, instead of a Bill going to Standing Committee upstairs, it would be taken here in Committee of the Whole House. There is this addition, that there should be some guidance from the Minister as to the reasons which induce him to ask the House to take the Bill either in Standing Committee upstairs or here. We have no guidance at present. Might I also point out that this matter is urgent inasmuch as the House decided last night that the Transport Bill should not be taken on the Floor of the House but in a Standing Committee. Would it be possible to have these two Motions discussed at a very early date?
Mr. Morrison: I have seen these Motions. I am bound to say that I am getting a little worried about the increasingly reactionary tendencies of the Liberal Party.
Mr. Churchill: I thought the right hon. Gentleman had got them in his pocket.
Mr. Morrison: I am apprehensive that the Liberal Whip is putting them in the right hon. Gentleman's pocket. I think that will be a pity. I do not propose to give facilities for these Motions. I do not know —it will be for Mr. Speaker to rule—but the second one seems to me to be in direct conflict with the decision reached by the House last night. I should have thought it was out of Order. With regard to the first one, this Standing Order has existed for a long time. If we are now to get into a position in which it is to be presumed that the Committee stages of Bills have 10 be taken on the Floor of the House, and the Government have to make a case if they wish to send one to Stand-
2186
ing Committee upstairs, which would be subject to lengthy debate, I think it would be a very backward move. I propose to follow the views of the Liberal Government which invented the Standing Order.
Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether he would give time for the matter to be debated and not to say what line he would take when the Debate came on.
Mr. Morrison: I think I have made it clear that I do not propose to give time for the matter to be debated.
Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the passenger plane proceeding this morning from Northolt to Glasgow and Aberdeen crashed after leaving the airport, and also, that these continuing mishaps are disturbing the minds of the travelling public, would my right hon. Friend be prepared to give some time for a Debate to inquire into the matter in the House? I am well aware that inquiries are proceeding with regard to previous happenings, but while the inquiries proceed the mishaps continue.
Mr. Speaker: I do not quite follow what connection this has with the question of Business to be taken when we reassemble.
Sir Arnold Gridley: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Electricity Bill is likely to be in the Vote Office, and if there is any possibility of its being taken in the second week after we reassemble?
Mr. Morrison: This must not be taken as quite certain, but I think it is almost certain that the Electricity Bill will be presented in dummy tomorrow. So will the Town and Country Planning Bill. The latter will be a very interesting Bill. It is intended that these Bills shall be published quite early in the New Year, well before the resumption of the House, so that hon. Members may have a chance to study them. I have announced the Business for the first week after we come back and I must reserve complete freedom to decide that one or other, or both, of these Bills, and the Agriculture Bill. may come on at any time thereafter.
Brigadier Head: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give time for a Debate on the Army, in place of the one which was recently postponed?
Mr. Morrison: That Debate was postponed because of a demand by the Opposition for two days for the India Debate. It could have been held if the India Debate had occupied only one day, but the Opposition preferred India. We did what they asked. It was convenient at that time. There was time available but the time has now gone, and I cannot automatically be held to the promise that the Army should be debated.
Mr. Churchill: Did not the right hon. Gentleman promise, most explicitly, that there would be two days for the Debate on India? What has that to do with the Army Debate? It is another question altogether. He promised—and it was admitted when we mentioned the matter —that there should be a two-day Debate on India. Why should that be brought up now, as an argument against a Debate on the Army, which the Government at that time considered so urgent?
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is now trying to make me a victim of my own kindness and generosity. The Opposition wished to have two days for the Debate on India and two days were given. They had asked for an Army day, and it happened that time was available and was given to the India Debate. I am willing to discuss the matter through the usual channels, but I must make it clear that I can give no undertaking that time will now be available. There is a limited number of days, and when the Opposition have taken one specially, as they did for the India Debate—I may say, against the advice of the Government, and against the wishes of everybody except the Conservative Party —they cannot automatically preserve the right which they gave up.
Mr. Tiffany: May I ask the Leader of the House when the Agriculture Bill will be available?
Mr. Morrison: The Bill is in the Vote Office now.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of the request for a Debate on foreign affairs, is the Leader of the House aware that, yesterday, a most important announcement was made in an answer to a written Question about the authorisation of a loan of £10 million to Austria, and that some of us who did not get the opportunity to ask supplementary questions would like to be assured that there will be a discussion on it?
Mr. Morrison: I should have thought that it would be perfectly competent to raise it in the Debate—if it happens— on foreign affairs.
Mr. Churchill: May I give the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House notice, for his convenience and his generosity, that, when Parliament reassembles, we shall ask him to afford us an opportunity for a Vote of Censure?
Mr. Morrison: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, as he is in such a courteous mood, would add to his courtesy by telling me what it is about? What are we to be censured for? [An HON. MEMBER: "Incompetence."] I should like to have notice of what it is about.
Mr. Churchill: I should not attempt to draft the Motion at this moment, but tyranny, conceit and incompetence would be the substance of it.
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I might suggest to the House that we have a Royal Commission at 4.15 p.m., and that there are still two other items to be disposed of before we get on to the Orders of the Day.
Mr. Clement Davies Mr. Clement Davies rose—
Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. You gave a Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the question raised by the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), with regard to giving a day for a discussion on civil aviation. I want to know how it was out of Order for him to ask the Leader of the House to grant a day to discuss this matter.
Mr. Speaker: I did not realise that the hon. Member was doing that. He seemed to me to be telling a long story about accidents.
Mr. Rankin: My point was whether, in view of the continuing mishaps in civil aviation, it is within the province of this House to have a day or part of a day to inquire into these matters.
Mr. Morrison: I think the best course my hon. Friend can take is to put down a question. If the reply is not satisfactory, he can then give notice that he will then raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment, but I do not think a case has been made out for special time.
Mr. Rankin: May I say that my reason for raising the matter here is because, five months ago, there was a disaster in the Kirkpatrick Hills, and that, in spite of pressure, we have still had no report upon it?
Mr. C. Davies: May I ask a question about the possibility of time for a discussion of the two Motions I have mentioned, because it is a vital matter for this House? I realise that a Standing Order has been in existence for a very long time, but this Government are now tending to send more and more important Bills, which, in the past, have been taken on the Floor of the House, to Standing Committees upstairs, and they are doing so without any explanation whatever. I should have thought it in the best interests of this House that this question should be discussed. May I, therefore, ask for further consideration of the request for time for a Debate on these Motions?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir; certainly not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the simple reason that the House has already debated the matter. Yes, months ago. The House has had a Debate on Procedure, and I made it abundantly clear to the House that the attitude of this Government was that Bills of this sort should go upstairs and that the only Bills which we bound ourselves to keep on the Floor of the House were Finance Bills and Bills of serious, fundamental, constitutional importance, which this Bill is not. It was also shown that the policy of this Government on this matter—and it was accepted by both sides of the House —was the policy of a number of Ministers who had collectively considered it, in the previous Government. The House accepted that, and the Government are not willing to move from their position.
Mr. Churchill: Are there any precedents at all for the major Bills of the Session being sent upstairs to a Standing Committee? I am not aware that that matter was ever discussed. The right hon. Gentleman refers to precedents in former Liberal Administrations, but I am quite certain, without reflecting in any way upon a decision of this House, that major Bills should be discussed in the House, where everyone can have a chance of taking part in the Committee stage.
Mr. Morrison: Everybody will have a chance on the Report stage. I said that the Standing Order if I remember rightly —and I may be wrong, but I do not think so—was brought about by a Liberal Government. How far they took advantage of it, I do not know. This Government are bringing in more major Bills. That was the idea of this Government, and the idea of the electorate, and this is one of the means whereby this socially necessary legislative programme can be brought about. If the right hon. Gentleman can convince me that we are even doing things for which there is no precedent, I tell him that that does not frighten me in the least. It is one of the things for which this Government exist.
Mr. Pickthorn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's statement about what he made abundantly clear on an earlier occasion, rest upon the assumption that the word "constitutional" can have only the meaning which his convenience attaches to it?
Mr. Morrison: I have done my best to be a student of constitutional history and constitutional matters, and I would say, for example, that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, which gave the Executive wide powers to legislate by delegated powers, was a Bill of a constitutional character. We took it on the Floor of the House. This Bill, which merely determines—[HON. MEMBERS: "Merely."]—Yes, merely determines who is going to own and manage the transport undertakings of this country, has nothing whatever to do with the British Constitution, or the British way of life.
Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the new practice of taking major Bills, which used to be taken on the Floor of the House, in Committee upstairs, the result of the acceptance by this House of the unanimous Report of a Select Committee on Procedure, of which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was a Member?
Mr. Morrison: My memory of that is not so clear, and I would not commit myself, but I am bound to say that I have a hazy recollection of it just as my hon. Friend has a precise recollection. So I really think the Leader of the Liberal Party is in the soup.
Mr. Speaker: I think we should be getting on.
Mr. Churchill: May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is of very great importance, and one on which a large number of hon. Gentlemen feel strongly?
Mr. Speaker: All the same, it is developing into an irregular Debate, covering the Second Reading of a Bill which was passed yesterday and now, apparently, two Motions which appear on the Order Paper.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. Piratin: I am grateful for being given the opportunity of making a statement in regard to my nationality, which was recently called in question. In the course of the Debate on India, on 12th December, I was described as a "foreign Communist," Subsequently, the words "a Communist of foreign descent" were substituted, but the original inference was not withdrawn. In order that there may be no misunderstanding either as to my nationality or my allegiance, I wish to make it clear that I am a British subject by birth. My father was a Russian. He found refuge in this country, as many before him had done with gratitude, after fleeing from Tsarist persecution in his own country. While it is true, therefore, that I am of foreign descent, that description would apply to many British-born subjects in some degree. For my part, I would merely emphasise that I am a British subject and that I have never considered myself as having any other allegiance.
Earl Winterton Earl Winterton rose—
Mr. Speaker: I did not gather that the noble Lord came into this.
Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. In the first place, I should like to say that, if the factual statement which I made gave any offence to the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry. Now, Sir, I desire to make a personal statement. In the course of the—
Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member cannot make personal statements without getting leave from the Chair. The noble Lord coolly says, "I am going to make a personal statement." There is nothing in the statement of the hon. Member for Mile
2192
End (Mr. Piratin) which calls for a reply of any kind. As far as it has gone, the noble Lord said that he was sorry if he had hurt the hon. Member's feelings, which is as far as anybody could rightly go.
Earl Winterton: On a further point of Order. It must be in your recollection. Sir, that I told you yesterday that I proposed to ask permission to make a personal statement arising out of an attack which was made on me by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) on the same occasion, which I will read out.
Mr. Speaker: Am I to understand that the noble Lord gave notice to the hon. Member for Mile End that he was going to make a personal statement arising out of an attack which he made on him?
Mr. Churchill: No, arising out of an attack made by the hon. Member on the noble Lord.
Mr. Speaker: Arising out of an attack which the hon. Member for Mile End made on the noble Lord. Is that right?
Earl Winterton: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Did the noble Lord give the hon. Member notice?
Earl Winterton: I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What is the good of giving me notice when the hon. Member for Mile End is concerned? It is not for me to say to the hon. Member for Mile End, "The noble Lord has made a personal attack upon you." Really, I am surprised.
Earl Winterton: I am sorry, but I must ask for your Ruling, Sir, on what is really a very serious matter. You do not permit me to read out the words of the attack which the hon. Member for Mile End made on me. I ask your permission to reply to the very serious charge made against me by the hon. Member. Do I understand you to say that I am not permitted to reply to that charge?
Mr. Speaker: I certainly think that the noble Lord should give the hon. Member notice before he attempts to do so. That is the normal custom of this House, and that is what happened the other day when the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) made a statement in the House, correcting what he appeared to have said about the noble Lord being present in

2193
1871 when the Army Regulation Bill was discussed. That is the ordinary custom. One writes to the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Mile End came to me and said that the noble Lord had hurt his feelings. I said, "Write to the noble Lord." He came again yesterday and I said, "Give the noble Lord notice." Has the noble Lord given the hon. Member any notice that he wants to raise the matter? I think that the usual custom should be observed.
Mr. Churchill: On a point of Order. Is it not the right of an hon. Member who considers himself impugned to make a personal explanation, quite independent of any letter he may be required to write or notice he may be required to give to any other Private Member, and if that hon. Member has informed the Chair, is he not entitled to give a personal explanation, if he so desires?
Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that the chance for the noble Lord to say something was when those words were first used, and that he would have got up at once and protested against them. The noble Lord is not usually slow in doing that. It is laid down in Erskine May that:
"General arguments or observations beyond the fair bounds of explanation or too distinct a reference to previous debates are out of order…."
The noble Lord would have to go back to this Debate and I am afraid that I am bound to rule that out of Order.
Earl Winterton: I want to get your Ruling quite clear, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have now ruled that although a most serious charge of a most wounding character was made against me —the hon. Member accused me of being a murderer—I am not allowed to refute that statement now, or at any other time. Is that your Ruling, Sir?
Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord now says that the hon. Member for Mile End accused him of murder. All I am laying down is that I think that the noble Lord should write to the hon. Member and say, "I propose to raise the matter in the House." He could do it tomorrow morning if he liked.
Mr. Churchill: Apart from this particular incident, I am anxious to know, for my own future guidance and that of other
2194
hon. Members, what is the Ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, are giving in regard to the right to make a personal explanation. Is it now to be laid down that no personal explanation may be made, even after you, Sir, have been consulted, unless the hon. Member who has made some allegation about the Member concerned has already been notified, and should he be notified verbally or in writing, and, if in writing, in what form?
Mr. Speaker: To start with, Erskine May says that permission to make personal statements should be granted as rarely as possible, and that it is not a matter to be encouraged. But I say, quite frankly, that I think if one is aggrieved, one either raises the matter at once and protests against what has been said, or else, if one reads it in HANSARD afterwards, one writes to the hon. Member making the allegation and says, "I am aggrieved by what you have said, and I propose to make a personal explanation regarding what you have said at the earliest possible moment." That Ruling has operated all the time that I have been in this House, and it has the effect of keeping up the old courtesies of the House, which I think are so necessary.
Earl Winterton: Do I understand, Sir, that it would be out of Order for me to assure you, the House and the hon. Member for Mile End that I am not, as he has suggested, a murderer?
Mr. Speaker: Without knowing what the words were, I should really be surprised to learn that a real charge of murder was made.
Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I would like to know if it is in Order for the noble Lord to raise the matter now, in view of the fact that he had the Floor when the alleged accusation was made; and, having the Floor, why did he not say something about it then?
Mr. Speaker: We cannot go back into that matter now.
Mr. Charles Williams Mr. Charles Williams rose—
Mr. H. Morrison: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker Is there any way, in Order, that you can suggest whereby the House can be protected against these repeated arid frivolous attempts to waste time?
Mr. C. Williams: Following the point of Order which we have been discussing, may I, with very' great respect, say that page 354 of the edition of Erskine May edited by Sir Gilbert Campion, goes on to say:
"though a Member has been permitted by the Speaker to make, at a subsequent sitting, an explanation regarding alleged misrepresentation in debate …"
Of course, I absolutely accept your Ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but, with that further quotation, and, having looked at the matter fully in HANSARD, I very respectfully suggest that it might be fair to the noble Lord to allow a rather full explanation of what the noble Lord said on that occasion by way of apology.
Mr. Speaker: I think we have finished with the matter now. I do not think we need go any further.

U.S.S.R. DELEGATION (VISIT)
Mr. Speaker: I am glad to inform the House that I have heard from the President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. that the invitation extended by both Houses of Parliament for a visit of a delegation of Deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. to the United Kingdom has been accepted. They are expected to arrive at the end of February next.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put, ''That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from
the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison. ]
The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 92.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EXCHANGE CONTROL BILL
  As amended, considered.
  EXCHANGE CONTROL BILL

    CLAUSE 5 (Payments in the United Kingdom.)
    4.33 p.m.
    Mr. John Foster: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "person," to insert "resident in the United Kingdom."
    The reason for this Amendment is that the Clause, as drafted, is, in the submission of my hon. Friends and myself, much too wide. The effect of this Clause is to extend jurisdiction, under this Bill, to persons in every part of the world. There is a subsequent Clause in the Bill -Clause 42-which says that the Bill shall apply to everybody. It says, in terms, that it shall
    "apply to all persons, notwithstanding that they are not in the United Kingdom and are not British subjects."
    There is another Clause which has to be read in conjunction with that, namely. Clause 35, which applies this Bill to all Government Departments and says in
    2200
    Subsection (2) that in the definition ot "Government Departments" shall be included
    "reference to any department of, or person acting on behalf of … any of His Majesty's Governments outside the United Kingdom."
    In the light of those two Clauses the expression "person" in Clause 5, which we are seeking to amend, becomes of great importance, because the effect of Clause 5 is to say that no person in the world-and "no person" includes any Government of any Dominion-shall do certain things. This is the main operative Clause forbidding people to place sums to the credit of other persons, either in England or outside England, as the case may be. For instance, Clause 5 (a) says no person shall
    "make any payment to or for the credit of a person resident outside the scheduled territories."
    It says that no person shall do it in the United Kingdom. But it is not necessary, under this Clause, for the person to be in the United Kingdom. I think the Government would probably admit that is a proper construction of this Clause. That is what is sought to be prevented under this Clause, in relation to an action in the United Kingdom when the

    2201
    person may be in any part of the world. Let me put that in another way, in order to clear my own mind. Clause 5 seeks to prevent any person—which includes anybody in the world, including the Government of a Dominion—from doing certain things in this country. It seems to us that such a Clause is unnecessarily wide. First, it is contrary to the privilege of nations for a Government to seek to make it a criminal offence for persons outside, say, the United Kingdom to do certain acts inside the United Kingdom.
    The proper way, in accordance with international law—there are certain exceptions but, in my submission, this does not come within the exceptions—is for the jurisdiction of England to operate on the person in the United Kingdom, and if somebody outside the United Kingdom seeks to break our Exchange Regulations the criminal law ought to operate on his agent in this country, and not on himself. Consider this instance. Somebody in Switzerland seeks to make a payment to an American who is resident outside the United Kingdom, but who happens to be in London. In my submission, it is wrong for the United Kingdom to seek to make that Swiss person subject to our criminal law. The right way of doing it is to make the provision operate on the agent of the Swiss person in this country, who may be a banker or other agent, and to make it a criminal offence on his part to make the payment to the American citizen.
    The other aspect in relation to this provision which is unconstitutional is, as I say, in connection with Clause 35, which says that "person" shall include any Dominion Government. In my submission, it is unconstitutional for the United Kingdom Government to seek to make the Government of a Dominion, such as Australia or New Zealand, amenable to our criminal or civil law by saying they shall or shall not do certain things in their own country. I read the two Clauses together. It would be contrary to the provisions of the Clause for the Australian Government in Canberra, or for a department of that Government, to order the payment by their agent in this country to a resident outside the United Kingdom who happened to be in this country. During the Committee stage we were assured that that reading was not correct. If it is not, I should very much like the
    2202
    learned Solicitor-General or the Financial Secretary to tell us why those two Clauses should not be read together.
    The third point, which is also connected with the Dominions, is that it is not right for this country to seek to impose its legislation inside a Dominion, even if it is right for this country to make offences by persons outside this country offences against our law. What I mean is this. Suppose the argument I addressed in regard to the Swiss subject—

  ROYAL ASSENT
  4.39 p.m.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
  The House went; and having returned—
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1946.

  2. Ministry of Defence Act, 1946.

  3. Unemployment and Family Allowances (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1946.

  4. Royal Marines Act, 1946.

  5. St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act, 1946.

  6. Arbroath Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1946.

  7. London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1946.

  EXCHANGE CONTROL BILL
  Consideration, as amended, resumed.
  EXCHANGE CONTROL BILL

    CLAUSE 5.—(Payments in the United Kingdom.)
    4.50 p.m.
    Mr. Foster: My third point was that even if it was considered right for this Bill to forbid people outside the United Kingdom from making certain payments in the United Kingdom, it is unconstitutional for this country to seek to make acts by persons in the Dominion illegal by a single Act of Parliament. The proper constitutional position, in my submission, is that the Dominions should pass their own legislation, to supplement the legislation in this country. In other words, in certain cases it is quite proper for an

    2203
    Act of Parliament to say, for instance, that a merchant seaman abroad who may not be a British subject, shall not do such and such a thing, but that that should be restricted to persons outside the British Commonwealth. Under the Statute of Westminster, the legislation of each Dominion should be complementary to that of other Dominions and complementary to that of the United Kingdom. Therefore, if it is the desire of Parliament here to make an act by an Australian, committed in the United Kingdom, but ordered or initiated by an Australian in Australia, illegal; if it is the desire of the United Kingdom to make that act, started in Australia but having further consequences in the United Kingdom, illegal, then the Australian Parliament should pass the requisite legislation. I submit to the House that it is unconsitutional under the practices of the Statute of Westminster, to seek to assume jursidiction over Australian or Dominion subjects.
    Those are three reasons why this Amendment should be accepted, and I would ask the Government spokesman, when he deals with the Amendment, to inform us whether it is correct that the word "person", which we are seeking to amend, includes persons outside the United Kingdom, but who nevertheless commit acts inside the United Kingdom. In that connection, I invite the Solicitor-General to look at Clause 42 (5), which says that this Bill shall apply to everyone in the world. In terms it says:
    "The obligations and prohibitions, imposed by this Act shall, subject to the expressed limitations contained therein, apply to all persons, notwithstanding that they are not in the United Kingdom and are not British subjects."
    In the light of that Clause, I ask whether it is correct to say that the word "person" includes everyone in the world, and applies to persons if they happen to commit some act in the United Kingdom contrary to this Clause. I invite the Solicitor-General also to look at Clause 35, and say whether the word "person" includes a Dominion Government, and whether the word "person" in Clause 5 includes a Dominion, and if so, whether a Dominion Government which orders or initiates the act to take place in England, does not contravene the Clause in question with the civil and criminal consequences laid down in the Bill. I seriously ask the
    2204
    Government to consider whether in the light of these Clauses, the word "person" is not too widely drawn, and whether some limitation should not be put in
    Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to second the Amendment. I wish to make two further points in support of what has been so ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). To begin with, I ask the House to appreciate the difference between small payments which are de minimis, and about which the Government intend that this Bill shall not concern itself, and the big sums for which it is necessary to have the financial machinery built up by the City of London for the benefit of this nation. I draw a very big distinction between the payment of a pound note out of one's pocket, in other words payments which can easily be made between persons, and payments which are so big that they can be be made only through the normal financial machinery. I would point out that under Clause 5 the Government have full control over all the authorised agents, because although a person in Australia may be doing an act in London, in directing the authorised agent to pay some money to an American resident, the authorised agent will be caught under this Clause and the Government may be absolutely safe, because the agent cannot then carry out the instruction.
    The second point arises out of Clause 41. We are not, in moving this Amendment, seeking to wreck this Bill. We want a really good and watertight Bill, and we are out to cooperate to achieve that end. If there are people resident outside the United Kingdom, whom we really desire to bring under this Clause, then let us turn to Clause 41 under which the Treasury have power to define who are, and who are not residents. The Government have a perfectly good wicket-keeper and long-stop; here they have another long-stop. There is the further advantage that, if the House accepts the distinction between small payments, which need no machine, and the big payments, which require a big machine, this meets the point raised by my hon. Friend on Second Reading of an American who gets his money through an authorised dealer, comes to stay in this country with his wife, cashes his first travellers' cheque, and cannot, within the strict interpretation of this Bill,

    2205
    give his wife £1. It is a fantastic situation, but that is the law we are passing; the American cannot take out a pound note, cashed through the authorised machine, and hand it over to his wife, because she is a person resident outside the scheduled territory. If this Amendment is accepted, we shall be releasing all the small "minimos" and "minimas" while nevertheless catching all the bigger payments because they have to go through the normal machine. In other words, both the big man—the finance Minister of Australia, for example—and the little man who is giving his wife something with which to go out shopping or buy herself a lunch, will if this Amendment is accepted, be permitted to do these acts and yet the Act will still effectively catch the transactions it is desired to catch within the terms of what will thus be a reasonable set-up.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) said he was anxious to cooperate to make this a sound, watertight, scheme of control, and I entirely accept that from him. He based his argument on the case of an American who he said under the Bill could not give a pound to his wife to spend. We have said that that case will be dealt with by exemption; now the hon. Gentleman asks why we could not do the same thing by accepting this Amendment.
    Mr. Pitman: It is appreciated, I suppose, that each payment has to be authorised?
    The Solicitor-General: General exemptions can be made under Clause 31. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when he made his general statement on this Clause, indicated the way in which the Clause will be used. The hon. Gentleman says that something could be done to meet the point by accepting this Amendment. I want to show why I do not think this is so, and in answering his argument, I will at the same time, I hope, answer the argument of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). Suppose we did accept this Amendment, what would be the consequence? It would mean that only persons who were resident, were controlled in the matters set out in Clause 5. That would at once give rise to the possibility of very
    2206
    extensive evasion. There are several methods which might be used for the purpose of evasion, that is to say, if anybody other than a person resident in the United Kingdom, should do the things which are prohibited by Clause 5. For instance, you might get the case of a foreign company wanting to get assets from this country, using the services of a person who travelled between the two countries. It would be easy, by getting that person to change his residence to make him, first, a resident, so that he could acquire the asset which it was desired to transfer abroad. By giving up his house, hotel, or flat and acquiring a flat or furnished rooms abroad, he could change his residence and then he would be free to transfer the asset which he had acquired. That sort of thing could be done, and if it were done, it would lead to extensive evasion. Other kinds of evasion would be possible; I have selected that type as one which would be possible if the Amendment were accepted. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Amendment would in that case destroy the effect of Clause 5, and make evasion easy.
    I want to say a word or two about the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Northwich. He said that the way to do this was to make only the person who was resident, or an agent in the country amenable to criminal jurisdiction, which could be set in motion in the event of a breach of the provisions of the Clause. If the hon. Member looks at the Fifth Schedule he will see that that is precisely what is done. If hon. Members look at page 39 they will see that in so far as the impact of the criminal provisions of this Bill are concerned, they affect only persons resident in the United Kingdom. The Bill does what the hon. Member said it should do. The criminal administration which is dealt with by that part of the Fifth Schedule affects only persons in, or resident in, the United Kingdom. The hon. Member said that it would be an offence if the Australian Government directed their agent in this country to effect a payment contrary to he provisions of Clause 5. That point was fully discussed in the Committee stage, on Clause 35, and I think Members on both sides were satisfied with the argument I used on that occasion. The argument was that the Bill would affect the agent here, but would not alter the law of Australia in the least. No doubt

    2207
    instructions by the Australian Government to their agent here might be affected by the fact that the agent could not carry them out. I also said that the question of whether it was affected, and the degree to which it was affected, would have to be determined by Australian law, which would remain unaltered.
    I submit to the House that the provisions of Clause 5 do not infringe in any way Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. They do not alter the Australian law. The hon. Member suggested that the Bill has some territorial effect, that it affects the Government of Australia. That is true of any other Act. Take any other Act which imposes a prohibition on something in this country. In a sense it is extra-territorial, because if any person outside the jurisdiction comes into the jurisdiction, he is prohibited from doing that Act. In the sense in which any Act imposes a prohibition it affects Governments, and everybody, abroad. It makes it impossible for a person to come here from abroad and do what is prohibited by the provisions of the Act. That is what is done by Clause 5. So, the argument based on the question of whether this Bill has extra-territorial effect does not hold water. Constitutionally, the Clause is not objectionable and the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Northwich are not well-founded. As I have said, if we accepted the Amendment it would wreck the Bill in the sense that it would make it easy to evade the prohibitions of this Clause. For those reasons, although I have listened carefully and sympathetically to the arguments which have been adduced, I ask the House to say that this Amendment should not be accepted.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This is a very odd form of legislation. The Solicitor-General has told us that we are quite safe in legislating against people who are neither in, nor resident in, the United Kingdom, because if they break the law, they can be punished. That is putting, in a nutshell, what he has told us.
    The Solicitor-General: They can only break it while they are here.
    Mr. Reid: I take it that under this Clause there are prohibitions which affect people who are neither in nor resident in the United Kingdom, but if these people choose to contravene these prohibitions,
    2208
    then the law is powerless because they have committed no offence. I have never seen any legislation like that. I always thought that it was quite wrong for the legislature to put on the Statute Book prohibitions which there were no means of enforcing. The usual means of enforcing a prohibition is to make it an offence for one to contravene the prohibition, and I cannot understand why the Solicitor-General having said that he does not propose to attach any consequences, criminal or otherwise, to a breach of a prohibition by persons not in the United Kingdom nevertheless wants to maintain this paper prohibition against them. That is what the learned Solicitor-General has said. He shakes his head, but let me try to get this right, because I believe that this question goes much deeper than the merits or demerits of this particular Amendment.
    Do I understand that, although the Bill, in many places, goes out of its way to prohibit actions by persons who are neither in nor resident in the United Kingdom, it nevertheless, at a later stage, makes it clear that persons outside the United Kingdom can break the law with impunity? That, I take it, is the Solicitor-General's argument—that because they can break the law with impunity, this. House ought to pass this Clause. I never heard an argument like that before. I should be interested to learn what is the interest of His Majesty's Government to have a prohibition against those persons who are outside their jurisdiction at present, and who, even when they come within the jurisdiction, can never be proceeded against. Surely, it is a fundamental rule of legislation that we ought not to legislate, in the general case, against acts committed by people when they are out of the jurisdiction, because we cannot catch those people, and not prosecute and punish them. There is a case, sometimes, for legislating against acts committed by people outside the jurisdiction, because we may say that it is important to do everything we can to stop these acts, and the effect of the prohibition will be that when they come back within the jurisdiction we can prosecute them, although it may be months or years later. But that is not this case. The Solicitor-General agrees that although a non-resident person commits a prohibited act outside the jurisdiction today and comes in tomorrow, he cannot be touched,

    2209
    because although he committed the act he was neither in nor resident in the United Kingdom. Yet he insists that we must prohibit him from doing it. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will give us some justification for this—I will not say unprecedented, because if is always rash to say that—highery irregular form of legislation, and a form of legislation which, on general principles, is peculiarly objectionable. If he will give us that justification, we shall listen to it with interest. I ask him what is the interest of His Majesty's Government in putting this very odd form of legislation into the Bill.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head (Mr. Reid) is such a convincing speaker that whenever he addresses the House on a matter such as this, one is almost persuaded against one's will and better sense to agree with him. This Amendment is a very good example of the capacity which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has for making the worse appear the better cause. May I say, with all respect to him, that I am surprised that this proposal should have attracted his support. First, the Amendment seeks to do what, to my mind, is a most remarkable thing. The Clause with which we are dealing is found in the context of a Bill which is seeking to establish financial control over a large domain of financial dealings. I am not arguing whether the Bill is right or wrong for this purpose. But there is embodied in this Bill a principle, and either that principle remains or it goes. If it remains, we cannot possibly justify whittling it down in any way, because the principle is directed towards preventing an attack on our economic position in relation to overseas finance, and on the vital question of exporting capital. If this Amendment were accepted it would undermine the whole structure of the Bill. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why. Here we have a Clause the opening words of which read as follows:
    "Except with the permission of the Treasury, no person shall do any of the following things."
    It then goes on to recite certain prohibitions against the making of certain payments, which is absolutely fundamental to the principle of this Bill. What the right
    2210
    hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to do is plainly this: He wants to overturn the whole machinery, and effect of this, because he says "what you must do is not to limit it to the act of any person whatsoever, but limit it to the act of a person 'resident in the United Kingdom'." I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be "taken in" quite as easily as that, because all that anyone who wants to subvert the whole of these fundamental provisions of this Bill has to do, is merely to take himself out of the Kingdom and do anything which the Bill says he ought not to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Just let us see. It says here that no person resident in the United Kingdom shall make certain payments— fundamental to this Bill. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman subscribing to the view that all that is needed is to have someone outside the Kingdom who can make these payments, and then that is not to be wrong and not to be included within the scope of this Bill? If that is his idea, it absolutely overturns the whole provisions of this Bill and makes nonsense of it. Clause 41 (2) confers upon the Treasury the right to direct when or when not a man has taken residence or is not resident in this country. It is absolutely otiose and futile, in my submission, to confer that power on the Treasury under Clause 41 and take it away in the way with which it is sought to take it away, in this particular Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, feeling not too secure about his point, and not too happy about this Amendment, goes on to argue that the learned Solicitor-General—as I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's submission— said: "If these wrongs occurred outside and the man came back, you could not get at him or punish him at all." First, I do not accept that the Solicitor-General said any such thing, and secondly, that would not be the position. It is because of Clause 41(2), and because of the language of this Measure, that it involves the transgressor in the wrong of what he is doing, and when he is in this country he could undoubtedly receive the attention which the Government would give him because of that matter. Therefore, because of the wide and fundamental financial policy at the foundation of this Bill, because of Clause 41(2), and for the sake of being consistent and of giving

    2211
    effect to the machinery of this Measure, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I want to put one or two questions to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, and I refrain with reluctance from putting to him the really difficult question whether or not he agrees with the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, if I understood his argument correctly, said that so unlimited were the actions which the Government could take under Clause 41 that it does not really matter what we do with Clause 5. That may, indeed, conceivably be the right view.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is the hon. and learned Member's view, and not mine.
    Mr. Strauss: My own view of the best way of making Clause 5 sensible was contained in the proviso which I proposed in Committee, and about which I shall say nothing now; but, if I understood the Solicitor-General correctly, he said, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), that some additional safeguard, or some step towards meeting what would otherwise be the absurd position that would arise, is to be found in the Fifth Schedule particularly on page 39. I want, if I can, to follow what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant. Is he referring to paragraph 1 of Part II on page 39?
    The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General indicated assent.
    Mr. Strauss: In that case, I cannot see that it takes us any further, because it refers to
    "Any person in or resident in…"
    Either qualification brings the person within the mischief of that paragraph. The words "any person in" occur also in Clause 5, which we are now considering. Does the Solicitor-General suggest that any additional limitation or protection is afforded by the Fifth Schedule which is not already found in the Clause we are considering? I cannot find any further limitation. The other questions I wish to ask him refer to Clause 41 and Clause 42 (5). I imagine
    2212
    that the powers given to the Treasury under Clause 41 (2):
    "The Treasury may give directions declaring that for all or any of the purposes of this Act a person is to be treated as resident or not resident in such territories as may be specified in the directions."
    apply equally to the Schedules and to the clauses of the Measure. I imagine the Solicitor-General will agree with me in that. Therefore, if the possibilities under the combined effect of Clause 5 and Clause (2) are as unlimited and as ridiculous as the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester believes them to be, how are we protected in any way by what appears in the Fifth Schedule? I think that the Solicitor-General now gathers the purport of my inquiries. The only other question I would add is that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich, to which I think the Solicitor-General has not yet replied, namely, the effect of Clause (5), which seems to extend the obligations to everybody in the world.
    The Solicitor-General: To deal with the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman slightly misunderstood what I intended to say. If one looks at Clause 42 (5), one sees, as I said in Committee, that it imposes an obligation or prohibition only subject to express limitations. In this particular case, one looks to Clause 5 to see whether there is any express limitation. One finds that there is, because the express limitation is to persons who are resident in the United Kingdom or persons who are in— [Interruption.] The limitation there is to persons who are in the United Kingdom. The Clause reads:
    "…no person shall do any of the following things in the United Kingdom…."
    Mr. Strauss: Not "resident in the United Kingdom."
    The Solicitor-General: May I complete my argument? When a Clause provides that a person shall not do a thing in the United Kingdom, the converse, that he may do it outside the United Kingdom, is a necessary inference. Therefore, one has a limitation which is to be imported into Clause 42 (5) when one is applying that particular Subsection to any particular person. One finds that the only obligation upon the person is not, in the

    2213
    United Kingdom, to take a particular course of action.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: He need not be in the United Kingdom to do an act in the United Kingdom.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, certainly. He only does the thing when it is in the United Kingdom and when he is in the United Kingdom himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In any case, whatever the precise effect of that limitation is, there is the limitation. It is a limitation in the sense that Clause 5 only imposes a limited obligation and that limited obligation has to be read together with Clause 42 (5). Then one reads that subject to the further limitation as to the taking of criminal proceedings which is contained in the Fifth Schedule, paragraph (1) of Part II, because it is only persons who are in or resident in who contravene the Measure and can be proceeded against criminally under the provisions of that Part.
    Mr. H. Strauss: It is no addition.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, it is. One has first the limitation in Clause 5. That imposes a limitation on the general scope of Clause 42 (5), so that there is no general obligation in so far as Clause 5 is concerned which is imposed upon anybody anywhere in the world. It is the specific limited obligation contained in Clause 5. One then turns to the Fifth Schedule to see upon whom the criminal liability is imposed in terms of the Fifth Schedule. I submit to the House that that is a perfectly sensible construction of the Measure, and I ask the House to say that it does not involve the consequences that were indicated by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead and the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) in their speeches in support of the Amendment; and inasmuch as the Amendment, if it were accepted, would completely wreck Clause 5 and make it quite impossible to work it, because of the opportunities which it would afford for evasion, which I indicated when first I addressed the House, I ask the House to say that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. I. J. Pitman: I want to put a question to the Solicitor-General and I hope he will give me a straightforward answer. In a particular case he alleged that evasion would take place. He instanced the case of an American company in this country, which had considerable balances. Would not the answer to that be that under Clause 41 an American company would be held by the Treasury to be resident in this country?
    The Solicitor-General: Not it the Amendment were accepted.
    Mr. Pitman: Yes, if the Amendment were accepted it would apply to people who are resident in the country, and the Treasury then defines as a resident in the country, that particular American subsidiary, or branch, for the purposes of the Bill. That does not seem at all unreasonable, having regard to the way in which American companies which are subsidiaries of British companies, are not regarded as American companies. The other point with which I am concerned is when a company would transfer notes to some traveller going outside. That company would immediately be caught by Clause 5, so that for that transaction a company would be caught twice under this Clause.
    Mr. H. Strauss rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): We cannot have two speeches from the hon. and learned Member, who has already spoken on this matter. If he desires, however, he can put a short question.
    Mr. Strauss: I want to put a question. I fully appreciate the Solicitor-General's point that a limitation arises in the Schedule as well as in the Clause. My point is that the same limitation is created by the meaning of that phrase, "in the United Kingdom" in both places. The people to whom this applies can be decided both in the Schedule and in the Clause by a direction of the Treasury under Clause 41 (2).
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes. 232.

    Division No. 44.]

    AYES.

    [4.24 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Gilzean, A.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Glanville, J. E. (Corsett)

    Orbach, M.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Parker, J.

    Allighan, Garry

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Greenwood, A.. W. J. (Heywood)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Grey, C. F.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Grierson, E.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Perrins, W.

    Austin, H. L.

    Guy, W. H.

    Piratin, P.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Popplewell, E.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Hale, Leslie

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Hall, W. G.

    Price, M. Philips

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Harrison, J.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Barton, C.

    Hastings, Dr. Somervillie

    Randall, H. E.

    Battley, J. R.

    Haworth, J.

    Ranger, J.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Rankin, J.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Harbison, Miss M.

    Rees-Williams, O. R.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Richards, R.

    Boardman, H.

    Holman, P.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Holmes. H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Braddook, T. (Milcham)

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Bramall, Major E. A.

    Irving, W. J.

    Royle, C.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Scollan, T.

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

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

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

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

    Sharp, Granville

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Shurmer, P.

    Burden, T. W.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Burke, W. A.

    Kinley, J.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Callaghan, James

    Kirby, B. V.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Champion, A. J.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Chater, D.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Levy, B. W.

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

    Coldrick, W.

    Lewis, J. (Bolton)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Collick, P.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Lipson, D. L.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Collins, V. J.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Legan, D. G.

    Stamford, W.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Longden, F.

    Stephen, C.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Lyne A. W.

    Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    McAdam, W.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Swingler S.

    Daines, P.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

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

    Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

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

    McLeavy, F.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Deer, G.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

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

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Thurtle, E.

    Diamond, J.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Tiffany, S.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mathers, G.

    Timmons, J.

    Donovan, T.

    Messer, F.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Tolley, L.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Dye, S.

    Monslow, W.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Edelman, M.

    Moody, A. S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Morley, R.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Walkden, E.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

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

    Farthing, W. J.

    Moyle, A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Field, Captain W. J.

    Murray, J. D.

    Weitzman, D.

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

    Nally, W.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Naylor, T. E.

    West, D. G.

    Gallacher, W.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

    Ganley, Mrs. G. S.

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

    Wilkes, L.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Willis, E.

    Zilliacus, K

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Woods, G. S

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Yates, V. F.

    Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.

    NOES

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Hare, Hon. j. H. (Woodbridge)

    Prescott, Stanley

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Haughton, S. G.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

    Beamish, Maj. T. V H

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Hollis, M. C

    Renton, D.

    Boothby, R.

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Roberts, Maj P G (Ecclesall)

    Bower, N.

    Hops, Lord J.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Sanderson, Sir F

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Scott, Lord W.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G, T.

    Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Jennings, R.

    Snadden, W. M

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

    Keeling, E. H.

    Spence, H. R.

    Challen, C.

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd'ton, S)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Teeling, William

    Darling, Sir W. Y

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

    De la Bère R.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. RAF

    Digby, S. W.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Turton, R. H.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

    MacLeod, Capt. J.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W

    Drayson, G. B.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Drewe, C.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Mellor, Sir J.

    York, C.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Nicholson, G.

    Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)

    Comma-Duncan, Col. A G

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

    Grant, Lady

    Nutting, Anthony

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gridley, Sir A

    Pickthorn, K.

    Commander Agnew and

    Grimston, R. V

    Pitman, I. J.

    Major Conant.

    Division No. 45.]

    AYES

    [5.32 p.m.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Grimston, H. V.

    Prescott, Stanley

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

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

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Renton, D.

    Boothby, R.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Bower, N.

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. A.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Scott, Lord W.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Jennings, R.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Challen, C.

    Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Spence, H. R.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

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

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

    Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lloyd, Selwyn

    Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Turton, R. H.

    Digby, S. W.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Walker-Smith, O.

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

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

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Drewe, C.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    York, C.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

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

    Erroll, F. J.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Pete, Brig. C. H. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Commander Agnew and

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Major Ramsay.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

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

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kenyon, C.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Deer, G.

    King, E. M.

    Attewell, H. C.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Kinley, J.

    Austin, H. L.

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Diamond, J.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Levy, B. W.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Lewis, J, (Bolton)

    Balfour, A.

    Dye, S.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Edelman, M.

    Longden, F.

    Barton, C.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    McAdam, W.

    Battley, J. R.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Farthing, W. J.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Berry, H.

    Foot, M. M.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Gallacher, W.

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

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Binns, J.

    Gilzean, A.

    McLeavy, F.

    Boardman, H.

    Glanville, J. E. (Cornell)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

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

    Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epning)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Grey, C. F.

    Mathers, G.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Grierson, E.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Messer, F.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Guy, W. H.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Buchanan, G.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hale, Leslie

    Monslow, W.

    Callaghan, James

    Hall, W. G.

    Moody, A. S.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

    Morley, R.

    Chater, D.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Harrison, J.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

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

    Cocks, F. S.

    Haworth, J.

    Moyle, A.

    Coldrick, W.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Murray, J. D.

    Collick, P.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Nally, W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Collins, V. J.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Holman, P.

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

    Comyns, Or. L.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Cooper, Wing Comdr. G.

    Hubbard, T.

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

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

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

    Noel-Buxton, Lady.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Parker, J.

    Crawley, A.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Irving, W. J.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    2216

    2217

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Perrins, W.

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

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Piratin, P.

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Wadsworth, G.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Solley, L. J.

    Walkden, E.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Randall, H. E.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

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

    Ranger, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Rankin, J.

    Stamford, W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Rees Williams, D. R.

    Stephen, C.

    Wells, W. T (Walsall)

    Reeves, J.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    West, D. G.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Stokes, R. R.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Richards, R.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Wilkes, L.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Royle, C.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Sargood, R.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Scollan, T.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Williamson, T.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Willis, E.

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

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

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Sharp, Granville

    Thurtle, E.

    Woods, G. S.

    Silverman, J, (Erdington)

    Tiffany, S.

    Yates, V. F.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Timmons, J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Tolley, L.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Dames.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Substitution of securities and certificates outside United Kingdom.)
    5.45 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 22, to leave out from "act," to "to," in line 24, and to insert "with intent."
    During the Committee stage hon. Members opposite pointed out that the words "calculated to secure" were not altogether clear and might impose a liability where no liability was intended. Hon. Members submitted to the Committee that some words should be used which made it perfectly clear that intent was a necessary ingredient to the offence, and my right hon. Friend undertook to look at that. We are convinced on reflection that the argument was a correct one, and the words which the Amendment proposes to insert, do make it perfectly clear that intent is necessary for the commission of the offence.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: We on this side of the House are certainly glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen fit to accept the suggestion which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) during the Committee stage. The hon. and learned Gentleman can always be sure that we shall try to assist him and to make even the worst Bill, such as this, as good as possible. He and his right hon. Friend will find that the more they listen to us, and accept our Amendments, the more satisfactory these Bills will be in the end.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I should like to join in the Christmas spirit which has just been shown by my right hon. Friend, and to say that I think the words previously included in the Clause were almost imbecile from the point of view of the ordinary person. As a result of the Amendment nearly two lines of the Bill are being omitted and two words inserted in their place. In other words, we are doing something which makes the Bill easier to understand even for lawyers —and that takes a lot of doing. I congratulate the Government on having done that. May I also say that I think that they might have been a little more generous in thanking the Opposition for the work which they have done in endeavouring to ensure that this Bill might have, at least, one sensible line.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Payment of capital moneys outside the United Kingdom.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, to leave out from "act," to "to" in line 41, and to insert "with intent."
    This is an exactly analagous Amendment to that with which we have just dealt and has precisely the same effect. I was very encouraged by what fell from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with regard to the preceding Amendment, but I am left in a dilemma by what was said by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) since the words which he describes as imbecile, were taken

    2219
    from Finance Acts passed by Conservative Governments. I am not certain, therefore, whether I should thank them for those Acts, or for this Amendment, but I thank them for both.
    Mr. C. Williams: I regret to have to take up the time of the House, but in view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said I should like to point out that I have never had any responsibility for the framing of any Act. Otherwise, although the word "calculated" might have occurred, I doubt very much whether the rest of the sentence would have been there. We have now done something to bring clarity to a Clause which a had no time to discuss in the Committee stage. As far as this Amendment is concerned, it is worth noting, in view of the way we rushed through the Committee stage, that even the Government have been able to find a Clause which needs amendment. I think it is amazing that they have been able to find something wrong in their own Bill. It just shows how necessary it is to go through every Bill, Clause by Clause, and line by line.
    Amendment agreed to

    CLAUSE 13.—(Duties of persons keeping registers.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "such act," and to insert:
    "act appearing to him to have been done with such intent."
    This Amendment is almost entirely consequential on the two preceding Amendments, but it has the additional effect, that it provides a further measure of protection for the registrar since it really imposes the test of an appearance of intent, and makes his position easier
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation of Part III.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 14, line 35, to leave out lines 35-37, and to insert:
    "(b) the certificate is not deposited with that other person in a locked or sealed receptacle from which he is not entitled to remove it without the authority of a person other than himself."
    The Amendment is designed to clarify the lines in the Bill, and, in particular,
    2220
    the word "satisfied." That word relates back to Subsection (6, b). On reconsideration of the Clause—I do not think this matter was discussed during the Committee stage—it appeared to us that the word "satisfied" was pot clear, and that the matter would be clearer if what is virtually Subsection (6, b) were again-repeated in this Subsection. As a matter of reading I think this alteration very much improves the text. I would, therefore, ask the House to accept the Amendment
    Mr. Stanley: I was surprised to hear the Solicitor-General say that these words would clarify the position. I have been puzzling for some time to see the effect of this Amendment. Is the Solicitor-General certain that the Amendment is correct in the form in which he has moved it?
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: It is in the wrong Clause.
    Mr. Stanley: The words in Subsection (6) to which the Solicitor-General has referred read:
    "The certificate is deposited."
    In the proposed Amendment we read that
    "the certificate is not deposited."
    I cannot make head or tail of it.
    The Solicitor-General: There is a double negative.
    Mr. Stanley: Where is the other negative? The Amendment reads:
    "The certificate is not deposited with that other person in a locked or sealed receptacle from which he is not entitled to remove it without the authority of a person other than himself."
    Surely, what the Solicitor-General means is that the certificate is deposited.
    The Solicitor-General: Yes.
    Mr. Stanley: Then would it not be clearer if we left out the two negatives? Is it necessary, merely for the purpose of clarification, to put in two negatives?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): It keeps continuity with the other paragraphs in Subsection (6). They are also in the same sense, the negative sense.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Paragraph (b) is not.
    Mr. Stanley: No. This paragraph, in Subsection (6), 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"
    I understand that the intention of the Amendment to Subsection (7, b) is to reproduce Subsection (6, b), but now we get another negative put in with the new words, and it would appear to alter the sense.
    In any case, would it not be possible in another place—I see the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) chafing at the bit to give us an explanation—to have another shot at clarifying this Subsection? Would it not be possible to put it in a form which will be readily understood by anybody, if possible avoiding double negatives, which I have always understood were not the most desirable form of wording?
    The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may speak again, with the permission of the House. We will bear in mind the suggestion made when the matter is before another place. It is not quite as bad as the right hon. Gentleman says. The object of the Amendment is that where a certificate of title is held by some agent, for an authorised depositary, the Clause shall not be satisfied when the agent keeps the certificate in a locked or sealed receptacle from which he is not entitled to remove it without other authority. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that there are two negatives and that it would be better if those were left out. We shall certainly reconsider the wording from that point of view. I would not like to say that it will be satisfactory without further consideration. The Amendment is, however, an improvement on what was there before, and I ask the House to accept it, because it is intended to be an improvement. We will look at the further suggestion to see whether the wording can still further be improved.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: In response to the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) I would like to say that I think the matter is quite clear. Subsection (7) says:
    "It shall be deemed to be in the custody of an authorised depositary if "—
    and then will go on to say, in the proposed Amendment:
    2222
    "the certificate is not deposited with that other person in a locked or sealed receptacle."
    The rest of the wording is parenthetical.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Not at all.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: It says:
    "from which he is not entitled to remove it without the authority of a person other than himself." It is quite clear, if read that way.
    Mr. Stanley: I beg to ask the leave of the House to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, which leaves me, I must confess, in just as much confusion as I was before. The explanation showed great legal acumen. I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman must have been consorting with some of the highest in the legal world.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 22.—(General restrictions on export.)
    Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 2, at the end, to insert:
    "unless the traveller shall at the time of exportation give an undertaking in the prescribed form that such articles shall be brought back into the United Kingdom at the time of the re-entry of such traveller into the United Kingdom."
    When we discussed Clause 22 on the Committee stage there was a great deal of discussion of Subsection (1, f). Hon. Members who were in the Committee will recollect that exportation from the United Kingdom of
    "any such articles exported on the person of a traveller or in a traveller's baggage"
    as there prescribed, was prohibited, except with the permission of the Treasury. We set down an Amendment in which we sought to modify paragraph (f). The Amendment proposed that the traveller at the time of the exportation might give an undertaking in the prescribed form that such articles would be brought back into the United Kingdom at the time of his re-entry. One of my hon. Friends has started to talk about the Christmas spirit, which I hope is with us all. I hope that the Financial Secretary will recollect that it is at Christmas time that a number of people go abroad for their holidays. In this House we like to make their holidays as real and as enjoyable as possible, but it certainly is not a very happy prospect for travellers to think that anything they

    2223
    wish to take out of the country with them may be removed from them when they reach the port.
    I happened by chance to be talking to a prospective traveller yesterday. It was a lady, I may say. She asked me whether she would be allowed to take her coat with her, or whether it and her jewellery would be stripped off her. There is great apprehension in the public mind at what may happen when people go on holiday. We do not want to live in a prison State. We want to be free to go out of this country and to come back when we want to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may think it is very inconvenient for us to take very much money with us, but do let us take our clothes, our watch chains, our rings and any articles that we normally use.
    6 p.m.
    It is for that reason that this Amendment has been set down. The hon. Gentleman will tell us, as he always does, that the Treasury is very reasonable and that the Customs officials are very civil. Both those things may be true, but we think that the citizens of this country ought to have some reasonable rights in this matter and they should have the right when they go out of the country to take with them their clothing, watch chains, and gold teeth and so on. The hon. Gentleman will tell us that he wants to catch crooks. We have been told that many times in this Bill, but there is a limit to this. We do not want to make everybody's life miserable because of a Clause designed to catch crooks. Some more consideration might really be given to this Amendment. It was not so very long ago that the Foreign Secretary spoke about going to Victoria Station and taking a ticket to anywhere in the world and moving about without passports. We are a long way from that if, when we get to Dover or Folkestone, we have our clothes and personal possessions taken away. Provided he gives an undertaking to bring them back with him, the ordinary traveller ought to be allowed to take such goods with him out of the country.
    Sir Arthur Salter: I sincerely trust that the Government will make this very small concession. It will cost them nothing and it will remove a very serious annoyance to travellers. I would like, incidentally, to ask the Financial Secretary a question to which I do
    2224
    not know exactly what is the answer as a matter of fact. Suppose I am going to Switzerland for a fortnight and have on my person an article such as a watch which I have had for a long time and which would be dutiable if I were bringing it back to this country. Surely, if I have any fear that when I return I shall be charged duty on that article, I can declare it as I go out of the country and be given a written certificate that I am taking it out with me? There could then be no question of my being charged duty when I return. Surely, something of that kind must obtain. What are the risks the Government take in this case? They take no risks at all. The majority of people who go out of the country will take some things which might properly be prescribed by the Treasury as not to be taken out and disposed of outside, such as jewels, gold cigarette cases and so on. What possible risk are the Government taking if the traveller is able to say that he is taking out a pearl necklace which he undertakes to bring back with him when he returns? The authorities have the safeguard that they know the person must come back and that they can demand to see the article when he returns. In the alternative, every person who goes abroad with ordinary articles such as necklaces, jewels or watch chains is in fear of having these taken away and held by the authorities.
    Major Legge-Bourke: I wish to support the Amendment. I understand from what has been said that this refers only to gold coin or gold bullion, but, surely, technically, any gold ornament in the nature of a coin comes under this heading? It is entirely wrong that anyone who has some coin attached to his person in the way of decoration or memento should have to get Treasury permission to take it out of the country. Also, some of the things in paragraph (e)—
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are not dealing with paragraph (e).
    Major Legge-Bourke: I fully appreciate that. My point is that:
    "any such articles exported on the person…."
    are enumerated in paragraph (e). The articles include gold, amongst other things which I have already dealt with, and any policy of assurance and any certificate of title to a security—
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman making a mistake? He says that paragraph (f) relates the articles to the catalogue of items in Subsection (1, a, b, c) etc. In my submission that must be wrong, because it says:
    "any such articles…." —
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I gather that the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me whether the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is in Order. I rule that he is.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I have not finished my point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry. I thought I knew what it was. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to put something further to that point of Order, I will be glad to hear it.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If you look at the last words:
    "as may be prescribed…."
    the first words:
    "any such articles…."
    relate not to what has gone before but to:
    "as may be prescribed…."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Major Legge-Bourke.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Thank you for your previous Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It would seem that the articles which can be prescribed must be some of these articles enumerated in Subsection (1). The matter I particularly wish to draw attention to is that of the policy of assurance—
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think to go into that would really be out of Order.
    Major Legge-Bourke: It may be of the greatest importance to be able to take a policy of assurance from this country and I cannot see why anyone should be prevented from doing so.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: On the Second Reading of this Bill I was one of those who expressed extreme dissatisfaction with this Subsection. As my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) said, in catching crooks some
    2226
    limits must be set. During more than a century of legislation we have always insisted that a few guilty should be allowed to go free, if the alternative is that the vast majority of innocent people should be harassed and harried by any regulation or law we may make. This bolt-hole that the Financial Secretary is trying to stop up is an extremely small one. At the most, as he said during the Committee stage, people might get away with £1,000 or £2,000 but it can have no effect on the economy of the country. On the other hand, as the Clause is at present drafted there is nobody leaving the country who cannot be subjected to a tyranny which is equal to anything that Nazi Germany ever perpetrated on her own people. That is no exaggeration. The words are perfectly clear. They say that the Treasury can prescribe any article of any traveller. The Financial Secretary will say that we are fair-minded, that we have already got the relaxations which existed during the war, that we shall continue them, and that, in fact, no hardship will be suffered by any one.
    But, on any of those counts, that is no answer whatever. He cannot say that, just because it was necessary in war, it is necessary today. During war, everyone is prepared to put up with anything, but that sort of toleration is not extended in a permanent Measure to which no end or limits are set. This is something which is being put on the Statute Book for as long, at any rate, as the present Government last.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may say he has already made relaxations. If he has made relaxations, why on earth cannot he accept this Amendment, or an alternative suggestion made previously that he should actually list the articles in the Bill? Why on earth have a blanket, which he says himself he does not want and which he tries to excuse by saying that he does not want it himself. For my own part, I think it is quite iniquitous, 18 months after the end of the war, for the Government to try to force through a thing like this. During the Debate in Committee, the Government had only one hon. Member on their side who supported it and that was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), who said quite frankly that he liked these powers, he liked the idea, he liked the position. Apart from him, there was no one opposite who

    2227
    dared to defend this, and if the Financial Secretary will put aside for a moment those weapons of which he is so fond— of saying that the Treasury are reasonable and that we must stop every bolt hole—I do not think he will be in any position to defend this. Let him think for one minute. If we put this on the Statute Book, while he may not mean anything by it, what right has he to assume that his successor will mean the same thing? We saw last night yet once again the hounds of fate yapping at the heels of the present Government. That is happening more and more regularly, and he would be a rash man who set any period of tenure on his own position on the Front Bench. Is the hon. Gentleman willing to leave a thing like this, capable of any interpretation, equal to anything that Russia or Germany have perpetrated on their citizens, in a Measure like this? He would do far better to accept this Amendment and possibly allow a little leakage than to do a thing like this which is contrary to equity and contrary to the traditions which have been maintained in this country for so long.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We gave a good deal of time to this on the Committee stage of this Bill and, in the end, by a vote of 266 to 124, we rejected a suggestion, not in this exact form, but similar to the proposal which has been spoken to from the other side of the House this afternoon. If this Amendment were accepted it would mean that anybody could leave by any port, and all he need do would be to say what he happened to be carrying with him, either on his person or in his baggage, and simply give the Customs official an undertaking that he would bring it back. The answer to that is, "So what?"
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre rose—
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Wait a minute. I am just asking—
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I can tell you.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the House permits, perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be allowed later to say what he thinks it would mean. This is what, in fact, would happen in 99 cases out of a 100: that individual might not come back but, if he did, he could come through either with or without the article which he promised to return and, under this Amend-
    2228
    ment, nothing whatever could be done to him if he broke his word. He would be committing no offence; he would simply have been breaking his word which, in law, would not be an offence, and no penalty would attach to the fact that he had not abided by his word. That is an incredible situation, and I am positive that no one in any quarter of the House can believe for one instance that we should insert such a provision in this Bill.
    6.15 p.m.
    Quite frankly, are we not, some of us at any rate, making too much of this? At the present time, this kind of prohibition is on the Statute Book by wartime regulation and many of us have come and gone either during the war or since whilst these regulations have been enforced. Which of us has suffered the kind of thing envisaged by various hon. Members this afternoon? When we discussed the matter previously the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Howard) asked what would happen if he took out a gold pencil. I have taken a gold pencil on my person out of the country and heaps of other people are doing it and, so far as I know, on no occasion whatever have they been challenged. I should be surprised if they were challenged. It is quite obvious to all of us that this has worked well and will continue to work well, but we must give the Customs officials power to stop individuals who are, they think, either on their person or in their baggage, taking out things which should not be exported, and which it is in the national interest should not be taken out of the country.
    If one wanted to take out something of extraordinary value during the war— and up to now the same system has applied—one went to the Board of Trade and they gave an export licence. In a bona fide case there was no trouble whatever. Under this Bill, if it becomes an Act, instead of an individual going to the Board of Trade, he can get permission for a prescribed article from the proper authority, that is, the Treasury acting through its agents. It will be perfectly simple and straightforward and I think the House will agree on reflection that it is a right and proper regulation to make. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) said this was a small concession and would cost nothing, and asked what would happen if he took his watch out of the country. The short answer is that nothing whatever

    2229
    would happen; he would be allowed to take it out and bring it back, and no one would question him either coming or going. It might not be a small concession, and it certainly would cost nothing since the ordinary individual, the decent citizen, would abide by whatever the regulations were, but the crooks would have a gay old time if we altered the provision in the way suggested and, so far as we are concerned, we are going to see that they do not.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman, in his short but fervid address, seems to have put the case for the Amendment, if not in actual words, as well as it could possibly have been put. For as he said, decent people abide by regulations and he presumably includes himself, as I certainly would include him, among decent people. Yet he told us that whenever he goes abroad he breaks this very regulation. He said, "It is all right, I break the regulation, but nobody ever prosecutes me for it." It is just that very point to which we on this side object. We say that it is not right that people, in order to make their journeys possible, have to break the regulation knowing they are breaking it, as the hon. Gentleman did.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Stanley: I like it.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: —but I do not think I said I broke regulations. I said I took on my person a gold pencil. That is not breaking any regulation.
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman has taken out gold contrary to the regulations. Did he ask the permission of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury before he did so? That is the ridiculous position we have reached, that every decent, respectable person like the hon. Gentleman, doing the ordinary thing that he does when he goes abroad, breaks one of these regulations. What is the answer? Simply that one may not be prosecuted if Mr. Jones of the Treasury, or, in the future, Mr. Smith of the Bank of England, takes no notice of it. Those are not the principles on which the criminal law of this country have been administered in the past. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman who, after all, is responsible for the Treasury, and whose prime consideration is for the convenience of the Treasury, and, as he often tells us, to
    2230
    save customs officials' trouble, should take this line. I am not surprised that the Solicitor-General should take this line, because he has fallen under the Treasury. But I am surprised at the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), whom I should have regarded as the one legal purist and champion of the law, should take this line. This was a case in which I should have thought his not unaccustomed legs would bring him into a vertical position to protest against this idea.
    I agree that it is possible 99 per cent. out of 100 who break the law would get into no trouble about it, but the general principle is that it is wrong to encourage penal sanctions on people doing certain things and then say, "Some of you can do them and the probability is that when you have done it no one will prosecute." That is the sort of case in which the hon. and learned Gentleman should be to the fore, and I appeal to him to tell the Solicitor-General what the legal canons of this country have long been, and should continue to be.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: I do not know that I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), when he says that the Financial Secretary breaks the law by taking a gold pencil out, and that that is the sole objection to his Subsection. The objection is the permission of the Treasury. The Treasury might permit the Financial Secretary to take his pencil, while refusing permission to me to do the same. It depends on the decision of the Treasury. This Clause deals with the Treasury determining whether it can be done, or not. The Financial Secretary is in a position in which he has a dispensation to take a gold pencil out, but if I do the same, I may not get such a dispensation. Therefore, the law discriminates between one citizen and another. I am also puzzled by another word. What is the meaning of the word "exported" in this Clause?
    "Any such article exported on the person."
    Do I export the suit of clothes I wear when I leave the country?
    Mr. Assheton: Yes.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: Have I to declare every single possession I have when I go out, and then ask an official whether I can take them out? The intention seems

    2231
    to me ambiguous as it stands, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will look a it again.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I was very touched by the solicitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) about my fall from legal grace. May I say in response that I do not thing the right hon. Gentleman has properly understood this Clause at all? I will tell him why. There has been a complete misapprehension in the whole discussion of this Clause. Looking at the end of paragraph (f), I do not think it refers to any specified article at all. It is a paragraph which is independent of and detached from all the other parts of the Clause. It is directed to something entirely different from that aimed at by the sentences in the parts of the Clause which precede it. It is perfectly true that the preceding parts of the Clause deal with the gold, Treasury Bills, and postal orders and that sort of thing. But they are not associated with, implied in, or imported into (f). The words used in (f) are: "exported on the person." That is a fundamental point in connection with the Subsection. Clause 22 (1, f) reads as follows:
    "any such articles exported on the person of a traveller or in a traveller's baggage as may be prescribed."
    There is no article there adumbrated, or foreshadowed. Nothing is specified at all. There is certainly no such article as has been referred to, such as a gold pencil, or suit of clothes.
    Mr. Assheton: Perhaps we did not have the pleasure of the hon. and learned Member's company when the matter was discussed previously? He would then have heard what the Financial Secretary told us.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Of course I was here, and the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what is, according to his view, my fall from legal grace on that occasion.
    Mr. Stanley: Not only that.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I accept that assuming the Clause did what the right hon. Gentleman says, there would be something in what he says, but, I would like him really to apply his mind to the question of whether there is involved in
    2232
    the Subsection the apprehension about which he says he is concerned. This part of the Clause does not apply to a gold pencil, or a suit of clothes, or as yet a single, or specified article. What it does apply to is a category which has still to be defined or specified. It says expressly and clearly:
    "such articles … as may be prescribed."
    The Financial Secretary has said that of course it is not going to apply to a gold watch and chain which a traveller is properly wearing, and the right hon. Gentleman and other speakers on the Opposition Benches say that it does apply because, in an earlier part of the Clause, gold is mentioned. But that does not follow at all. It may very well be, and I should think it would be, that when it comes to prescribing the articles, the Treasury will except things like a gold watch and chain which a traveller is properly wearing for personal use. [Interruption.] Do not get so worried because the argument is good. It is quite clear that when the Treasury come to prescribe the list of articles, it is obviously not going to include a gold watch and chain which is
    "exported on the person"
    of a traveller.
    Sir William Darling: Who said so?
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The Subsection plainly implies that. There is an entirely different expression in Subsection (f) from any in the preceding parts of the Clause. It says that this applies only to articles:
    "exported on the person of a traveller or in a traveller's baggage."
    In my submission the whole of the argument about the articles referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and Members opposite, is entirely misconceived. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman says he regrets the alleged slip I have made in my legal standards, I would ask him to take that not unimportant point into consideration.
    Mr. Hollis: I cannot understand how the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) thinks he is making it any better by his argument. The only question he raises is not whether gold can be exported, but whether it is forbidden under Subsection (f) or not. It is a matter of small importance, because it is certainly forbidden

    2233
    in Subsection (d) in any event. His interpretation makes things not better, but worse. If the interpretation of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is right, there is a comparatively limited number of things to which it can apply, but, if the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester is right, the Treasury can apply it to anything it wishes.
    6.30 p.m.
    On the more general point, I think the Financial Secretary has very greatly failed to grasp the danger and importance of the whole position. There is one fundamental danger I fear. There are many people with no political axe to grind, people of the greatest intelligence and integrity, who are extremely doubtful if this whole system of exchange control will work at all. There is the high authority, for instance, of R. G. Hawtrey, who says, in his book "Economic Rebirth:"
    "Little can be done to trace illicit transactions without a censorship of postal and telegraphic communications which can hardly be tolerated in peacetime."
    He asks:
    "Is exchange control to be relied on to preserve the foreign exchange value of the pound?"
    He answers with an emphatic negative; he answers that the whole thing will break down if there is a crisis. The Financial Secretary has said that we had this in war and it worked all right, and therefore it will work all right in these days. Does he not understand that the thing works up to a point in war because for other reasons we are willing to tolerate censorship of the post and prevent people from travelling about? The question is whether it can work in a world of free institutions, in a world where we want to allow people to travel. I deeply appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and other hon. Members about the necessity of some sort of control. What the Government have not in the least proved in the course of the Debates on this Bill is that there is no great likelihood that this particular system will not break down. That is a dangerous situation, and means we can have no confidence at all in those airy words of comfort which Ministers throw out to us to the effect that they do not intend to use these powers. These right hon. Gentlemen will be gone before Hong and some others will occupy their
    2234
    places, who will, in their turn, be perhaps men of good will. But the danger is that whatever Government may be in power which tries to work this system, it will find it is breaking down in a few years' time and will be in a position where it can only work it by applying the absolute rigour of the law. There may come a time when the Financial Secretary will be searched for his gold pencil, and we shall be told that the safety of the country depends on every gold pencil being stripped off him. That seems to me to be the great danger of the situation with which we are faced, and that it is most important that we should insist on every reservation we can possibly get being put into the Bill rather than we should be dependent of the good will of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Sir W. Darling: The words which concern me in Clause 22 (1, f) are "as may be prescribed." If the words remain, the Government will leave open a very wide door in the future, and it will follow that the Government may at any time make a regulation or order to deal with abuses which may have occurred in their experience. Most hon. Members have spoken about going abroad for holidays. It is within the knowledge of the House that men and women go abroad on business. It is true, for example, that in France, to travel in ordinary clothes and solicit business for the Scottish trade, might not be so acceptable as to wear the national costume. If I were leaving this country in the ordinary garb of an ordinary lower middle class commercial man, I should probably take in my baggage an Elliott kilt to which I am entitled and another kilt, say that of the Royal Scots, to which I might also have some claim. If I wanted to make a successful presentation of Scottish goods in Paris or elsewhere on the Continent, it will be agreed that such a presentation would be at least startling and unique, but it is perfectly obvious that a competent Customs officer, having in mind that no such articles may be exported
    "on the person of a traveller or in a traveller's baggage,"
    may say, "Darling may go abroad wearing the suitable trousers of the Englishman, but he cannot have this apparently superfluous baggage." That is literally "taking the breeks off a Hielandman." This is a sort of proposal with which I cannot associate myself.

    2235
    I go further. I am not in the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), of whom it has been said that he is a man who is in possession of a large and varied number of hats. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman, going abroad for quite good reasons, in order to make, as he has always made, an important impression on foreign countries, might want to take with him nine or 10 different hats. A Government which wanted to limit the movements of a British citizen, as indeed they are doing at the present moment, in the case of Sarawak, might hold up such of the proper and necessary baggage "as may be prescribed" of that Englishman, and prevent him making a journey which he as a free man ought to be permitted to make. This is a very dangerous business. I do not see any university support here, but I am familiar with a phrase—I have only read it— called "debagging," which I understand is most salutary for discipline in universities. That may be used by a Government in the future to prevent reasonable foreign travel. If the picture I envisage is preposterous and ridiculous, it is Clause 22 (1, f) which makes this possible. If it is withdrawn, or we can hear now what are the limits of the prescription, I shall be satisfied.
    I can give a third example. I took part in a "Brains Trust" recently with another so-called "brains truster." He has a certain individuality and eccentricity. He had, on the occasion of which I speak, six watches in his possession. He is interested in horology, and carries a number of watches around with him. He is quite entitled to do so, but if he appeared at Dover or Southampton, seeking to make a visit to the Continent, carrying, as he always has done at home, the proofs of this mild eccentricity, he would, under this Clause, it seems to me, be forbidden to do so. This is a foolish interference with the normal liberty of the subject, and can be carried to ridiculous and preposterous lengths. No Government should put itself in the position of being so foolish. The case might be met if this Amendment were accepted. If it was accepted it would, at least, cover—I use the word advisably—some of the present deficiencies.
    Mr. C. Williams: The hon. Member opposite read out his brief with his usual competence, and then at the end said that the only people really affected by this provision were those bad people who wish to evade the law. This has been trotted out by various Members of the Government again and again, as we are told that we do not need Amendments such as this, that the provision will never do any harm, that it will never be operated and that no one will ever suffer under it. This sort of thing has been said more than once, and I want to emphasise it again, that there is nothing in the words of the Financial Secretary here that will have the slightest effect on a Customs official if, in a few weeks' time, there is a further order from some Government Department to search everyone. In that event, everyone will be rigorously searched.
    If I might have the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a few minutes, I would put it in another way. Who would have believed two weeks ago that the Leader of the House would be openly acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the dictator of the House? That happened only a few days ago. I am giving that as a very simple illustration of how times change. Here we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledging a dictator openly. It will not be very long, under this Bill, before some small thing comes up and we shall be told that we cannot do a certain thing. My hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) produced a wonderful list. I rather wonder what lay behind the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I have listened to him speaking again and again during consideration of this Bill. Speaking on this Amendment, which seems very plain to me, he succeeded in making it appear very complicated. It is perfectly simple. It lays down:
    "The exportation from the United Kingdom"
    and there is given a list of articles:
    "…is hereby prohibited."
    That seems quite simple. Some people-tell me that he is a lawyer, or something. Whether he is or not, I would not have known it. It does not seem to me that on a matter of this kind it is necessary to make a speech, twisting us inside out, such as that which he made. I fail to

    2237
    understand him. We had a clear explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said very plainly that ho can take out his gold pencil quite freely and no one will stop him. On the other hand, he did not say he would not be breaking the law in taking it out, as he might be, if, five minutes before, the Treasury had passed some Order prohibiting it. The trouble is that we are not making the law here: we are giving power to the Treasury to make endless regulations. For that reason alone I hope that this Amendment, whether or not it is accepted, will be divided upon so that we can make it clear to the country that there is a section in this House who do not intend to be ruled perpetually by regulation from Whitehall.
    Mr. Howard: I wish to bring the House back, via Gloucester, to this Amendment, and to remind the Financial Secretary of what he said on a previous occasion. When we were considering this point earlier, he used these words:
    "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."
    Hon Members may be interested in the next sentence:
    "They are articles wholly or mainly of gold of platinum, diamonds and precious stones, pearls, rings set in some way—"
    At that point there was an interruption by the hon. Member for St. George's, who said:
    "I hold in my hand a gold pencil which was given to me on my 21st birthday, and I would be prohibited from taking it out of the country."
    The Financial Secretary replied:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1945; Vol. 431, c. 545–6.]
    If it were not that I thought the Financial Secretary had forgotten what he said on that occasion, I would accuse him of a breach of faith in not accepting this Amendment. If this Amendment is not a commonsense one under which bona fide travellers would merely have to tell the Customs—that is what the Financial Secretary said—I do not know what it is. In spite of what he has said today, I hope he will think again and will see his way to accept this Amendment, which
    2238
    is directly in line with what he said in this House on a previous occasion.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. Foster: The object of this Amendment is to allow a traveller who wishes to take some articles out of the United Kingdom to take them if he signs an undertaking that he will bring them back. For the purpose of this Amendment we are not discussing whether it is proper that a long list of articles should, or should not, be prescribed. If the Treasury should prescribe a number of articles that a traveller should not take out on his person, the Amendment suggests that he should be allowed to take them out if he signs an undertaking to bring them back again. I suggest that it is agreed that certain articles should be prescribed as being articles which the Financial Secretary said clever people might take out in order to turn them into foreign currency— jewellery, furs and so on. I press him on this point. I suggest the articles which it is sought to take out should be allowed to be taken out by travellers who sign this undertaking. In the administration of the law of this country it has always been our pride that we regard—
    Mr. Pickthorn: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to be heard by hon. Members here he should speak a little louder but if he wishes us to hear the speeches which are being addressed to him, he should not speak so loudly.
    Mr. Foster: I confess it is a little difficult to catch the Chancellor's attention when he is consulting with the Solicitor-General—
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): It was concerning the validity of my hon. Friend's argument.
    Mr. Foster: It is rather the pride of the administration of this country that we regard the people, both foreigners and British subjects, those who reside here and those who come on a visit, as honest. If we are travelling without a ticket, or in the wrong class on a train, instead of following the Continental practice of being thrown off the train, or made to pay a penal sum of five times the fare, everybody is treated as being an honest person who is offending by mistake. They pay the proper fare, and nothing more is said. It is quite true that a few dishonest people get away with it, but this is a

    2239
    feature of our law which has excited the admiration and envy of many foreign visitors to this country.
    We want to adopt the same principle here. We want to assume that most people are honest. A person may go to the Customs, and he or she may have some articles which are prohibited from export. A lady may have a valuable fur coat or a certain amount of jewellery. If it is prohibited to take them out she would sign, either at the Customs or before, an undertaking that she will bring them back. It is true that there may be a few clever or dishonest people who take advantage of that and it might not work. However, the object of this Amendment is to try to get back into the ordinary frame of mind of treating the general public, British and foreigners, residents and non-residents, domiciled and non-domiciled, as a body of honest people. I ask the Financial Secretary if he would consider making some concession so that when people travel abroad they will be treated, first of all, as honest people and only if they prove themselves dishonest will they be treated as such.
    There is something in this moral attitude to life that people should not be treated all the time as if they were going to break the regulations. The danger is that the more regulations we have, the more the people will be inclined to break them. If we do not have a postal censorship and
    rigorous searching by the Customs we shall find the regulations broken by dishonest people in that way. If one is already relying on the moral sense of the people of this country to safeguard the exchange position, and to safeguard their standard of life, this is only one further concession in that spirit. I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider the possibilities in that case.
    Mr. Gandar Dower: We have been talking for a considerable time on this Amendment, and I would not wish to add unduly to the length of the discussion. But, as an individual, I would like to refer to the point of view expressed by the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). I think that, if we are allowed to take out valuable articles without signing for them, there is always the insecurity, that we may be challenged on return that we did not, in fact, take them out, but acquired them abroad. If we are to rely on the good will of Customs officers, to overlook what we do take out against the law, then we tend to bring the law into disrepute, and that, I feel, would not be the wish of any of us. A law that is more honoured in the breach than in the observance becomes no law at all.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 246.

    Division No. 46.]

    AYES.

    [6.53 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Prescott, Stanley

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Harris, H. Wilton

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, O

    Beattie, J. (Belfast, W)

    Head, Brig. A. H.

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

    Beechman, N. A.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

    Renton, D.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)

    Herbert, Sir A. P

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Bower, N.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J A

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W)

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

    Snadden, W. M.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Jennings, R.

    Spence, H. R.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lambert, Hon. G

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. D.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

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

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

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

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Walker-Smith, D.

    De la Bère R.

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Digby, S. W

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

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

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Dower, E L. G. (Caithness)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Drayton G. B.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Erroll, F. J.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    York, C.

    Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Young. Sir A S L (Partick)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Peto, Brig, C. H. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Rankin, J.

    Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Grey, C. F.

    Rees-Williams, O. R.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Grierson, E.

    Reeves, J.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Griffith, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Rhodes, H.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Halt, Leslie

    Richards, H.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Hall, W. G.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Altewell, H. C.

    Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Austin, H. L.

    Hardman, O. R.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hastings, Or Somarville

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Haworth, J.

    Royle, C.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Scollan, T.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Baird, J.

    Holman, P.

    Segal, Dr S.

    Balfour, A.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

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

    Barstow, P. G.

    Hubbard, T.

    Sharp, Granville

    Barton, C.

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

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Battley, J. R.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Benson, G.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Berry, H.

    Irving, W. J.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Binns, J.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Boardman, H.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

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

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Kenyon, C.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Key, C. W.

    Solley, L. J.

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

    King, E. M.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Kinley, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Kirby, B. V.

    Stamford, W.

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Steele, T.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Stephen, C.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Leonard, W.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Buchanan, G.

    Levy, B. W.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Burden, T. W.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Burke, W. A.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Callaghan, James

    Longden, F.

    Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    McAdam, W.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Champion, A. J.

    McAllister, G.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Chafer, D.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Cluse, W. S.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Cobb, F. A.

    McGovern, J.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Cocks, F. S.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Coldrick, W.

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

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Collick, P.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

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

    Collindridge, F.

    McLeavy, F.

    Thurtle, E.

    Collis, V. J.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Tiffany, S.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Timmons, J.

    Comyris, Dr. L.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Titterington, M. F.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr G.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Tolley, L.

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

    Mathers, G.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Messer, F.

    Viant, S. P.

    Cove, W G.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Wardsworth, G.

    Grossman, R. H. S.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Walken, E.

    Daines, P.

    Monslow, W.

    Wallace G D. (Chislehurst)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Moody A. S

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

    Warbey, W. N.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Morley, R.

    Weitzman, D.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    West, D. G.

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

    Moyle, A.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Murray. J. D.

    Wilkes, L.

    Davies, S. O (Merthyr)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Deer, G.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    do Freitas, Geoffrey

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

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Diamond, J.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Dodds, N N.

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, W. R (Heston)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Williamson, T.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Willis, E.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

    Dye, S.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Wilson, J. H.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Pearson, A.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Peart, Capt. T. F. Woodburn. A

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Pernns, W.

    Woods, G. S.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Piratin, P.

    Yates, V. F.

    Follick, M.

    Popplewell, E.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Foot, M. M.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Proctor, W. T.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gilzean, A.

    Randall, H. E.

    Mr. Joseph Henderson and

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Ranger, J.

    Mr. Hannan.

    7.4 p.m.
    Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order. It has just come to my knowledge that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has been twice assaulted— [Interruption.]—Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) might behave like one.
    Mr. McKie: On A. point of Order.
    Earl Winterton: A gross insult.
    Mr. Bowles: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the senior Burgess for Cambridge University, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End has, outside this Chamber but in the precincts of this House, been twice physically assaulted and battered. I told him that I would try to raise this matter with you, Mr. Speaker. I do not see him in his place and, may be, he does not feel strong enough to be present However, I have seen him, and I would like to report the matter to you. It seems to be a very gross breach of Privilege of this House. I am just intimating the matter to you, Sir.
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, I regret that, stung by an interruption, he told the hon. Member the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) to behave like a gentleman. That is not what we ought to say.
    Mr. Pickthorne: I am very sorry to have originated any interruption.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has reported what seems to me to be a very serious matter. If I may, I would like to read what Erskine May says on the subject:
    "That the assaulting, insulting or menacing any Member of this House, in his coming to or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is an high infringement of the privilege of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and an high crime and misdemeanour."
    The hon. Member will understand that, although he has informed me of the matter, I have no knowledge of the facts. Therefore, I am going to instruct the Serjeant at Arms, who is here at my
    2244
    service, to find out the facts and to report them to me. If necessary, I can make a statement about the matter tomorrow.
    Mr. Bowles: Perhaps I might just say that my hon. Friend the senior Member for Blackburn (Mr. J. Edwards) has intimated to me that he witnessed one of the assaults.
    Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. I take it that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is not casting any aspersions on Members of this House, and is not suggesting that any hon. Member has assaulted his hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin).
    Mr. Driberg: I regret to say that I also have some knowledge of these events. The person guilty of the repeated assault was a Press correspondent accredited to the service of this House.
    Mr. Speaker: Surely, the matter is sub judice at the moment. It will be reported upon in due course.
    7.7 p.m.
    Lieut. -Commander Braithwaite: I beg to move, in page 16, line 1, to leave out "destination," and to insert "consignee."
    This Amendment and three other consequential thereto represent an endeavour to clear up a matter which we debated during the Committee stage when Clause 23 was put before us. The Financial Secretary will recall—because it was he who replied to the Amendment in Committee— that we endeavoured to secure a better definition of the term "ultimate destination." One of the examples given to the Committee at that time was that of a cargo consigned to India or to Calcutta, where the goods were later transhipped or resold and went on to a further destination. The matter was, I think, put very succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Stock-port (Sir A. Gridley), who is associated with this Amendment, when he said:
    "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

    2245
    that what he is asking for can "still be obtained, we are prepared to withdraw the Amendment."
    To that, the Financial Secretary replied:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 592.]
    No Government Amendment having appeared on the Order Paper on this Report stage, we have endeavoured to put down a wording which we think is clearer. Hon. Members who were present during the Committee stage may remember that, when the Financial Secretary was replying to our question what destination would have to be put down on the form which, of course, has to be filled in, he said that if the goods went to Calcutta and were then resold and went to Hong Kong or Singapore, then Calcutta would be the ultimate destination. That seemed to us to be a geographical extravagance and surprising, even though coming from the Financial Secretary. I think it is fairly clear what the Government seek to achieve. We argued on that occasion that, in practice, it is impossible to be sure of the ultimate destination of any goods which are exported. For instance, while at sea, instructions are sent to a ship to go to another port and the destination may be altered. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the purpose of this Subsection was to avoid fictitious consignments of goods from people within the sterling area with the intention of the subsequent transmission of the goods to someone outside the area or, rather, in a scheduled territory. The Amendment would give the Treasury power to prevent this happening without placing an impossible obligation upon the exporter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) said during the Committee stage, surely the ultimate destination is the point beyond which the goods will not go, which seems a reasonable definition.
    Therefore, we have tabled this Amendment to leave out the word "destination" and to substitute "consignee." We think that would cover what the Government want. The Government want to know who is to pay for the goods when they are delivered. As the Financial Secretary said, the Government are not interested if, when the transaction is completed, the goods go on to Hong Kong, Singapore or anywhere else. We believe
    2246
    this wording will improve the Bill. The Government gave an undertaking during the Committee stage to look at the matter again, and perhaps the Financial Secretary will now give his views on this Amendment.
    Mr. Drayson: I beg to second the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holder-ness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite).
    I am surprised that the Financial Secretary has done nothing to meet us, as this point was so fully discussed on Second Reading. It was stated that chaos and difficulties would ensue if the proposal embodied in this Amendment were followed out to its logical conclusion. Surely, there are already adequate restrictions and protection on the export and import of goods to satisfy the Chancellor that any breaches as regards foreign exchange can be dealt with adequately. If it is envisaged that goods consigned to some country within the sterling area may ultimately find their way into a hard currency country, surely the country to which the goods were originally consigned will have the necessary regulations, of which the Treasury will have full knowledge, to deal with that situation. I feel that this Amendment would meet the case. We would like to see the word "ultimate" removed from this Clause, and I hope we shall get from the Financial Secretary a satisfactory reply.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the House is aware, we have already discussed this point at some length. Perhaps we did not discuss the proposed substitution of the word "consignee" for "destination," but I think an hon. Member opposite moved to delete Subsection (3) of Clause 23 for much the same reasons as have been advanced in support of this Amendment. We cannot accept the Amendment, not because we are not anxious to meet hon. Members opposite, but because "consignee" is not the same as "destination." A destination is a fixed place. It is something which one knows about, and it will always be there; but a consignee might be domiciled anywhere, and it is part of the essence of the provisions of this Clause that the authorities in this country should know where the goods are going. For that reason we cannot accept this Amendment. I understand that hon. Members opposite do

    2247
    not object to this Clause, but only to certain words contained in it, and they want, very properly—I am not quarrelling with it—to improve the form of words. To substitute "consignee" for "destination" would not help in the slightest, but would only muddle those who have to deal with the question. The phrase "ultimate destination" is well known in this connection in Acts which deal with this type of thing. I am advised that this phrase is used in the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. It is also used in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and it also appears in the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915. All we are doing is to carry on the same phrase because we now mean exactly what was meant when those enactments were passed. I hope with that explanation the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment. I agree that I promised to look at this matter with the utmost will to help. I have done so, but we have discovered that this phrase is one that has been used over a long period of years and we feel that we must keep it.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The hon. Gentleman has referred to various Acts on the Statute Book, in which these words were embodied. We are at a disadvantage in not having those Acts before us. Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the words were used in the same context as they are used here?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, I am advised that they are used in exactly the same context.
    Sir A. Gridley: May I ask the Financial Secretary a question? Supposing at the foot of a form which an exporter is asked to complete, the last line says "State ultimate destination," will it be quite in order if the official who fills in that space writes "Hong Kong, so far as we are aware"? Would that clear the exporter?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is what happens now. The exporter here can do no more than fill in the destination as he knows it. If he does that, he is doing all that is required of him, and that is exactly what is done now. It is done under similar legislation and under the form of words which we have embodied in this Clause.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. May I also say that I do not propose to move the consequential Amendment in line 17, to leave out "destination," and to insert "consignee."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 22, to leave out from "circumstances," to the end of line 23, and to insert:
    "a genuine and adequate commercial return."
    This point was discussed at some considerable length during the previous stage of the Bill. We on this side of the House are not at all happy about the expression used in this paragraph. We have put down this Amendment in the hope that the Government may be able to accept it, because we think it safeguards the Treasury from the sort of bogus sales which they anticipate might, under certain circumstances, be made, and, at the same time, provides a reasonable commercial consideration which might be as good a safeguard to the Treasury as they should need. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary really wants us to understand that under the terms of this Clause he wishes to direct exports to one part of the world or another. I imagine that that is done under the licensing of exports, and it is not intended to do so through currency control. If that is the case, I cannot, myself, see why the hon. Gentleman should not be ready to accept the words which we suggest.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry, but we cannot accept this change of wording. I know the right hon. Gentleman takes the view that it amounts to the same thing, and that the phrase he uses is better than the one we have embodied in the Bill. However, we have looked at the Amendment and taken legal advice, and our advisers inform us that the phrase suggested in the Amendment contains a fatal weakness. It might well be asked, "What is a commercial return?" That question has only to be put to oneself to realise what a variety of answers might be given. Whereas, if we use the words "satisfactory in the national interest" there can be only one answer. It is, I think, a yardstick which most of us understand, and which can be brought to the test of facts. I do not know how strongly,

    2249
    the right hon. Gentleman feels about this, but we cannot accept it. If his desire is, as I feel sure it is, to get the best form of words with the least ambiguity, I can assure him that those better able to judge than ourselves—namely, those who have spent many years drafting Clauses of Bills of this kind—assure us that the new form of wording would be very much worse than that which we have at present, and that we should stick to those which are now in the Bill. Therefore, I resist the Amendment.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think the Financial Secretary has made a fatal slip in his reply, because he has alleged that the words suggested in the Amendment, "adequate commercial return," are less susceptible to a fair and equitable interpretation than "in the national interest." We on this side of the House know what variegated purposes, even in this present Session, the words "national interest" have meant coining from hon. Members opposite. They may mean, and have meant constantly, not the national interest at all, but purely the promotion of their own party politics. To leave the Clause as it stands, is to put the whole trade of this country at the mercy of whichever Government may happen to be in power from day to day. Supposing the Chancellor, as many hon. Members on this side of the House feel he soon will, starts running very short of dollars, it would be perfectly possible for him to say it was in the national interest, no matter what happened to the individual firms, to pump exports into America. He could say, "The terms are thoroughly satisfactory to you. It is quite true you will make a loss; it is even probable that you will go broke. But that does not matter. This Clause says 'satisfactory in the national interest,' and that is the thing by which we will judge."
    If the Amendment were accepted no such situation could arise, because the exporter, when forced into that position by the Treasury, could always say, "This is not, from my point of view, an adequate commercial return. It will bankrupt me; it will put be in jeopardy," and he would be safe. Whereas, under the Clause at present he has no such protection, and can be bullied and harried by the Treasury, and made to do the most impossible deals from a commercial angle, merely because it suits the policy of the
    2250
    Government. Such a position is intolerable, particularly when put in a permanent form on the Statute Book. I ask the Financial Secretary whether he can, with a clear conscience, look back on what has been said by himself throughout the passage of this Bill about the words "national interest" Has he always used them in such a way that, when he reads HANSARD and goes through it, he can defend them? Has he not very often confused the national interest with what he wants to do? It is a very natural thing to do; it is a very easy slip to make. But how much easier would that not be if this goes on the Statute Book? Would it not be an open temptation to every Government to say, "This is what we want to do with the trade of the country," and to confuse the national interest with their own aims?
    I hope the Solicitor-General, if he is allowed to, will have second thoughts on this and accept this Amendment, which, as far as we can judge, does nothing to weaken the powers of the Government of the day, but does leave to the export trade that which they are best fitted to do, to direct their own exports on commercial bases, and not merely at the whim of whichever party happens to be in power.
    Sir A. Gridley: I think the great exporting firms of the country will be very disappointed with the desire of the Financial Secretary to keep these words in this Clause. After all, the exporter is the best judge, and indeed the only judge, whether in all the circumstances the price he is charging the customer gives a fair and proper return. I do not know how I should interpret the words "satisfactory in the national interest" as applied to a contract price that I may be quoting tomorrow. In dealing with export business we must have a certain amount of latitude. I well remember the time when unemployment was severe, and when we had an opportunity of carrying out a big export order in South America we had to decide, in competition with Germany at that time, whether we would take a very large contract without any overhead charges attaching to the contract at all. It would have been difficult even to avoid making a heavy loss without going to the workpeople and asking them whether, if this contract was taken—which would provide them with many months of work which would not otherwise have been

    2251
    available for them-they on their part would be willing to accept some reduction in wages. The men seized on that, and were very glad indeed to have that opportunity. The result was, the contract was taken. But it might not have been construed as a contract representing a return satisfactory in the national interest in all the circumstances.
    That is the kind of thing with which we may be faced in this export drive, in which we are doing our very best to assist the Government in the present circumstances. We may get the offer of an important export job in competition with some other country-which we are now beginning to feel-and we may decide it would be much better to accept no profit at all, or only a modest contribution towards overhead charges in the
    national interest, and would feel constrained to accept such a contract. Now, are we to have to satisfy a Government Department that what we decide to do in the circumstances is in the national interest? Surely, we ought to be able to decide for ourselves what is in the national interest, and be prepared to accept such contracts without having to be hindered by a Government Department? I do ask the Financial Secretary not to hinder the export business of this country by insisting upon retaining these words in the Bill, which really only hamper and do not help in any way whatsoever.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 80.

    Division No. 47.]

    AYES.

    7.29 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Crawley, A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Daines, P.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Irving, W. J.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Allewell, H. C.

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

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Austin, H. L.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kenyon, C.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Deer, G.

    King, E. M.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Kinley, J.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Balfour, A.

    Diamond, J.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Banlow, P. G.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Barton, C.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Levy, B. W.

    Battley, J. R.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Dye, S.

    Longden, F.

    Benson, G.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    McAdam, W.

    Berry, H.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    McAllister, G.

    Binns, J.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    McEntee, V. La. T.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Boardman, H.

    Farthing, W. J.

    McGovern, J.

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Follick, M.

    McKay, J, (Wallsend)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Foot, M. M.

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

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Frater, T. (Hamilton)

    McLeavy, F.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exchange)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Braddock, T (Mitcham)

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Gilzean, A.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mathers, G.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Messer, F.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Buchanan, G.

    Grey, C. F.

    Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

    Burden, T. W.

    Grierson, E.

    Monslow, W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Grffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Moody, A. S.

    Callaghan, James

    Gunter, R. J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Champion, A. J.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Morley, R.

    Chater, D.

    Hall, Leslie

    Morris, P. (Swansea. W.)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hall, W. G.

    Moyle, A.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

    Murray, J. D.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Nally, W.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hardman, D. R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Collick, P.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Collins, V. J.

    Haworth, J.

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

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

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

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Harbison, Miss M.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Oliver, G. H.

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

    Holman, P.

    Orbach, M.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Hubbard, T.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Walkden, E.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Pearson, A.

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

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

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

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

    Warbey, W. N.

    Perrins, W.

    Snow, Capt. J. W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Piratin, P.

    Sollay, L. J.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Popplewell, E.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Stamford, W.

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Steele, T.

    Wilkes, L.

    Randall, H. E.

    Stephen, C.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Ranger, J.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Rankin, J.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Reeves, J.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Rhodes, H.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barrel)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Richards, R.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Williamson, T.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Willis, E.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Wilson, J. H.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

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

    Woodburn, A.

    Royle, C.

    Thurtle, E.

    Woods, G. S.

    Scollan, T.

    Tiffany, S.

    Yates, V. F.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Timmons, J.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

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

    Tolley, L.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Sharp, Granville

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Mr. Collindridge and

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Viant, S. P.

    Mr. Simmons.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Wadsworth, G.

    NOES

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Renton, D.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Boothby, R.

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Scott, Lord W.

    Bower, N.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Jennings, R.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Spence, H. R.

    Butcher, H. W.

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Challen, C.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lloyd, Selwyn

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Cuthbert, W N.

    Maclay Hon. J. S.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

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

    Wheatley, Col. M. J.

    De la Bère, R.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Digby, S. W.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    While, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Morris-Jones, Sir H.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Drewe, C.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    York, C.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Pickthorn, K.

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

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Prescott, Stanley

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Commander Agnew and

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Major Conant.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Duty to collect certain debts.)
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I beg to move, in page 17, line 7, after "is," to insert "unreasonably."
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: "Unduly."
    Mr. Strauss: No, it is "unreasonably." I think the hon. Gentleman has yesterday's Order Paper. "Unreasonably" is the correct word.
    I promise the Financial Secretary, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, to treat this very
    2254
    briefly. The point is a short one but, I think, not unimportant. I confess, after the discussion we had in Committee, that I was optimistic enough to expect that we should have had some Government Amendment dealing with this Clause, and, while I will not repeat anything of the lengthy argument we had last lime, I want to remind the House of the difficulty with which I am attempting to deal. The Clause as it stands renders it a criminal offence to do or to refrain from doing certain acts with the intent that is set out. I believe it was suggested from these benches on the last occasion that

    2255
    the right way to deal with the object the Government have in mind is to make it a criminal offence to do certain things with intent, or to refrain from doing certain things which it is a duty to do; but to refrain from doing an act with intent introduces an offence of almost intolerable vagueness.
    In order to show the point of the Amendment I will deal with the latter half of the prohibition, that is, with the prohibition of refraining from doing. I believe that to put in the word "unreasonably" will relieve the innocent man who is frightened of committing an offence, which is the last thing he wishes to do. It will prevent him from doing an act through fear when it is in the national interest that he should refrain from doing it. One of the illustrations I gave on the last occasion was the case of a man who is not too sure either of the honesty or, alternatively, the solvency of his debtor What is his duty if he thinks that the most he can get of his debt is three-quarters if he acts at once, but that, if there were some reasonable delay, he might get the whole of his debt within a short period? Even to consult the Treasury for an answer might destroy the chance of a settlement which was desirable in the interests of the creditor and in the interests of the Government. If a man had just that degree of elasticity— that he must not unreasonably delay the payment of the debt—I believe it would obviate a good deal of the mischief of this very vague criminal offence as it stands. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not think this Amendment is the best way of dealing with the problem. I had hoped that the Government would propose a more radical Amendment, which I believe they may have to introduce in another place, but, since they have decided to leave the words substantially unaltered. I suggest that we should improve the matter by inserting the word "unreasonably."
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Foster: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Clause seeks to make it an offence to do certain acts with certain intents; it also makes it an offence to refrain from doing such acts with certain intents. It is quite common in criminal law for the doing of an act to be made an offence;
    2256
    it is less common in criminal law to make the refraining from an act a criminal offence. It is fairly common in law to make the doing of an act with a certain intent a criminal offence, and assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm or the intent to kill are examples. What is not a feature of our criminal law is to make the omission to do an act, with a certain intent, a criminal offence, although it is common to make not doing an act an offence in itself. If a person does not do something which it is his legal and moral obligation to do, it is an offence. Within my recollection of the criminal law, it is unique to make the not doing of an act an offence, if it is accompanied by an intent.
    I do not know whether many people appreciate that under ordinary criminal law, it is not one's duty to save life. If you are passing the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens and see a couple of children drowning who could be saved if you stretched out your walking-stick, and you do not do so, you commit no criminal offence, although many people would think you are doing something which is wrong. It is the basis of the rule of criminal law that an intent cannot be coupled with not doing an act. Let us consider the case of two persons who have refrained from doing a certain act. In the first case, a man has refrained from doing an act because he is lazy, or cannot be bothered, or has not got down to answering a letter. In the second case a man has failed to do exactly the same thing, but with intent to delay payment, and if he is at all dishonest, no one can prove it against him. That leads us to having to distinguish between these two men entirely on the question of intent. During the Committee stage the Solicitor-General was pressed to say whether a man who refrained from doing something which was not his legal, social or moral obligation to do, was committing an offence.
    Take the case of a man who is owed 20,000 dollars by his New York importer. The importer is refusing to pay him. The English exporter is advised that it would cost him some 10,000 dollars to sue the New York importer to get a legal decision as to whether the amount was owed or not. I should like to know what the Solicitor-General would advise that man to do under this Clause. If he refrained from suing, has he committed an offence?

    2257
    I imagine the answer is that he only commits an offence if he refrained from spending 10,000 dollars with intent to delay payment. The man might say that in ordinary times, if the money had not to be brought into this country, he would risk 10,000 dollars to get 20,000 dollars, but as it is he is not going to bother. One can ring the changes in circumstances of this sort again and again, but there is an instance where a man does not know what to do. He is in two minds; he does not know whether it is worth spending 10,000 dollars in sterling to bring 20,000 dollars to this country, or whether, as the case is doubtful, he will let it go. If "unreasonably" is inserted then you get the logical definition of what constitutes a crime. You get, first of all, the man who does an act with intent to delay payment. He has committed an offence.
    If, on the other hand, he refuses to comply with a demand to his creditor which it is not his duty to perform he is being reasonable in refusing, and you do not go into intent. You do not have to try his thought alone. But there is another test: is it reasonable to do so? Debtors the world over can use their debts in order to bring pressure on their creditors. If a man says, "I will not pay you today, but I will pay you if you do something for me," he is bound to do that under the Clause. The New York exporter says, "I owe you 20,000 dollars, and I will pay you if you introduce me to some other people, and get them to send me some goods," or, "I will pay you if you take some more goods from me," or, "I will pay you if you join in a business venture with me. "What is the man to do? If he is left to his own devices he is in two minds. He might say," I will not do that. I would if I was going to get money in dollars for myself, but it is only for the Government, and I do not see why I should introduce you to anybody else." The Clause can be operated to force a creditor who has not been paid into doing things he does not want to do, because, if he refrains from doing them with intent, he has committed an offence.
    The object which the Government seek to attain could be done by the insertion of the word we propose. The man would still commit an offence by refraining from doing things with intent, but the test would be whether he was reasonable in
    2258
    refusing to do them. At the moment, the test of reasonableness does not come into it. The test is purely one of intent. You can have two men, both refraining from doing something. If one has intent he has then committed an offence. The criminal law in England has always distinguished sharply between making it an offence to do an act with intent, and intent which does not exist. If I may return to the example of the children in danger which I gave just now, if their father refuses to help them then he is committing an offence, because it is his moral and legal duty to do it. The law says, quite properly, that people in charge of children are bound to try and save them. The criminal law, in a much greater case than refraining from doing an act to delay payment, has thought it wise not to make the intentions of thought of a man triable. If the ordinary criminal law makes the abstention from an act innocent, unless the person who abstains has any legal moral or social duty to do it, surely, in a more important case, where the creditor is owed money by somebody outside the United Kingdom, it should not be made an offence where there is intent to delay payment.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (far. H. Strauss) wants to insert the word "unreasonably," before the word "delayed" in line 7 of Clause 24. From the argument that he has used, I understand that he is afraid that if the words of the Clause remain as they are, exporters in this country, who have money due to them, will be proceeded against because they have not acted with due speed, or do not act with due speed, in the collection of their debts, either in specific currency, or sterling, if that is the way in which the money has to be paid.
    Mr. H. Strauss: It is not so much that I fear such a foolish action by the Treasury. I fear the hesitation in a man's mind because he is running the risk of a criminal offence, although he is entirely innocent. He may not know how reasonably the Financial Secretary is proposing to act.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I want to get this clear, because I failed to understand why the hon. and learned Member was moving an Amendment of this sort. The

    2259
    purpose of this Clause is to assist this country, its citizens and exporters, to obtain the money due to them for goods which have been sent abroad. I would have imagined that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been anxious to have seen that our exporters were paid for what has been sent overseas.
    Mr. Strauss: Certainly.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: All the Clause does is to help exporters to receive, either in sterling or in specified currency, what is due to them. The answer to the hon. and learned Member is to be found in the same Clause, ' which provides that the payment of these debts shall be subject to the regulations and methods customary in the course of that particular trade or business. That being so, I cannot for the life of me see how exporters—and they are not children; most of them have been in this business for many years—will be frightened because, in an Act of Parliament, there is not the word, "unreasonably," before the word, "delayed." We have some experience of this matter, and we believe that most exporters will be delighted to feel that they have the Treasury and these words behind them in their efforts to get paid for what they sell. Without carrying the argument too far, I would like to tell the hon. and learned Member that during the war many debenture holders in the country were grateful to the Government for having used powers which are in Regulation 5, and which permit the Treasury to say, if they think the bargain is not good enough from the national or international point of view, that the offer shall not be accepted. I think that if he inquires in the City, he will find that the consensus of opinion, instead of being against the provisions which we are inserting, and to which we want the House to agree, will have no objection to them. Indeed, in the past they have been found useful and I have not the slightest doubt that in the future they will again be found useful.
    8.0 p.m.
    I would like to indicate to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the word "unreasonable," which he found useful in this connection appeared to the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) in quite another light. When we were debating this Bill
    2260
    on 5th December, the hon. and gallant Gentleman said:
    "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 624.]
    I agree in this instance with what the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness said, and I think that it would be a pity to insert that word in this Clause. I, therefore, ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Settlements.)
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 21, line 6, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that nothing in this section shall prohibit or be deemed to prohibit the exercise otherwise than by will of a special power of appointment created by will."
    This Clause is in appearance highly technical, and it will probably frighten a good many hon. Members from taking the interest in it which they would do if they appreciated the effect of it. It is, in effect, one of the more human Clauses in this Bill. The part with which this Amendment deals prohibits any person, except with the permission of the Treasury, from exercising by deed any power of appointment in favour of a person resident outside the scheduled territories. These words are certainly technical words, and it is important that the House should appreciate what they really mean in plain, straightforward English. May I take a simple case?
    Let us suppose that a small shopkeeper dies, leaving his shop premises and the business, together with a few hundred pounds of savings. He may have a homemade will in which he says that he wants his wife to have the shop and the income from his savings for her life, and then goes on to say that she may give any of his property to any of their three children during her life or that it shall be divided between them by her will. I think that is plain, straightforward and fairly easily understood. But to translate it into the language of this Clause, the provision which the shopkeeper has made is to give a life interest in his estate to his wife, with a special power to appoint, by deed

    2261
    or will, in favour of their children. The effect of this Clause upon such a will is this: Suppose that one of the children of the shopkeeper goes to live in America and while there falls on evil times and gets into financial difficulties. Obviously, in those circumstances, his mother would wish to make some provision to enable him to carry on or to come home. In fact, she would wish to exercise her power of appointment by deed in that child's favour, which is what she would have to do under the terms of this home-made will, and she would be prohibited from doing that without this expressed special permission of the Treasury.
    I listened most carefully to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the type of exemption, and I understood that it is not intended to give any general exemption for this type of case. So it would be necessary to get special exemption. It may be argued, of course, that the mother, in such a position, is not in any particular difficulty, since she would be unable to give her own property to her children in those circumstances. Of coarse, that is true. She could not. She would be precluded by the very provisions of this Bill. But this is not the case of a mother giving away her own property at all. In this case, she would be giving her husband's property to this child. She would merely be carrying out the machinery of her late husband's will. That is all she would be doing in exercising her power of appointment. The husband could himself, had he so pleased, have left part of his estate or the whole of it to the child in America. There is no objection to that under this Clause as it stands. Had he done so, the gift would have been perfectly valid and honoured. Why, if we give an estate power to do that, should we limit that power when he reserves out of that gift some lift interest in favour of his widow? He has seen fit, as most men would, to make some life provision for his children. But it is impossible for the wife, without expressed Treasury sanction, to hand over any part of his property if one of the children happens to be outside the scheduled territories. That is the position created by this Clause so far as the prohibition of the exercise of a special power of appointment is concerned. I should have thought that it is not unreasonable for us to ask the Government to say that once the existence of a special power has been validly created, the
    2262
    Treasury should no longer have the right to interfere. I am saying that once a person has validly created an interest which can pass under the exercise of this power, there is no further reason for requiring the Treasury to maintain control. If we give the subject the power to do the greater thing and to give the whole of his property immediately by will, why should we limit it when he tries to do the lesser thing, that is to say only give it after the widow or some other person has had a life interest in it. That seems to be completely anomolous and entirely unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill.
    Perhaps I might point out that a person who is in possession of a special power of appointment cannot exercise it for his own interest. The Solicitor-General will no doubt be aware that the possessor of a power cannot use it so as to benefit himself, but only so as to pass on what he has been given by his testator or settlor to pass on. He can only do what he has already validly been allowed to do without Treasury sanction. In those circumstances, I ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider this matter, and if he cannot accept the precise wording of the Amendment, at any rate to indicate that he is prepared to consider words which will give effect to what we ask.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sorry that I must ask the House not to accept this Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) will be content to withdraw it. The argument on which the Amendment was founded was put in two ways. First, it was put on grounds of hardship. It was said, in the example quoted, that it would be extremely hard upon the son or daughter resident abroad that they could not enjoy the advantage of the exercise of a power of appointment by their mother during her life. Of course, she could do so by will. It was 'said, however, that they ought also, in a matter of hardship, to be able to have the benefit of a power of appointment exercised by her during her life. That could equally be said with regard to all other possible beneficiaries under trusts who happen to be resident abroad. Why should one single out children in the case of a limited power of appointment such

    2263
    as the hon. Gentleman indicated? There is no ground for singling them out.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I did not say that one should single out children; I said one should single out the objects of a limited power.
    The Solicitor-General: There is no reason to single them out. If one is to make an exception to the general principle that settlements and the exercise of powers of appointment must come within the control—if one is to make an exception to that, other than, of course, wills and so on—logically the exception should extend so as to advantage all persons resident overseas who happen to be in difficult circumstances. If the hon. Member's arguments are right, all those exceptions should be embodied in the text of the Clause. In my submission, there is no case for doing that. If one introduced all the exceptions which are equally deserving as the beneficiaries under limited powers of appointment, one would nullify Clause 29 altogether. One would hedge it about with so many exceptions that there would be few cases in which it would operate.
    In practice, the very same control has been operated under Defence (Finance) Regulation 3 B (a), and in fact, there have been requests, and there are constantly requests, for an indulgence in the case of persons who are hard up and who are overseas. Exceptions are constantly made, almost as a matter of routine, in those cases. The control is subject to the Treasury giving permission. Not only can the Treasury give permission in advance, but by reason of the Amendment which was made in Committee, namely, the Amendment which introduced Subsection (3) of Clause 29, it can be given retrospectively ex post facto, so that the Treasury already have a complete power to model a trust in favour of a beneficiary so as to make any exception to cover any hard cases. That power has been generously exercised. The question which is really raised by this Amendment is the one that was raised in respect of a whole number of Clauses by many Amendments that have been moved, namely, whether the exceptions that will be made should be introduced; and thereby made compulsory into the text of the Clause. Here again the whole basis of the Bill is that one must have complete and overall control and that control can be relaxed to meet a hard case.
    2264
    As I said, it is now relaxed under Defence (Finance) Regulation 3 B (a), and the relaxations are made in favour of all sorts of beneficiaries. Not merely is there a limited power of appointment but it extends to all sorts of beneficiaries in trust
    8.15 p.m.
    The arrangement hitherto worked extremely satisfactorily. I am not going back to the argument that because it worked during the war, it must work during peace. But it has worked since the end of the war and it has worked in favour of beneficiaries who are hard up. The hon. Member for South Hendon says it is illogical to let a person bequeath the whole of his assets and then take away from him this power. The answer to that is that the control is over all, but in a special case, on grounds of sentiment, there is special indulgence. In the case of the creation of a trust and in the exercise of the power of appointment a person shall be free to do so, as it were, on his death bed. That is a special indulgence for a person coming to the close of his life. That is why I would ask the House to say that it is not illogical. It does meet exceptional cases and because an exception is made for the reasons I have given, there is no real reason why it should extend to include other cases. If other cases were included, there would be no logical grounds to exclude all other persons who would be called deserving and in respect of whom, under Defence (Finance) Regulation 3 B (a) exceptions are constantly made. I do not reject the Amendment out of hand, but I say that no case has been made out for it, because what the hon. Gentleman is doing is to seek out a particular class of beneficiary and put him in front of all others. I ask the House to say that we have no reason to do that. It is impossible to make exceptions in the text of the Clause, in cases of all persons who would be equally deserving.
    Mr. Assheton: I thought my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) made a strong and convincing case This is a matter in which there can be no party politics at all, and we can look at it with an entirely unbiased eye. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that, in the first place, the power of appointment under the will, is nothing more than the machinery for implementing the intentions of the

    2265
    original testator. The Solicitor-General has told us that he wishes to ratify the last desire of a man who is coming to the end of his life. A man who is coming to the end of his life, wishes in this case to delegate authority. No one who is a member of His Majesty's present Government, or who is introducing or taking part in this Bill, should object to delegated authority, and I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should look at it again, before the Bill reaches another place. I see he does not intend to look at it tonight, but perhaps he will do so, before the Bill reaches another place.
    The Solicitor-General: I will certainly consider the arguments and reflect on them, but I do not want the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) to take out of those words anything more than the undertaking carefully to consider the arguments put forward a indeed I always do.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: in view of what the Solicitor-General has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 21, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
    "excepting—

    (a) in the case of a settlement, so far as it purports to confer any interest on any person who at the time of the settlement is resident outside the scheduled territories and who fails before the time when the interest there under would have vested in such person in possession but for the provisions of this section, or as soon as may be thereafter, to obtain permission to the vesting thereof as aforesaid from the Treasury, or

    (b) in the case of the exercise of a power of appointment, so far as it purports to confer any interest on any person who at the time of the exercise of the power is resident outside the scheduled territories."

    This is a considerably more important Amendment than the last. In the case of a person merely desiring to exercise a power in favour of some person overseas he can, as the learned Solicitor-General has indicated, attain his object by getting Treasury permission. It is true that that will mean trouble, delay and expense, but it can be done, and indeed I understand from the Government that it is frequently done. In the case of the other part of
    2266
    the Clause, which deals with settlements as such, the position is entirely different. In that case the Bill operates inevitably, finally and harshly, and there is no power of exemption remaining with the Treasury as was the case in the previous instance. In usual cases of settlement a person makes a trust in favour of a child and that child's family, and I do not think anyone in any part of the House would quarrel with the statement that settlements of that kind are, generally speaking, desirable. They mean an early distribution of the family fortune between the junior members of the family, they give some security to the child when it is starting life, and, what is perhaps more important to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they probably mean an obligation to invest the trust funds in Government stock. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I do not think the Treasury will wish to do anything which tends to deter people from making settlements.
    In settlements of this common kind which I have described, if the child in whose favour the settlement is primarily made has no children then it is usual to provide for some gift over, and probably the commonest form of gift over is to the children or issue of the person making the settlement. It may very well happen that at the making of the settlement, when no one is thinking very much of what will happen in the distant future and everyone is hoping that the young couple who are to be married will produce a large and healthy family, no one thinks of the gift over taking effect at all. But one of the people interested in the gift over may be resident overseas somewhere outside the scheduled territories. In the case of a settlement any beneficial interest given to such a person, whether it is contingent or the result of the exercise of a power of appointment, any such gift is totally and completely invalidated by this Clause as it now stands. Moreover, it cannot subsequently be validated. I raised that very point with the learned Solicitor-General during the discussion on the Committee stage, and he indicated quite clearly that in the event of a gift over being invalidated by this Clause or, I take it, by any Clause in this Bill, it would not be possible for the Treasury subsequently and retrospectively to say that it should be made valid
    The Solicitor-General: It can now, under the Amendment introduced in Committee to Subsection (3).
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I quite appreciate that that Amendment exists. I take it that if an invalid gift were conveyed to the Treasury, say, 20 years later, the validity of it, although for a full 20 years it had been a bad and ineffective gift, would not be challenged. If that is the position, I am glad. It is clear that the Solicitor-General has reconsidered what he said at an earlier stage, and that his opinion has now changed. I do not apologise to the House, because I was accepting the Government's earlier words, but it is clear that the case I was presenting has lost some of its force. Nevertheless, it still remains true that a gift made under a settlement in favour of some person who happens, unknown or un-thought of, to be outside the Scheduled Territories, is invalid. It would require some action to be taken to abate the invalidity, possibly at a very much later period.
    I would ask the Solicitor-General about a case I have come across since the Committee stage. A settlement was being made in favour of one of two brothers. The other brother was resident in the Far East, I think without doubt in a country outside the scheduled territories. There was a gift over, in the event of the first brother dying without issue, in favour of the other brother. By the Bill, that gift is invalid. Whether it could be validated subsequently would presumably be a matter of Treasury policy at some future date. What does the Solicitor-General suggest? Is the gift simply to be struck out of the settlement altogether? Suppose there had been three brothers and not two, one of whom was the primary beneficiary, one of whom was in this country, and one of whom was in the Far East and not valid. Would the effect of the Clause be to make the gift over in favour of the other brother go wholly to the brother who was qualified? Or does the Clause have some other effect? If so, what is intended by the Government? We ought to have a clear answer before we part with the Clause.
    I do not think I need go very much further with this matter. The argument which I am putting forward now is much more apt in the case of the smaller and poorer type of testator than in the case
    2268
    of the wealthy. The wealthy man will always get the best legal advice, which will no doubt tell him to get the thing straight and to square matters up with the Treasury before the damage is done. The poorer man, who wishes to make some provision for his children will almost certainly avoid taking legal opinion, or will get an opinion which is less qualified. This kind of point may easily be missed. It is only after the trouble has been found out and after action has been taken, that something has to be done to put it right. I think the Solicitor-General will agree that this is one of the most expensive forms of litigation to be found in this country. Therefore, on behalf of the least wealthy people who have something to dispose of by means of trusts and settlements, I submit that this Clause should be as clear and watertight as it can possibly be drawn.
    8.30 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Solicitor-General: The basis of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was really that if a settlement started off by being invalid it could not be cured, so that in 20 years time one might find cut out of the terms of the settlement somebody who by common consent was intended to be included. That is cured by Subsection (3) which was introduced by way of Amendment in Committee. Without that upon a fair construction of Subsection (1), an exception could not be made retrospectively, but Subsection (3) cures that position because in that case when the 20 years has gone by it would be perfectly open to the Treasury to give the certificate provided for by the Subsection, which would validate the particular settlement in question. So that in the case of a settlement of a brother resident here and, in default, of a brother resident overseas where the 20 years had passed and it was found that the gift over in favour of the brother overseas was invalidated, it could be validated and there would be no harm to anyone.
    I ask the House to accept the view that that circumstance cuts the ground entirely from the argument adduced by the hon. Member. In point of fact, the hon. Member does very much, by his Amendment as is done by Subsection (3). He says in his

    2269
    Amendment that a settlement shall only be invalid in respect of a person who fails to obtain the requisite permission. What we have done in Subsection (3) by way of Amendment—it was not in the Clause as originally drawn—cures that defect. In any case his Amendment would be almost entirely otiose if standing side by side with Subsection (3).
    The hon. Member for South Hendon makes another point which he says will operate more hardly in the case of a small estate than in the case of a large estate. In the case of a small estate one does not expect expensive legal advice to be obtained. The answer is that in giving the permission the Treasury should and would take into account that in the case of a small estate one does not want to waste legal costs by having expensive documents drawn to provide for every contingency, and it would be reasonable to give permission in the case of a smaller estate; whereas in the case of a larger estate where legal advice has been taken and the thing has been worked out, the conclusion might be that there had been some deliberate reason for drawing the trust as it was drawn, and in that case consent might be withheld. I do not attempt to generalise but in the case of a small trust where obviously as a matter of commonsense money would not have been spent in carefully framing the thing in accordance with the terms of the Act, that would be a cogent reason for asking for consent. The hon. Gentleman is looking at the observations I made during the Committee stage. I was intending to state with reference to Subsection (1) —I hope I made that clear—that there would be no power to issue consent retrospectively. Whatever I said, there is quite definitely power under Subsection (3). If the hon. Member will study it in connection with Clause 18, he will agree that there is now that power.
    In other words, by the Amendment which we introduced in the Committee stage, we have done very nearly what the hon. Gentleman has sought to do in his Amendment today. For those reasons, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not withdraw his Amendment and, in any case, would ask the House not to accept it.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am bound to confess that had the learned Solicitor-General made his speech on the Committee stage
    2270
    on the lines of the one he has made today, I should probably—[Interruption.]—I am entitled to speak a second time, having moved the Amendment, am I not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Perhaps I might have the leave of the House?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): This is not the Report stage from a Standing Committee. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not permitted to reply. I understood that he rose to withdraw his Amendment.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On a point of Order. I would like to make some explanation. The learned Solicitor-General had made a statement in flat contradiction of what he said on an earlier stage of the Bill, and has put me at some personal difficulty, since I moved this Amendment. May I have the leave of the House?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it is really necessary—…
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth Sir H. Lucas-Tooth rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it is really necessary. The hon. Gentleman has already made a fairly lengthy speech, the Solicitor-General has replied, and it is not usual for an hon. Member who has moved an Amendment afterwards to vouchsafe a reason for having moved it.
    Mr. Stanley: On that point of Order. I understood that the practice of this House was that on the Report stage, if any hon. Member wished to speak a second time, he asked the leave of the House and, if the House gave him leave, he was entitled to speak. Am I now to understand that the Chair will rule whether he is to speak a second time or not?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the normal Rule of the House is that an hon. Member does not speak a second time—
    Mr. Stanley: Except by leave of the House?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not aware that the House has given the hon. Gentleman leave. As I understand it, the hon. Member now desires to offer an explanation. He has already spoken once on this matter. It is for the House to decide, and I would not stand between the hon. Gentleman and the House, but it seems to me unusual and unnecessary to press the point.
    Mr. Stanley: I am sorry to press this point, but it raises a very important point of Order. I understood that whether an hon. Member was allowed to speak a second time or not depended entirely upon whether, when he asked the leave of the House, the House objected or not. I certainly had not realised before-but, of course, I accept your Ruling now, important as it is-that it is within the province of the Chair to say whether he shall be allowed to speak a second time.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the Chair is always the servant of the House. If the House gives leave, then the hon. Mem-
    ber is entitled to speak. Perhaps he will ask for leave if he wishes to do so.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: May I have the leave of the House?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In those circumstances I cannot go on, and I shall not withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: We will divide then.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 75.

    Division No. 48.]

    AYES.

    8.38 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Deer, G.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Delargy, Captain H. J.

    McGovern, J.

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

    Diamond, J.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Dodds, N. N.

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

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Donovan, T.

    McLeavy, F.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Dye, S.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Attewell, H. C.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Mathers, G.

    Austin, H. L.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Messer, F.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Ayles, W. H.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Monslow, W

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Farthing, W. J.

    Moody, A. S.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Field, Captain W. J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Balfour, A.

    Follick, M.

    Morley, R.

    Barstow, P. G

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Barton, C.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Moyle, A.

    Battley, J. R.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Murray, J. D

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Gilzean, A.

    Nally, W.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Benson, G.

    Gooch, E. G.

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

    Berry, H.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C

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

    Binns, J.

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Blackburn, A. R

    Grey, C. F.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Blenkinsop, A

    Grierson, E.

    Orbach, M.

    Boardman, H

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Bottomley, A. G

    Gunter, R. J.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Hale, Leslie

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

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

    Hall, W. G.

    Pearson, A.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

    Peart, Capt. T. F

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Perrins, W

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Piratin, P.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Haworth, J.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Herbison, Miss M

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Burden, T. W

    Hobson, C. R.

    Randall, H. E.

    Burke, W. A.

    Holman, P.

    Ranger, J.

    Callaghan, James

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Rankin, J.

    Champion, A. J

    Hubbard, T.

    Rees-Williams, D. R

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)

    Reeves, J.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Rhodes, H

    Coldrick, W.

    Irving, W. J.

    Richards, R.

    Collick, P.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Collindridge, F.

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Collins, V. J.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Jones. D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Royle, C

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Scollan, T.

    Cooper, Wins-Comdr. G.

    Kenyon, C.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

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

    King, E. M.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E A A

    Cove, W. G.

    Kinley, J.

    Sharp, Granville

    Crawley, A.

    Kirby, B. V

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Daines, P.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Levy, B. W.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Lindgren, G. S

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Longden, F.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

    Thurtle, E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

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

    Tiffany, S.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Solley, L. J.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

    Tolley, L.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Stamford, W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Steele, T.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Stephen, C.

    Viant, S. P.

    Williamson, T.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Willis, E.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Walkden, E.

    Wilson, J. H.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

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

    Woodburn, A.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Woods, G. S.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Weitzman, D.

    Yates, V. F.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Wilkes, L.

    Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Snow.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Hogs, Hon. Q.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Boothby, R.

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Bower, N.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Spence, H. R.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Jennings, R.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Challen, C.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Thornton-Kemsley, G. N.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A. F.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

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

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    De la Bère, R.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Digby, S. W.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Maude, J. C.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    York, C.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Pickthorn, K.

    Sir Arthur Young and

    Mr. Drewe.

    CLAUSE 30.—(Compamies.)
    Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, in page 21, line 41, to leave out from "requirements," to the end of line 44.
    I must almost apologise to the House for this Amendment, and for bringing Members down from the very lofty heights if the legal intricacies to which we have just been listening. I was looking at the faces of hon. Members opposite. They seemed to understand the point of the last Amendment, though I confess that I myself was rather out of my depth. This is a most simple Amendment and one that can be understood by all. If hon. Members will look at Clause 30, they will see that it is intended to deal with a foreign company, where it is believed that in some form or other the control of the company is really exercised by a resident here, and that the resident here can either do, or refrain from doing, something which will have the result of that foreign company doing what the Treasury desires. In
    2274
    order to carry that out, there are three obligations placed on the resident of this country. They are contained in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Clause 30 (1).
    He must first of all
    "cause the foreign company to comply with any of the requirements."
    Secondly, he must
    "remove any obstacle to the foreign company complying with any of the requirements."
    Thirdly—and it is this that I move to leave out—he must either do, or refrain from doing, any acts which
    "render it in any respect more probable that the foreign company will comply with any of the requirements."
    I move the deletion of the third paragraph of the Subsection because I believe this is an obligation so wide and so indefinite in its character that it will be quite unenforceable. It will be impossible to have a case upon which any court would be prepared to convict. I

    2275
    think it is more preferable that a provision which- cannot be enforced in law should not appear in the Act.
    It will be noticed that we have only put down an Amendment to this one of the three Subsections. At an earlier stage we referred to the danger of an indiscriminate or unwarranted use by the Treasury of the power conferred in the other two. That power might cause lasting damage to the relationship between the resident and the foreign company by any unwise act. However, we recognise that there may be some need and justification for these powers. They are, at any rate, definite and they apply to something which it is within the power of the resident of this country either to do or to refrain from doing. But when we come to this Subsection, which says that a man must do something which makes it more probable that a foreign company will take this or that line, then I submit to the House that it is so indefinite that it is really monstrous that it should be made the subject of a criminal prosecution. Who is to decide whether a particular action makes a result in a foreign country more or less probable? When the Treasury says, "You ought to have written this or that letter," and the man replies, "But from my knowledge of that company I think such a letter would only have made them more determined not to carry out this requirement"—who is to decide which is right? Who is to decide whether it is more probable that to have sent a letter, or not to have sent a letter, would have induced them to agree?
    It seems to me that to ask a police court or a quarter sessions to decide whether a man is guilty of an infringement of this regulation is asking too much of any criminal court. I should have thought— and we have had no argument to the contrary—that the other two powers, which we are allowing to go through unchallenged, although with warnings as to the way they are used, would have been sufficient. They give the Treasury everything they are likely to want. They will cover any case where their decision is really enforceable. To use the learned Solicitor-General's description of a certain Amendment by one of my hon. Friends, the power contained in this paragraph is entirely otiose.
    2276
    In these circumstances I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will feel able to accept the Amendment. If not, I hope he will be able to give, what we have not had hitherto—some indication of the type of case which this is meant to cover and some indication of how its administration will be effected. The learned Solicitor-General, during the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been in a yielding mood. I hope he will not let the return of the Chancellor in any way stiffen his attitude but that he will agree with us that this part of the subsection is unnecessary and, therefore, can be dropped quite safely.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The matter raised by this Amendment was debated at some length during the Committee stage, and I only rise now because of a point which has been brought to my notice since that time. It refers to the shipping industry. A great carrying nation such as ours has often found it convenient for its shipping companies to have subsidiaries in foreign countries. For example, in Egypt, one still finds a number of subsidiary shipping firms with their parent companies in the United Kingdom. The same tiling happens in China, and so on. I believe I am right in saying that since the Committee stage the Chancellor of the Exchequer has heard from the General Council of British Shipping on this point. I wonder if it would be convenient, on this Amendment, for a Minister to say a word or two on the matter? The chief problem with which the shipping companies are faced is, I think, best expressed by quoting a short sentence or two from the letter in question. They sent me a copy of it. It says:
    "It appears to be possible, for example, under the Clause as drafted, for the Treasury to require the liquidation of assets on a scale which will not merely hamper the company's normal operations, but might, if the assets were acquired by a foreign competitor, put it at a most serious competitive disadvantage. So far as the Council can see, the Bill provides no safeguard against possibilities of this kind."
    I am sure that the last thing that the Government want to do is to hamper the handling of our shipping in foreign ports, and I only raise the matter in order that a statement might be forthcoming.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When we debated this particular Clause in Com-

    2277
    mittee, if I may quote from the remarks of the learned Solicitor-General on 9th December, he said:
    "The scheme is designed to apply primarily to companies controlled, or, at any rate, owned by British people. Either the ownership or control, or both, must be exercised by British people. It is designed to apply only to those companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 783.]
    It is impossible to circumscribe the provisions of the Clause within the definition given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The provisions as to what constitutes control in the terms of this Clause are laid down in the Second Schedule, and it is impossible for the hon. and learned Gentleman to pretend that the terms laid down in that Schedule cover only companies controlled by British personnel or British residents. We are now being asked to pass a Clause which says that the control being laid down in these terms is a requirement under which the Treasury may make an Order, so that a British resident is asked to facilitate something which the Treasury may order. The whole thing simply becomes nonsense. During the Committee stage, a certain amount was said about Ruritania. There is no need for that to be discussed again, but there is one thing that should be said and that is that, if the Solicitor-General, or any other Minister who is to reply, insists that he will not accept this Amendment, then, indeed, they are taking this Bill into the realms of Ruritania It shows that they do not understand what constitutes controls, and, secondly that they are trying to impose on British industry a task which is quite impossible. As we on this side of the House have said, we are prepared to co-operate with the Government in anything that will safeguard the immediate position regarding currency, and on any other subject on which the Chancellor may want help, but we are not prepared to accept a Clause which will not help, but will only hamper, industry as a whole.
    If this paragraph remains as it is, it will simply add lunacy to an already bad Bill. No possible case could be made out for it remaining part of this Bill. I hope that its deletion will be secured both because, as my right hon. Friend has said, the powers in the other Subsections are sufficient and, more particularly, because, if this provision is maintained, it will add
    2278
    nothing to the Bill and will merely make the whole thing ludicrous in the eyes of anyone who may have to try to carry on the trade of the country under its provisions.
    9.0 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: Paragraph (c) is needed in order to make Clause 30 workable. It is wider and would embrace other cases which would not be brought within the purview of paragraphs (a) and (b). We are most anxious that it should not be thought, either by the General Council of British Shipping or by any other trading body that this Subsection will be used in any way oppressively so as to injure their interests. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut. Commander Braithwaite) asked that whoever replied to the Amendment should make statement saying what the position was with regard to British shipping. I willingly respond to that invitation. I say, advisedly, that the importance of British shipping is fully realised so far as exchange control is concerned. Not only are considerable exchange facilities now provided, but they will continue to be provided in such a way as not to hamper the growth or operation of British shipping. There is no intention of interfering with the foreign subsidiaries of British shipping companies unless, of course, circumstances arise which make it unavoidably necessary.
    Suppose, for example, that subsidiaries abroad were used as a means of locking up exchange which was entirely surplus to reasonable local requirements, then, of necessity, the position would be different. But, subject to that, there is no intention to interfere with foreign subsidiaries of British shipping companies. In particular, there is no intention of forcing liquidation in such a way as to make foreign subsidiaries the property of foreign concerns Great pains will be taken to avoid damaging the shipping industry by any action of that sort. All that is desired is that there should be reasonable behaviour on the part of the shipping companies, when they will be left untrammelled by any action under this Clause.
    The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment based his argument on the view that there was no reason to have this paragraph when we already have the other two. He asked me to give examples of cases which would come within paragraph (c), but which would not be got at by paragraphs (a) and (b). Supposing

    2279
    for example, that it were desirable that a new director should be appointed who would be likely to guide the affairs of the company in a way which was considered necessary in the public interest, that would be something which would make it more probable that the company should take a particular course. On the other hand, it would not be said that, by so doing, it was causing the foreign company to proceed under paragraph (a) or that it would be removing an obstacle within paragraph (b), but it would come within paragraph (c). There are many other cases which would not come within the first two paragraphs, but which would come within paragraph (c), such, for example, as a threat by debenture holders to appoint a receiver. It might not come within paragraph (a), or within paragraph (b), but, under paragraph (c), it could be said to be an act which made it more probable that the company should act in the desired way to further the national interest.
    Therefore, while following the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), we feel that we must have paragraph (c) because paragraphs (a) and (b) are not enough. We feel that without the additional direction of paragraph (c), which would cover the number of cases which do not fall within the specific terms of the other two paragraphs, we would not have sufficient powers to operate the Clause as we desire. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked who would decide. In the case of a conflict of opinion, if the Treasury thought right to prosecute, it would be the court which would decide between them; but, naturally, the Treasury would not dream of prosecuting except in a clear case. Some cases are clear beyond controversy. If the person affected by the direction were obstinate, it might be a matter for the courts, but obviously it would not be the practice of the Treasury to proceed except in. cases where it could not reasonably be said on behalf of the person affected by the direction that what was asked was not reasonable. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment so that the paragraph may remain in the Clause.
    Mr. Pick thorn: I do not suppose it is easy for those of us who are not habitually familiar with this business to understand this point, but I think it is right that we should try to understand it. Therefore, I should like to ask for a little more elucidation to make sure I have got it right. May I say, if it does not sound dogmatic, what I think is meant and hope to be corrected if I have got it wrong? What I think it means is that if the Treasury directs one of the companies concerned to do any act which, in the Treasury's opinion, would render it in any respect more probable that a foreign company would do something desired by the Treasury, that thereupon if the company did not do the directed act, the Treasury would prosecute in the extreme case, and in that case it would be the high court to which the case would go, or, if that is wrong, at what earlier stage and to whom would it go? Would it go to anyone other than the Treasury to decide whether an act of omission or commission asked for was, or was not, likely to make it "in any respects more probable" within the meaning of the Act?
    Mr. Drayson: I do not think the learned Solicitor-General has made the matter any clearer by his explanation. Turning to the Schedule relating to companies and types of holdings which British interests should have in order to exercise necessary control over these foreign companies with which we are concerned, I do not see that there is any guarantee that because the British interests receive more than 50 per cent. of the dividends there is any less reason to suppose that they actually control the company. I think a foreign company is entitled to take what action it can to protect the assets of its own concern, for the benefit of its minority holders who might exist outside this country, or those holders who might have the controlling votes of any particular type of share which did not receive more than 50 per cent. of the dividends payable by the company concerned. I was puzzled by these words:
    ".. that the Treasury wish any such requirements as are hereinafter mentioned…."
    I hate the thought that we should include the word "order," but it seems to be rather vague for the Treasury to express a wish, because the directors concerned may feel that it is not desirable that that wish should be carried out, and then where do we stand? What is the further enforcement that the Treasury should bring

    2281
    on the individuals concerned? With regard to the words "more probable," the directors of the company know their fellow directors and those with whom they are associated overseas. Who is to be the judge of what action is ''more probable'' to bring about the desired result? If the company concerned consider that the desired result—that is, the result desired by the Treasury in this country—is not in the best interests of the country in which the company is domiciled, what is the position? I think the whole Clause is extremely difficult to follow, certainly for myself.
    Mr. J. Foster: I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. He will probably remember that during the Committee stage he said that certain banks had apprehensions, in regard to Clause 30, which he was hoping to remove. I think he referred particularly to paragraph (c), although I am not sure about my recollection on that point. It was implicit in the Debate that paragraph (c) came into the apprehensions of the banks. The Chancellor said the Government were seeking to remove those apprehensions. I wonder if he could tell us what those apprehensions were, and how he has removed them?
    Another point I would like to bring to the notice of the Chancellor is this. This Clause allows the Treasury to call upon any person resident in the United Kingdom to take certain steps with regard to foreign companies. For instance, the Treasury may serve a notice on a person resident in this country asking him to take some action which would make it more probable that the foreign company would pay a dividend, or to give particulars of its business, or to realise its assets if the Treasury so wanted. I am sure the Chancellor realises that commercial and financial dealings do not depend upon the strict legal relationship of the various classes of shareholders. They do not insist on their legal rights, but regard the business on moral considerations.
    This is a power which is capable of very great abuse if it is misused. The answer of the learned Solicitor-General and the Chancellor to this and other Amendments is, "You can trust us. You can trust the Treasury not to use this power except in a clear case." But when we look at the Clause we see it is adding yet another branch to the criminal law,
    2282
    namely, the offence of not taking actions which make it more probable that somebody else will do something. I think the Government have overstepped the line. They have extended the criminal law in yet another direction, making a crime of not doing something which makes somebody else's action more probable. Merely to state that-shows the difficulty and the vagueness of the realms into which we have gone in the criminal law. Imagine a man being prosecuted, and his offence being that of not writing to a company in New York threatening that if they do not tell the Treasury what their assets are he will be forced to realise his debentures, or to appoint some new directors, or that he will be forced to call in the loan which he has made to the company. There may be many moral or business relationships between him and that company which make it very undesirable that we should appear to disregard his moral obligations, purely to get at the foreign exchange.
    9.15 p.m.
    It may be answered that the Treasury will always have these considerations in mind, but one finds that Government Departments, like trustees, are very often unable to pay any attention to moral considerations, and the legal reason is that the trustees say, "We cannot pay any attention to these moral considerations, because we have our duty to the beneficiaries," and, Government Departments will say, "We are very sorry. We would like to pay attention to these moral obligations which you owe to your New York concern, and it is quite true that they saved you from bankruptcy in 1920, but the taxpayers are involved, and therefore we can have no regard to these moral considerations." A foreign country will then say that England in their desire to safeguard their exchange position are disregarding moral obligations, disregarding the relationship between this country and a foreign company, and in other words are assuming jurisdiction over foreign countries; retaliatory measures are then taken. The effect of this Clause may lead other countries to go in for retaliation. That happened in the war in another part of exchange control. When California learned that money left by British testators to persons within California could not be transferred, they said that no Briton shall get what he is entitled to from California. The mischief of this

    2283
    Clause goes further than the shortsighted view of being able to stop every clever or crooked person who may exist. It is better to go slower and not exercise powers of this wide nature.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 79.

    Division No. 49.]

    AYES

    9.17 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Piratin, P.

    Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Gibson, C. W.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Gilzean, A.

    Randall, H. E.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Ranger, J.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Rankin, J.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Gordon-Walker, P. C

    Rees-Williams, D. R

    Attewell, H. C.

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Reeves, J.

    Austin, H. L.

    Grey, C. F.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Awbery, S. S

    Grierson, E.

    Rhodes, H.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Grffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Richards, R.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Gunter, R. J.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Hairs, John E. (Wycombe)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Balfour, A

    Hale, Leslie

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Barton, C.

    Hall, W. G.

    Royle, C.

    Battley, J. R.

    Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R.

    Scollan, T.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Benson, G.

    Haworth, J.

    Shackleton, Wing-Cdr E. A. A

    Berry, H.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Sharp, Granville

    Binns, J.

    Harbison, Miss M

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Blackburn, A. R

    Hobson, C. R.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Holman, P.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Boardman, H.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Simmons, C. J

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Hubbard, T.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Bowden, Flg.-Off H. W.

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

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Smith S H (Hull S. W.)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Irving, W. J.

    Solley L. J.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Isaacs, Rt Hon. G A

    Soskice Mai Sir F

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Sparks J. A.

    Brown, T J. (Ince)

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Stamford, W.

    Bruce, Major D. W. T.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Steele, T.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Stephen, C.

    Burden, T. W

    Kenyon, S.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Burke, W. A.

    King, E. M.

    Stubbs A. E.

    Champion, A. J

    Kinley, J.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirby, B.V.

    Traylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Taylor, H. B. (Morpeth)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Baylor R. J. C (Morpeth)

    Coldrick, W.

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Collick, P.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Thomas D E (Aberdare)

    Collindridge, F.

    Longden, F.

    Thomas, I.O.(Wrekin)

    Collins, V J.

    McEntee, V. L. T.

    Thomas, John R.(Dover)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

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

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

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    McLeavy, F.

    Thurtle, E.

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

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Tiffany, S.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Titterington, M. F

    Corvedala, Viscount

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Tolley, L.

    Cove, W. G.

    Mathers, G.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Crawley, A

    Messer, F.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Daines, P.

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Monslow, W

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Moody, A. S.

    Wadsworth, G

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Walkden, E.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Morley, R.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)

    Deer, G.

    Murray, J. D

    Warbey, W. N.

    Delargy, Captain H. J

    Nally, W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Diamond, J.

    Naylor, T E.

    Wells W. T. (Walsall)

    Dodds, N. N.

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

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Donovan, T.

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

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Driberg, T. E. N

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Durbin, E. F M.

    Oliver, G. H

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Dye S.

    Orbach, M.

    Willey, F. T. (Sundarland)

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Evans, E. (Lawestoft)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrave)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Farthing W. J.

    Pearnon, A.

    Williamson, T

    Field, Captain W. J

    Peart, Capt. T. F

    Willis, E.

    Follick, M.

    Perrins, W.

    Wilson, J. H.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Yates, V. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Woodburn, A.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

    Woods, G. S.

    Zilliacus, K.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Renton, D.

    Assheton Rt. Hon. R.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Boothby, R.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W)

    Snadden, W. M.

    Bower, N.

    Jennings, R.

    Spence, H. R.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Lambart, Hon. Q.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.

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

    MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

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

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    De la Bare, R.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Digby, Maj. S. W.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

    Drayson, G. B.

    Maude, J. C.

    York, C.

    Drewe, C.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

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

    Foster, J. G (Northwich)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Major Ramsay and

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Major Conant

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 22, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that this Subsection shall not apply where the lender after making such inquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances of the case does not know and has no reason to suspect that the body corporate is controlled as aforesaid."
    During the discussion on the Committee stage, the hon Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) pointed out that banks might be placed in some considerable difficulty by Subsection (3) of this Clause as it stood in that it imposed upon them the prohibition, among others, against lending to subsidiaries of foreign controlled companies. He said that it might be difficult for them, in particular cases, to know whether the loan was required for such a subsidiary. There is now the proviso in this Amendment which enables them to lend, providing they make reasonable inquiries and, as a result of those inquiries, have no reason to suspect that the loan is required for the subsidiary of a foreign controlled company.
    Mr. Assheton: We are much indebted to the Solicitor-General.
    Amendment agreed to

    CLAUSE 37.—(Other powers of Treasury.)
    The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 25 line 35 to leave out from "purposes," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
    2286
    "(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of the last preceding Subsection, a person shall not by virtue of any direction given by the Treasury under this Act, not being a direction printed and sold under the Rules Publication Act, 1893, or the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, be convicted of an offence against this Act unless the direction was served on him or he knew, or avoided getting to know, of the giving thereof:
    Provided that where reasonable steps were taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of the direction to his notice it shall be for him to show that he neither knew nor avoided getting to know of the giving thereof."
    During the Committee stage, hon. Members opposite pointed out that the words "had notice," in line 38 of Subsection (2, c) of this Clause, were not clear, and might involve persons who were not intended to be brought in, in criminal proceedings. I replied then, on behalf of the Government, that the intention of using these words was to bring in only persons who had deliberately avoided acquiring knowledge. The Amendment is designed to make it clear that persons are liable to criminal proceedings in respect of a direction only if they had knowledge, or deliberately went out of their way to avoid acquiring knowledge. The proviso places the onus on the person charged of saying that he had not gone out of his way to avoid getting knowledge, once it is shown that reasonable steps were taken to bring the matter to his knowledge. I ask the House

    2287
    to say that that is a fair way of dealing with the matter, and that the vice that was in the words, "had notice", has been cured.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Maude: There is a small drafting point to which I would draw attention. The word "thereof" at the end of the proviso could be construed as referring to the word "purpose." Obviously, it is intended to refer to the "direction." I would ask that perhaps in another place it should be altered, as it does not appear to make sense at the moment. I am making no complaint; it is merely a small drafting point.
    Mr. J. Foster: I think that we, on this side of the House, will be grateful that at least in one particular the Government have seen fit to remove the vagueness of the Bill. As the learned Solicitor-General has said, in the Committee Stage it was complained that as the Clause then stood, before Amendment, no one would know what notice was sufficient to make a person liable to criminal proceedings. One can only regret that this desire to remove a possible source of injustice to the subject is not shown in other parts of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 41.— (Determination of residence.)
    Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 27, line 21, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that no person shall be held guilty of any offence by reason of any such direction as aforesaid if he was not in fact a resident or a non-resident as the case may be in the territory concerned at the time of the alleged offence."
    Clause 41 (2) gives the Treasury power to
    "give directions declaring that for all or any purposes of this Act a person is to be treated as resident or not resident in such territories as may be specified in the directions."
    The House will notice that the powers given to the Treasury under this Subsection are entirely unlimited. They can declare that a person is resident or not resident anywhere. I submit to the hon. and learned Solicitor-General—he will no doubt correct me if he thinks that I am wrong—that there would be nothing to prevent, as a matter of law, the Treasury
    2288
    saying that a man was resident in one place for the purposes of certain Clauses of the Bill and resident in some quite different place for the purposes of other Clauses.
    However fantastic the result which might be produced, it would be hopeless, at this stage, to urge the Government to make a more drastic revision of the Clause than I am proposing; but I think that the House will agree that, whatever other results flow from the Treasury direction, if the Treasury chose to say that a man was resident in Canada, that ought not to make him liable for a criminal offence on the basis that he was in Canada if in fact he was resident in England. The purpose of this Amendment is to say that, whatever directions the Treasury may give, they shall not enable a man to be treated as a criminal, if the facts stated in the Treasury direction were untrue at the time of the alleged offence.
    I cannot help feeling that the Government will either accept this Amendment or something equivalent, if they do not like the exact wording. I cannot conceive that the Government really wish it to be said that they can at any moment declare by direction that any man is resident anywhere, and that in the interval, at any rate, between the time when the direction is made and the time when it comes to his notice, he may do an act which makes him guilty of a crime under this Bill, and he will have no remedy or defence whatsoever. I do not know whether it will be said by the Solicitor-General that there is no chance of such a direction acting so as to make the man ex post facto criminally liable, but I am sure, if he studies the terms of the Bill, he will agree that a man will be prima facie guilty of an offence under numerous Clauses if, in ignorance that a direction has been made by the Treasury under Clause 41 (2), he in fact does an act which is criminal under the Treasury direction. Therefore, the Amendment I move makes the proviso that whatever directions the Treasury gives dealing with residence or non-residence,
    "no person shall be held to be guilty of any offence by reason of any such direction as aforesaid if he was not in fact a resident or a non-resident as the case may be in the territory concerned at the time of the alleged offence."
    That at least protects a man from the risk that the Treasury can make a direc-

    2289
    tion which states a fact which any court of law will hold to be wholly untrue, but which yet will make him criminally liable. They may say that a man is resident in America when in fact he is resident in Timbuctoo. The Treasury would have absolute power to do that under this Clause. I say that the court, if such a man is prosecuted, ought to be able to have regard to where, in fact, he was resident. Therefore, I ask the Minister who is to reply for the Government the following questions. First, does he agree that, as a matter of law, there is nothing in the Clause as it stands which will prevent the Treasury from saying that a man is to be treated as resident in one place for certain purposes under the Bill and is to be treated as resident in some quite different place for other purposes? My submission is that that is perfectly possible under the Clause as it stands. Secondly, I ask whether a man, in the absence of such an Amendment as this, will not Be liable to be found guilty of an offence of which he is morally entirely innocent. I ask the Government to answer this question and either to accept my Amendment, or to produce an Amendment of their own which will prevent the injustice against which my Amendment is directed.
    Mr. Foster: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to congratulate the House in showing such interest in this most important Clause, which is concerned with the determination of residence. I think that many hon. Members who are now in the House may find it difficult to follow the objects of the Amendment, since they do not seem to have in their hands the Amendment paper or the Bill. This Clause, however, is the most important one in the Bill. The object of the Amendment is to lessen the likelihood of persons being convicted for an offence, which, in fact, they could commit under this Bill without knowing it. And the point of this Amendment is really to answer the question which I put to the Government on the Committee stage and to which I received no reply. The question I asked was, Supposing the Treasury gave a wrong determination about residence, what is the remedy of the subject and what defence does he have in a court of law if he is accused of having done something under
    2290
    the classification he is placed in by the Treasury?
    Take a case on which I have to advise at the moment. It is the case of an American Army officer. She is in this country for six months and she is receiving a dollar allowance from her husband which is paid into an account of hers in Washington. She has a resident account here because she regards herself as resident in England and she has a foreign account in Washington. If the Treasury decide that she is resident in this country—and I think it is clear that she is not—they might decide that she has to be prosecuted in the police court for doing something as a resident which she is not supposed to have done, namely have a dollar account in the United States of America. If this Amendment were inserted it would allow her to say, "I am not, in fact, a resident of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I have not committed any criminal offence." It is a serious matter if this Bill allows the Treasury to make a decision which, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) said, affects practically every Clause of this Bill by deciding that someone is resident in the United Kingdom when that person might be outside the United Kingdom with regard to common exchange.
    The principle of residence in this Bill is basic. Every Clause, except Clause 5, refers either to a person resident or nonresident in the United Kingdom, and it is essential in my submission that it should be made absolutely clear that if the Treasury give a direction which is wrong or which is arguable, there should be some way of appeal before the courts. In Income Tax, if there is a wrong direction and there is a dispute as to residence then the subject has a right of appeal to commissioners, and if it is wrong on a point of law, he can go to the hierarchy of the ordinary courts. But in an ordinary subject he has the right of appeal to special commissioners. In this Bill there is no appeal of any kind. The Treasury can show, and in my experience have shown, tendencies to give a wrong direction about evidence. They might say for the purpose of the Act that a person is resident in this country when in fact he is not so.
    The person has no redress in the world and is automatically convicted of an offence which he or she may have done

    2291
    following the advice of his or her banker, solicitor or some such responsible person, who would assure the person that the Treasury could not say that he or she was resident in the United Kingdom, and yet the next day the Treasury, in their wisdom or even by mixing up the file or getting the facts all wrong or taking a view they have never taken before, find that this person is resident in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I do ask the Government to answer the question which my hon. and learned Friend put to them. I do not want them to think that the Treasury is never wrong, but rather to proceed on the assumption that if the Treasury is wrong what opportunities is there for a person in this country or outside this country, who persuades the Treasury that they are wrong, to get the question decided by some impartial arbitrator or judge. If they have some redress, or it is proposed to have that question answered in some other way, perhaps this Amendment might become unnecessary, but until they provide machinery for doing it, I submit that the Amendment is very necessary.
    Mr. Maude: I have one very brief suggestion to make. My hon. and learned Friend suggested that possibly some other words might do, but reading through the Amendment I see a difficulty from the Treasury point of view. I think that there were clearly reasons for asking for the powers in Clause 41 (2) yet we do wish to give the person a chance to show that the direction is wrong. I would humbly suggest to the House that possibly we might have a form of words very much similar but putting the person concerned on the defensive. That seems to me to leave the innocent person who might be convicted as the result of a wrong direction with a reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence. He would be put in a position to say that the Treasury was wrong, and if he could show that in fact the Treasury was wrong it would be monstrous if he could still be convicted.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) complained against the Clause because, he said, it gave the Treasury excessive powers. That might be an argument relevant to the question whether Subsection (2) of Clause 41
    2292
    should be in the Bill or not, and this argument was in fact adduced during the Committee stage in favour of the view that it should be omitted. But those arguments have been negatived and the Committee accepted the view on a Division that the Clause should stand as it is. There is no further Amendment to leave out Subsection (2) and therefore all those arguments directed to the generality of the powers conferred upon the Treasury are completely irrelevant to this particular point. Once the principle has been accepted that the Treasury are to have these powers, or powers like them, what the Amendment does is to introduce confusion and to render the powers completely nugatory. The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) made what I thought was a very helpful speech in which he described the dilemma of the British wife of an American officer who had an account here and an account in New York, and who travelled between London and New York. I cannot conceive anybody who would be more pleased to have determined for her once and for all where she was resident. It would be the one thing she would want done for her.
    I explained during the Committee stage that the object of subsection (2) of Clause 41 was to forward the convenience of people who were in doubt as to where their residence was, and the lady described by the hon. Gentleman would obviously be just such a person. She would not know where she was unless she could go to the Treasury and ask the Treasury to tell her. I would therefore pray in aid the hon. Gentleman's argument. It was a very strong argument in support of the Clause as it stands. But there are other objections to the Amendment. If it were accepted, what would it bring about? It would mean that for some purposes the direction would be valid, while for other purposes it might be invalid. Those who were affected by it would not know what the effect of it was. The Treasury, seeking to give validity to the order, would be easily circumvented because, notwithstanding the fact that a direction had been made, by ringing the changes upon his temporary residences anybody could make it extremely uncertain what a police court or the Old Bailey would say with regard to his residence. The result would be that the direction would be practically not worth the paper upon which it was written.

    2293
    Therefore, the Amendment does not really introduce any safeguard for anybody. All it does is to make obscure a position which is clarified by the direction. If it were intended to revise it it would be much better to omit the clause altogether, but the Clause as it stands will assist people and will enable business to be done upon the footing that a particular person is resident for some or all of the purposes of the Bill in a particular place. If the proviso is now introduced, the whole situation is again going to be overwhelmed in obscurity and I can only ask the House to say that this Amendment should not be accepted. I know that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether different residences may be specified for different purposes. I should have thought they could be and that that would be to the advantage of anybody. It might well be that a person wanted to say he was resident in one place particularly in the case the hon. Gentleman mentioned—for one purpose, and resident in another place for another purpose. For all these reasons I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. J. Foster: Before the Solicitor-General sits down, could he not tell me the answer to my question which I have asked several times. Suppose the Treasury were wrong?
    The Solicitor-General: If the Treasury are wrong in saying where the residence of a person is, the direction stands, but that is the whole object of the direction —to remove doubt about it. If the Treasury say there is a doubt—where the person concerned perhaps moves between two countries—the very thing he wants is to know which is the country to be treated as the country of his residence. It may be that upon a strict and minute analysis of the facts the other country may be the proper one, but the person at least knows where he is, and a person who has a direction made with regard to him knows he must comply with that direction
    Mr. J. Foster: Will the Solicitor-General answer the question I have asked? Suppose the Treasury are wrong—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Gentleman has not asked leave of the House to speak again.
    Mr. C. Williams: We have heard from the Solicitor-General tonight of the remarkable occupation of the Treasury—to tell us where we are. I really would like to draw attention to the state of confusion into which the Government have got, as a result of which they are putting up a Law Officer to explain to the House that a lady who is half the time resident in America and half the time resident in this country would really welcome the fact that the Treasury of all people should tell her where she is and what her true residence is. That is a very remarkable statement, and I only got up to comment on it. It seems interesting that that should be the legal view of the principal job of the Treasury today. I am sure the House as a whole welcomes the new job of the Treasury, and I hope that in future the Treasury will cease to collect taxes and only tell us where we are.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: I cannot help thinking that the learned Solicitor-General is a little below his usual high form. I wish to draw attention to the extraordinary dilemma the honest citizen might find himself or herself in under the present Bill. One assumes, I suppose, that the Government consider that they are passing good legislation in this Bill, and one assumes therefore that they would desire that other countries should pass exactly similar legislation as regards residence with them. Let us suppose that a lady or a gentleman is passing between two countries—France and Britain—from time to time, and the French Treasury and the English Treasury both have this power. The French Treasury, having followed the example of the British House of Commons in passing a tyrannical piece of legislation of this kind, says that everybody would like to have this matter settled once and for all and decides that the lady is resident in France, yet she may have an account in England. The English Treasury on the other hand decides—
    Mr. Kirkwood: British, not English.
    Mr. Hogg: Very well—the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer decides that it would be desirable to determine this question once and for all, and he decides that the lady is resident in Great Britain, or perhaps even in England, The position of that poor

    2295
    lady is most unfortunate. She might say:
    "How happy could I be with either
    Were t'other dear charmer away! "
    But the one thing she may not be able to do in either country is to appeal to get the real facts of the matter. This is only an example of how this tyrannical legislation will work out in practice. It is no doubt attempting to punish people who are doing undesirable things, but in order to do so time and time again it is rendering life for the ordinary citizen intolerable.
    Mr. Assheton: The Clause as it is drafted certainly does not meet with the approval of hon. Members on this side of the House. The Amendment has certain objections which have been pointed out by the Solicitor-General. It is quite clear that unless the Government can find some way of meeting the very real demand on this side of the House for some method of appeal, we must register our vote against it.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes 83; Noes, 232.

    Division No. 50.]

    AYES.

    [9.58 p.m.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Herbert, Sir A. P.

    Ramsay, Maj. S

    Beamish, Maj T. V. H.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Renton, D.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Boothby, R.

    Holmes. Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Bossom, A. C

    Howard, Hon A.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Bower, N.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh, W)

    Snadden, W. M.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Jennings, R.

    Spence, H. R.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G

    Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

    Lambert. Hon. G.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Butcher, H. W.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    H Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

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

    Lucas, Major Sir J.

    Teeling, William

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight]

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    De la Bère, R

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W

    Digby, Maj. S. V.

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

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

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

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Drewe, C.

    Maude, J. C.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    York, C

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Peto, Brig. C. H M.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Pickthorn, K.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYE:

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Commander Agnew and

    Grimston, R. V

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

    Major Conant.

    NOES

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Bramall, Major E. A.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith. South)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

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

    Alpass, J. H.

    Bruce, Major D. W. T

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Buchanan, G.

    Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Burden, T. W

    Deer, G.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Burke, W. A.

    Delargy, Captain H. J

    Awbery, S. S.

    Callaghan, James

    Diamond, J.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Dodds, N. N.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Champion, A. J

    Donovan, T.

    Balfour, A.

    Cluse, W S.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Barton, C.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Battley, J. R.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Dye, S.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Coldrick, W.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Collick, P.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Benson, G.

    Collindridge, F.

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Berry, H.

    Collins, V. J

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Binns, J.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Blackburn, A. R

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Field, Captain W J

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Follick, M.

    Boardman, H.

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

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Bottomley, A G

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

    Corvedale, Viscount

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Cove, W. G.

    Gibson, C. W.

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

    Crawley, A.

    Gilzean, A.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Daines, P.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Moody, A. S.

    Solley, L. J.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Morley, R.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Stamford, W

    Grey, C F.

    Murray, J. D

    Steele, T.

    Grierson, E.

    Nally, W.

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Grffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Naylor, T. E

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Gunter, R. J.

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

    Symonds, A. L

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Hale, Leslie

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

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Hall, W. G.

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R

    Oliver, G. H

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Orbach, M.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Haworth, J

    Parkin, B. T.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Thurtle, E.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Tiffany, S.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pearson, A

    Titterington, M. F

    Holman, P.

    Peart, Capt. T. F.

    Tolley, L.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Perrins, W.

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Hubbard, T.

    Piratin, P.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

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

    Popplewell, E.

    Vernon, Maj W. F

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Viant, S. P.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Wadsworth, G

    Irving, W. J.

    Proctor, W. T

    Walkden, E.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Randall, H. E.

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

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Ranger, J.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Rankin, J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Rees-William, D. R.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Kenyon, C.

    Reeves, J

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    King, E. M.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Wigg, Col. G. E.

    Kinley, J.

    Rhodes, H.

    Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

    Kirby, B. V

    Richards, R.

    Wilkes, L.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Lindgren, G S.

    Royle, C,

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Lipton, Lt.- Col. M.

    Scollan, T.

    Williams. J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Longden, F.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    McEntee, V. La T

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Williamson, T

    McGovern, J.

    Shackleton, Wing-Corn. E. A. A

    Willis, E

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Sharp, Granville

    Wilson, J. H.

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

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnet)

    Wise, Major F. J

    McLeavy, F.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Woodburn, A.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Woods, G. S.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Yates, V. F.

    Mathers, G.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Messer, F.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Middleton, Mrs. L

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

    Monslow, W

    Snow. Capt. J W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Hannan and Mr. Simmons.

    FOURTH SCHEDULE (Legal Proceedings, etc.)
    Amendment made: In page 34, line 43, leave out the first "section," and insert "paragraph."—[The Solicitor-General."]
    10.8 p.m.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House have spent five days on this Measure, and I have not the slightest doubt that all of us are grateful to realise that our labours on it are nearing their end. Exchange control is a complicated and technical subject about which it is difficult to get excited, and quite impossible to become passionate. Its importance, however, cannot be over-estimated. At this juncture in our national life, it is an essential weapon in our struggle for social and economic recover, and in the
    2298
    future, when things become normal, it will still-we on this side of the House believe -be a necessary safeguard in reserve against any eventualities that may arise.
    Looking back over the Debates we have had on this Bill, I have been struck by the fact that, however critical the Opposition have been of some of its provisions, they have clearly considered that the present controls must continue for some time ahead. I believe that this fact is beyond dispute, and should assist in securing for this Measure a smooth passage through another place, particularly when it is remembered that my right hon. Friend, as is customary with him, has been eminently reasonable during our discussions on this Bill, and, where possible, has accepted suggestions from the other side of the House, when justified. Some have been incorporated in the Bill.

    2299
    As I said, this is a complicated and technical subject. That is self-evident on the face of the Bill, but the width of the provisions which we have had to include in it show something more—that merely to safeguard our exchange resources by controlling the use of foreign currencies is not, by itself, enough. We have to go much further. In order to control our exchange position properly we must control payments, and not only payments, but ultimately the goods to which such payments relate. In the present situation no individual citizen or trader could possibly see the canvas as a whole. Only the Government can have access to the necessary information, and be able to decide, on behalf of the community at large, how much the nation can afford at any given time on any particular type of expenditure. This is the avowed reason for this Bill. It gives the Government the full and necessary powers to act on behalf of the community as a whole, and though hon. Members in various parts of the House have, quite rightly, drawn attention to the drastic powers which the Bill contains—and, of course, we do not complain of that—we believe that Parliament would be failing in its duty if it was not, while eternally vigilant on behalf of the ordinary citizens, at the same time strong enough to see that where drastic powers are essential for the life of the community, those powers should be given.
    The effect of the operation of exchange control does not, however, primarily depend on the severity or otherwise of the powers taken. I think the House will agree that they really depend on the efficiency and the commonsense of those who administer them, coupled with the support of the citizens of this country, without which no Government could go very far. As to the use of these powers, I give the assurance that the Government will use the powers which the passage of this Bill will give them, as moderately and as sensibly as it is possible so to do, and they will refrain from using any of them as soon as they cease to be necessary for the life of the community. As Members will have noticed, and with this I will close, Part III of the Bill comes into operation at a date yet to be determined, possibly as from 1st May, 1947, or thereabouts. As from the date of operation the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to
    2300
    allow United Kingdom residents, who wish to sell their foreign currency securities, to reinvest the proceeds, on application, in other securities expressed in the same currency, provided the transactions take place through a regular security market like the Stock Exchange and are completed within a limited period. He hopes also to be able to allow dealings in London between residents in such securities. We shall accept no responsibility, of course, for any decision to sell or buy, and any proceeds not reinvested under these arrangements must be accounted for in the usual way. At this stage it cannot be guaranteed that this concession will apply to every security not expressed in sterling, though it is hoped that it will.
    The change is timed with the coming into force of the Bill, as I have already indicated, so that the necessary administrative arrangements can be made, and, in particular, so that the provisions of Clauses 15 and 16, which hon. and right hon. Members know deal with the deposit of certificates of title, may apply to the new securities. We have spent a good many hours on this Measure. It is complicated. We are now in the last stages of its passage through the House and I cordially recommend that the Third Reading be given
    10.17 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: As has been observed more than once earlier in our proceedings, the Christmas spirit is steadily penetrating into this Chamber. While I have some critical observations to offer on the occasion of the Third Reading of this Bill, I shall endeavour to do so in a manner which will not even rustle the mistletoe bough which is now suspended from your microphone, Mr. Speaker. It is customary on these occasions to offer felicitations to the Ministers who have been responsible for the conduct of a great Measure, and this I gladly do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as has been observed by one of his colleagues, grows in the virtue of conciliation as the months go by. Whether it be that he mellows with time or the gravity of the impending financial situation, who can tell? At least, we welcome that development.
    Of the Financial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, I would use the language familiar at this time of the year in so many

    2301
    homes—the language of the school report:
    "Conduct good. Tries hard Might do better in another form."
    I am indeed glad, and so I think are hon. Members, on whatever Benches they may sit, that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is here to take a well deserved curtain call. He has laboured long in the Committee and on the Report stage. He has been affable, amiable, humble and explanatory on all these occasions When we have had differences of opinion, as was inevitable throughout these long proceedings, his brow has remained unruffled save, of course, on those occasions when we have had the intermittent and interminable interventions from the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), whose ascent, simultaneously, up the legal and social ladders, I follow with the keenest but very speculative interest.
    There are one or two matters which are still outstanding in our discussion of this Bill. An Amendment which we put down was not selected this afternoon, and I hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman, when he winds up the Third Reading Debate, to say something to us on the subject. It was raised during the Committee stage, and concerns the possibility of the lengthening, or broadening, as the case may be, of the list of authorised dealers and depositors under the machinery of this Measure. We are now replacing a Defence Regulation by a permanent Act. During the wartime operation of exchange control, the list of those who were entitled to act in this capacity was necessarily a short one, and we are anxious to see that reputable firms, who are at present excluded, may have an opportunity now of going on the lists both of authorised dealers and authorised depositors. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that he would say something on a later stage of the Bill, but the opportunity did not arise this afternoon on the Report stage, so that, perhaps, he could say something to us now.
    On the main difference between the two sides of the House, may I say that it was fought out in Committee, and that the main difference between us is one of the duration of this Measure. We, on this side of the House, felt, and I repeat it, that the Government had ample powers
    2302
    under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, which was passed last Session, which would have taken them up to 1950, which would have been ample time to review the whole question of our foreign exchange in the light of events then, and that there was never any case, at this moment, if ever, for enacting permanent restrictions of this kind. But the Government and the Chancellor, and, presumably, their supporters as well, are anxious that this legislation should be passed as being necessary for all time. If hon. Members take that view, so be it, but may I remind them that, if they do take that view—that exchange controls are going to be a permanent feature—they are making nonsense of the Chancellor's boast about British credit being higher than ever before in our history. If that were so, sterling would need no artificial respiration, even of a temporary character.
    On the Second Reading, I made reference to a famous speech delivered just before the outbreak of the recent war, a speech by the President of the Board of Trade, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman predicted that the advent of a Socialist majority Government must result in a first-class financial crisis, and, in making that quotation, I incurred the displeasure of the hon. and learned Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen). I gave the hon. and learned Member notice that I intended to make reference to this very agreeable controversy which we had on that occasion. The hon. and learned Member for Crewe objected to the quotation from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and said that that speech on British credit was made before the war. He said that times have changed and so on, but, on the following day, fortunately, perhaps, for me, the President of the Board of Trade addressed a gathering of manufacturers and he said —and this was not in 1938, but only a few days ago—that we were in danger of coming a real cropper. Well, we still have the advantage of the distinguished Law Officer—
    Mr. Scholefield Allen: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me. I have the good fortune to be in possession of the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend on that occasion. It was made to a body of ex-

    2303
    porters, and the whole purpose of the speech was urging the Federation to do their utmost, in the difficulties of the situation, to extend and expand our imports He was not dealing with any financial situation at all. He did not use the words used by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. What he said was, "If you gentlemen do not further our exports, we shall come a real cropper in a year or two" He was pointing out the urgent necessity for the expansion of exports up to 75 per cent. above the prewar level. I do not think—
    Hon. Members: Speech.
    Mr. Allen: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, my name has been taken in vain. I have been cited as supporting the President of the Board of Trade. I continue to support him, and I say that the hon and gallant Gentleman opposite has misrepresented the words that he used, a copy of which I have in my hand. I shall be delighted to hand the hon. and gallant Gentleman the whole speech and, as a stockbroker, I think that he will profit by reading it.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I gave way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but had I realised how lengthy his speech was going to be, I do not think that I should have done so. I have not taken his name in vain. I quoted what he said on the Second Reading. If I take anybody's name in vain it is that of the President of the Board of Trade. I was addressing myself to the Law Officer of the Crown, but, directly anyone addresses a Law Officer, up pop half a dozen would-be law officers. The point which I was putting to the Solicitor-General was, What is the legal distinction between a first-class financial crisis and a real cropper? It seems to me to be a matter of degree, with the real cropper striking the deeper note of the two.
    The whole question of the value of our sterling is often related by the right hon. Gentleman to the gilt-edged market. It is his favourite barometer and, since the passing of the Bank of England Act, institutional investment has been directed, as we all know, into that one channel. What could cause the crisis which is envisaged by this Bill which we are now being asked to pass? What could bring it about? The other day, I was reading
    2304
    some observations by a gentleman who is by no means always right, but who quite often is—Mr. S. W. Alexander. [Laughter.] May I remind hon. Members who mock when his name is mentioned that he is considered worthy and good enough to appear on the platform of the National Savings Movement? As I say, Mr. S. W. Alexander is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but, at any rate, he is worth studying. He is more often right than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at least as good a prophet. This gentleman predicts that before this Parliament has run its course, His Majesty's Government will be borrowing at the rate of 5 and 6 per cent.
    I wonder if hon. Members opposite realise, or, for that matter, whether the right hon. Gentleman realises, that, if the gilt-edged market were to fall five points, the big five would probably lose one-third of their assets, owing to the manner in which institutional investment has been steadily pumped in this direction during the lifetime of this Government. Therefore, if there is a danger to British credit, it comes from the tampering and tinkering of the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the past 15 months.
    We take leave of this Measure, and it goes to another place. At least the Opposition can claim to have improved this Bill. It is certainly a better Bill than when it was read a Second time, but it is still far from a perfect Bill, and, in my view, is doomed to failure. As I see it. hon. Members opposite are on the horns of a particularly embarrassing financial dilemma. If the right hon. Gentleman is right about the future of our credit, this Bill is utterly unnecessary. If, on the other hand, he is wrong and the crash comes, then the apparatus which we are sending forward tonight will be no more effective to stem the oncoming waves than the proverbial and, may I add, seasonable, snowballs to withstand the heat of the infernal regions.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Boothby: I want to utter one or two sentences before we part with this Bill, if only to say how sorry I was to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Holder-ness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) quoting Mr. S. W. Alexander. I did not think I would ever live to see the day when I should hear Mr. S. W. Alexander,

    2305
    the greatest advocate of pure unadulterated free trade this country has ever had, being quoted by the hon. and gallant Member. Never did I think the day would come when I would hear that Gentleman quoted by a member of the Tory Party as a financial authority.
    With regard to this Bill, may I say that very few people in this House would deny the necessity for some form of exchange control. What distresses me is to hear people on my own side say they are looking forward to the day when sterling may look the dollar in the face and when all exchange restrictions may be removed. I have put it on record before and I wish to put it on record again, that it was the gold standard that led to our collapse in the interwar years, and I hope I shall never see it again. But the question before us tonight is a very different one. The Government, by the action they are taking, are, instead of using these exchange restrictions for a constructive purpose, to build up the export trade on the basis of mutual, reciprocal trade agreements between ourselves, the Dominions and the Colonies—in which lies our greatest hope—using them in the narrowest and most restrictive sense. I am sure that in the use of these restrictions in the narrowest sense the Government will only succeed in strangling the economic life of this country. I am not arguing that there is no case for exchange control at the present time. But there is the strongest possible reason for extending our trade within the sterling area with the Dominions and Colonies of our own Empire instead of using these controls in the most restrictive way.
    10.34 p.m.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: I also resent the restrictive economic policy of the present Government which this Bill represents. This is another example. As time goes on, the effects of this policy will become more and more apparent. I am not so much concerned with that, however, as with the international implications of what is now being done. We are now engaged in putting on the Statute Book, not by way of temporary regulation but as part of our permanent legislative structure, a Measure which, in every respect, contains powers equal to those wielded by Dr. Schacht under the Nazi regime. It is of great fortune to His Majesty's present advisers that that
    2306
    gentleman was acquitted at the Nuremberg trial, so that they will soon be able to appoint him to the Treasury Bench. When they do so that will be another glorious milestone—to quote one of the happy phrases of hon. Members opposite —in the gradual approach to our glorious new National Socialist Britain. What I am concerned with tonight is to point out that National Socialist economics, such as are embodied in this Bill, are inevitably a prelude to economic warfare, and economic warfare is inevitably a prelude to warfare of a more dangerous and fatal nature.
    We must assume that the structure created by this Measure will be reproduced in every other country in the world; or at least, we cannot complain it it is. I tried to point out, on an Amendment earlier this evening, the kind of difficulty which will arise. There is no doubt that this Bill will make Great Britain a prison. There is not the slightest doubt about that. What is far far worse is that it is absolutely inevitable that other countries will follow suit, and the various antagonistic restrictionist economies which each country in turn will raise, will create an international situation, similar to that created by Dr. Schacht, whose economic policy the right hon. Gentleman is deliberately pursuing and copying.
    10.37 p.m.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I make an apology to the House for not having taken part in the proceedings on the earlier stages of the Bill. The fact is that it was only as the Bill progressed through Committee that it was increasingly borne in upon me how pernicious and tendentious it was. I agree with every word that fell from the lips of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It astonishes me that the Government have so far departed from the principles of Bretton Woods. Under that agreement I understood we were to have an international system of freer trade, a removal of restrictions, and opportunities for people to travel and take their goods widely throughout the world. What is there in this Bill consistent with the principles of Bretton Woods? I suggest to the House that there is nothing at all. Has the Foreign Secretary been consulted about this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman made a great speech not long ago which attracted the attention of the whole

    2307
    world. In it he said it was his ambition that anybody should be free to take a ticket at Victoria and go wherever the hell he liked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—surely it was implicit that a man should be free to travel with his wife and his family, and with his goods all over the world, and that if he wanted to trade in different parts of the world he should be at liberty to trade and bring back to this country the goods that he could obtain.
    Hon. Members opposite talk a lot about the 40-hour week. In present circumstances, we on this side think that to be the wrong policy, but that it will come to this country in time, I have not the slightest doubt, and it may come very soon indeed. In fact, hon. Gentlemen are pressing for it. What goes with it? Surely, there goes with it the desire of people to take their paid holidays abroad, to be able to travel freely abroad, and to take part in overseas cruises and the like without restrictions from the Treasury. The Government are binding us to a tiny island economy, such an economy as we in all the history of our country have never faced before. I think the time has come for us to repeat what we did 100 years ago, in 1846, and to abandon protection and abandon restrictions, to cast our bread, upon the waters, and to set forth into the world with our liberal democratic beliefs and faiths.
    Mr. Boothby Mr. Boothby rose—
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I know that my hon. Friend's views differ fundamentally from my own, and I know that he would never put a question to me that would not tend to separate us, and I want to be friendly with him. The Government are passing a whole series of pernicious Measures, and this is one of the most monstrous. I think that the parties in this country—and I do not except, in certain aspects of policy, my own party—are very largely out of touch with public opinion, which wants freedom for the ordinary man to go about his business without let or hindrance in any part of the world. The party opposite is too wedded to the beliefs and ideas of the bureaucratic planners. I think the time will come and come soon when the people will rise in their wrath and tear down the whole structure of totali-
    2308
    tarian planning and restriction which this Government is forcing upon us.
    10.42 p.m.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: During this Debate, we have had a very varied interest from hon. Members opposite. I would like particularly to say how much I enjoyed the contributions by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and how much he helped me in understanding the contents of this Bill. But what this Bill really comes to, when all is said and done, is how much power are we prepared to grant to the Treasury. We started this Debate, on the Second Reading, by hearing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary and the Solicitor-General, and other hon. Members, that the one thing that was necessary was a safeguard, something to tide us over the immediate emergency. During the Committee stage, which, if I may say so, was rather like the Chancellor's dance of the seven veils, another veil was raised, and it became apparent that this Measure was not to tide over an immediate emergency, but was designed to cover the catching of crooks. By the time it had come, slightly late on Monday night, to the final stage of the Committee, the Chancellor had come clean, and he was prepared to say to hon. Members on this side:
    "I offer them this consolation: if only they could win a General Election, then the prospect would open out that this Measure although permanent in form, might be temporary if they had the power to change it. That is the only consolation which I feel it proper to offer tonight" [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th Dec, 1946; vol. 431; c. 908.]
    He went on later, in a more serious mood —and I must say that, unlike the Chancellor, I am careful to get my quotations accurate—to say:
    "that wide powers should be vested in the Treasury, and such powers were theoretically capable of gross abuse; that was the basis on which the whole Bill had been drafted."
    The position is very simple. The House is faced with a Measure which is capable of intolerable abuse by anyone who may not have the particular philosophy of the present Government. The Solicitor-General told us a couple of hours ago that it was the desire of H.M. Government to enforce upon a company the nomination of a particular director if it will do any thing to help the Government to

    2309
    enforce their policy on a foreign subsidiary. Could anything be more utterly ludicrous than that a directorship should be at the disposal of the Government at any time to help their policy? That surely, at the best, is contrary to the best commercial practice and at the worst is nepotism of the worst order. That is the only possible answer that could be given by anyone who tried to uphold the commercial traditions of this country.
    We come now to the great Clause about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said so much, namely, Clause 31— the Clause that is to make everything smooth and pleasant, the Clause which is going to make this Bill work. The first thing about it is that the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept an Amendment, whereby he would undertake, not only on the part of the present Government but on the part of any future Government, that there should not be any distinctions made between classes of people, or between any two subjects of this country. He refuses to allow this elementary safeguard to be given as to distinctions between classes. In other words, he leaves it open to himself or his successor at any time, to make a distinction between those people whom he may generally favour and those whom he may not. What he is inclined to do is the fulfilling of that which we on this side of the House have said so often would be done—providing jobs for the boys.
    At the moment the Government have taken the power to prevent anything going out of the country. Equally they have taken power to decide who lives where, and although I have heard glowing tributes from this side of the House to the Meteorological Office, I have never heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer described as a pathfinder. No doubt he will qualify for that later. The only reasons given by the Government for the powers they are now taking are, first, that these powers were used during the war; secondly, that they will be used with discretion; and, thirdly, that they do not mean to use them at all. These are the three bells which have been rung; these are the changes which have been pealed. As to the question of these powers being used during the war, I should like to say a word or two and I am glad to see the Leader of the
    2310
    House present. During the war we had Regulation 18b, and no one suggests that we should start it again now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Solicitor-General and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury got up, time and again during the proceedings on this Bill, and said no one objected to these powers being used during the war. No one objected to the use of Regulation 18b during the war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes they did."] I apologise; certain Members did, but the country generally did not make any objection. The country never objected to. these powers during the war either, but if the Chancellor comes down to this House and says, that because no one during the war objected to the use of these powers, we ought therefore to use them now, I say it is perfectly ludicrous.
    The next argument is that the Chancellor is going to use discretion in the application of these powers. We all know the moods of the right hon. Gentleman. He moves from sun to temper, and back again to sun. Now he is conciliatory, now he is turning and rending his supporters behind him. Now he is smiling his approval on this side of the House. Yes, we all know his moods. The other day he said that this was the 22nd year that he had sat in the House of Commons. May I say to him, ''Time marches on"?
    Let us not assume that he will be here for ever. Is he really prepared in honesty and justice to leave these powers to someone less capable than himself? We admire him; we may not necessarily admire his successor. If he wishes to have these powers, why could not he have left them under the Defence Regulations, instead of making them a permanent statutory measure? The Solicitor-General has said that he will not necessarily use these powers. If he does not need them, why put them into a permanent Statute? It seems to me that the result of this Bill is that in addition to the Strachey Snoopers we are now going to have the Dalton Detectives and the Hall Harriers. That will be only an addition to the Civil Service, and will do little to help the future of this country.
    On the Second Reading, I said that this Bill was negative. It is a negative measure which will help nobody, and will destroy the confidence of the world in the future of this country, and prevent ex-

    2311
    porters and importers in future from doing their immediate job, which is to help to solve the crisis with which this country is faced. Therefore, I hope the measure will be rejected, to show that we have confidence in ourselves and determination to face the future without the obstructions which the Chancellor wishes to put in our way.
    10.52 p.m.
    Mr. Drayson: I disliked this Bill when it was first introduced, and I dislike it still more tonight, and I am going to vote against its Third Reading. Our discussions this afternoon started, I am told, in the Christmas spirit. I believe that, since then, we have advanced into Boxing Day. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, was foreshadowed in the Debate we had a year ago on the American Loan. It was on that subject that I made my maiden speech. But now, after a year of disillusionment and the failure of the Labour Party to keep its promises, I feel more like a G.I. bride. On the occasion of the discussion on the American Loan a great deal was said about the possibility of starting multilateral trading at the earliest possible moment. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that although he did not foreshadow this Bill, it was his intention to make sterling convertible for current transactions at the earliest possible moment. We understood that under the Anglo-American Loan Agreement sterling for current transactions would be made convertible within a year of the date on which the Agreement had been signed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed us at the time that, as a result of the war, our national economy had been distorted and violently twisted out of shape. I do not know what the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, think they have been doing with our economy since they took office. It may be that they consider a series of streamlined Bills will streamline our economy. I think that they are, in fact, streamlining our economy almost out of existence.
    The two chief criticisms I have of this Bill are these. Many speakers have said that we on this side have recognised that restrictions were necessary until we had got back to peacetime conditions. The Financial Secretary, in his speech a few moments ago, said that he hoped we
    2312
    would soon return to normal conditions, but, nevertheless, it would be comforting to have this Bill on the Statute Book. I suggest that his remarks there were a contradiction. The other aspect, of course, is my profound disbelief that it will be in the immediate future that sterling will in fact be convertible for current transactions. I do not really think there is any need for this Bill whatsoever. Why, if, as the Chancellor contends, our credit is standing higher to-day than it has ever stood before, is it necessary to bring this Bill before the House? I suggest that it is time that the Chancellor realised that there is something better than cheap money, and that is money which is convertible—which all other countries are desirous of obtaining. Perhaps his officials have told him that block sterling is changing hands at the moment in New York at 25 per cent. discount. When we discussed the American Loan, when this Bill was envisaged, we were told that the major part of that Loan was to free our trade and to help re-equip British industry so that we could take our place in the world of commerce and make this measure unnecessary. But, we hear that only 9 per cent. of those dollars have been spent on re-equipping British industry, while the bulk, as we know, has been spent either on food or other American luxuries which we have not in this country.
    This Bill has been described as the third weapon in the Chancellor's armoury. One was the Borrowing (Control of Investments) Bill, and now we have this exchange control measure. I would suggest that it is not a weapon, but that it is more like a new instrument in the Chancellor's torture chamber with which he can harass the exporter and the business man who are trying very hard to build up British exports and help Britain to regain its position in the world of commerce. This measure, as other hon. Members have said this evening, carries the full hall-mark of totalitarian economy—[Interruption.] How proud Dr. Schacht would be about this measure to-night if he could see the pleasure with which the Chancellor is contemplating the support of the cohorts behind him to give a Third Reading to this Bill. We are told that Dr. Schacht may finish up in the Argentine, where his services are required by the Government of that country. It might be that his services were required in this country but, with the Chancellor at the helm, there is

    2313
    no need for that. The Chancellor ought to realise that there is something worse than "hot" money, which this Bill seeks to control, and that is "frozen" money, but with Socialism that goes from one extreme to the other, and cannot ever contemplate a middle course, nothing is done. This Bill is nothing more than Fascist finance to bolster up Socialist insolvency.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: We are now getting to the final stage—perhaps I should say the penultimate stage—of this Bill, which has followed the usual course of all those Measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exhequer. "Legislate the Dalton Way" has become a slogan. We had it in the Bank of England Bill, in the borrowing Bill, and now we have it in exchange control. You first have a Bill—which the right hon. Gentleman calls "streamlined" but which everybody else calls "indefinite"—which takes in all powers and leaves all decisions to thousands of boys in hundreds of back rooms. This Bill follows the normal course, although on this occasion I must accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of being unduly prolix. He has taken 44 Clauses and six Schedules to do what he could have done just as well, and with as much safeguard to the individual, in three Clauses—one to say that for the purpose of exchange control the Treasury may make any Order they like; the second to say that there will be certain penalties for anyone who breaks it; and a third to say that it will be no defence for anyone charged with breaking an Order to complain that the act in question was committed before the Order had been made.
    Just as the form of the Bill has been the same, so has the method of procedure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his two trusty assistants, always reminds me of Horatius holding the bridge, and calling stout Herminius to sit on his right hand and Spurius Lartius on his left. Exactly the same procedure has been followed. When we come to a Clause on which there is to be no concession, then one of the trusty assistants is put up to hold the bridge. Their's not to reason why; their's merely to read out the Treasury brief. And meanwhile Horatius retires to the guard room. On the other Clauses, when there is to be some softening, then Horatius returns, waves a friendly sword, and assures the enemy that whatever the
    2314
    rules, so long as he is on the bridge they will be allowed through safely.
    We object to this dichotomy. We object to a situation in which all the powers and all the penalties are in Acts of Parliament which remain permanently on the Statute Book, and all the concessions and exemptions are merely enshrined in HANSARD accounts of Ministers' speeches or, at the best, in Orders which are made by the Treasury. We all agree that under present conditions there must be some measure of exchange control; it is agreed not only by members of all parties but by the whole country—except perhaps for some poor mutt who has read the Chancellor's speeches and taken them at their face value. When the Chancellor says, as he often does, that he fosters the confidence of the moneyed classes more than any Chancellor since Gladstone, the listener may wonder why if Gladstone did not need exchange control the present Chancellor of the Exchequer does.
    We all agree that a measure of control must continue for some time. It would seem that in those circumstances there were two alternatives. It was possible to say, "The situation is still so fluid, it is so difficult to know what the immediate future is going to be, so difficult to decide upon the powers we shall want for a longer period, and so impossible to codify at the present moment the regulations under which we have been working for the last few years, that we will postpone the attempt and will continue under the present regulations until conditions are more settled and it is possible to arrive at a more precise estimate." That is one alternative. The other alternative would have been to bring forward now a Bill which gave clear, defined, necessary powers to the Government, drawn on lines that we recognise from the legislation of the past, so that on reading the Bill, the ordinary citizen would know whether he had committed an offence, and under exactly what obligation he was. Neither of these alternatives has been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has preferred to bring forward a permanent Bill, which enshrines all the worst features of the transient regulations.
    The House has listened to discussions in Committee and on Report upon the various absurdities and anomalies which arise under the Clauses of the Bill as now

    2315
    drafted. Hon. Members must have made their own choice as to which of these Clauses they award the prize. I have hesitated about it a very considerable time. There is Clause 1, which enables the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw one of our Dominions out of the sterling area, and gives Parliament less opportunity to discuss it. That tremendous economic fact was given last night. There is also Clause 22, under which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—a man I had always regarded hitherto as being of blameless character—had to admit that he had committed a crime. He had broken the law and laid himself open to prosecution, and it was only thanks to a junior clerk in the Treasury that he was still able to take his place on the Treasury Bench. However, I decided to give the prize to Clause 41. Clause 41, as hon. Members will recollect, is the one which gives the Treasury power to declare that somebody is or is not resident in this country, apparently with no regard whatever to the actual facts of the case. Under this Clause, it is possible for the innocent Eskimo, feeling himself secure in his igloo, which hitherto had been regarded as the Eskimo's castle, to find that the Treasury or the Bank of England has suddenly declared that he is resident in this country, and that unless he hastens to deposit his exiguous stock of blubber and fish-hooks—with, of course, a recognised depositary—he will be guilty of an offence.
    We could multiply cases of that kind a hundredfold; in fact it has been done during the Debate. I shall press the point no further. I only say to the Chancellor that we hear a great deal from time to time of these cardiac murmurs which he dignifies in public by the name of a song. Many no doubt have speculated as to the actual tune which is played on that organ. I have heard several speculations, but I incline to the theory that it is the "Eton Boating Song." It is not only, of course, that that song endears itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to many of his colleagues behind him by its association, but he will remember that pregnant refrain:
    "Nothing on earth shall sever
    The chains that are round us now."
    What a theme for the Chancellor and for this Bill. But we are really interested in only one song that the Chancellor might sing, and that is his swan song. I mean
    2316
    it in no personal way—we do not want him to go unaccompanied. Like any African chief, we think it would be undignified if he were to go to the shades without the rest of those who now sit with him upon that Bench. Then, and then only, shall we get to a position where we can hope to maintain the stability of the exchange of this country on a sound economic basis, and not really by police control.
    We are going to vote against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to tell the House—although I know he would like to—that if this Bill were defeated, he would be left without any powers of exchange control. That is not true. He knows quite well that he has powers of exchange control now, before the Bill is passed, and if this Bill were defeated, he would still have them. Therefore, do not let him attempt to tell the House or the country that by voting against this Bill, we are voting to deprive him of powers that he must have. He knows that would be inaccurate. But those powers come under regulations. Normally, we oppose the continuance of regulations, we prefer powers to be translated into permanent Acts of Parliament, but then we anticipate that they will be put into Bills which are easily comprehensible, which are definite in their effect, and where the offences for which penalties follow are strictly defined. This is not such a Bill, and rather than have permanently on the Statute Book a Bill of this kind, we would prefer to continue, until another Government or other people can put a sane, sensible Bill upon the Statute Book, under the regulations which now exist.
    11.13 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): It is difficult at this late stage of this Debate, and at this relatively late hour, to say much that is new about this excellent Measure which I commend on its Third Reading to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) has made, as is usual, a speech full of charm and wit and intellectural penetration—up to a point—and, indeed, I wept with him thinking of the dangers which overhang the igloo of the Eskimo. He moved me very deeply on that matter, and he can be certain that in any regulations issued under this Bill, we shall take particular care that these infant races, in their

    2317
    gradual march forward to the higher levels, are not unduly handicapped by anything that this Measure might authorise or contain. That undertaking, on behalf of the Eskimo, I give in all sincerity. But what about the British people? They need defences, they need something better than igloos. And I am terrified to think what would have happened, whether to igloos or to other defences had this Government not been returned to power at the last Election. Indeed, with such progress as we have made, it would be out of Order to pursue the theme of the igloo too far, Mr. Speaker, but I am quite certain that already the people of this country would be regretting it had they failed to return this Government to power.
    I must pass now from this problem of the igloo, to that of the black market in the sterling area of which we have heard so much. I have no first-hand knowledge of the black market in the sterling area, nor, I am sure, have hon. Members opposite. That is all rumour and surmise and second hand. I am quite confident that this Bill is an essential defence against the black market. Perhaps hon. Members opposite have more specialised knowledge of these subjects, but I only know the part the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has played in the National Savings Movement, and it might be said that he would be entitled to a white mark for his activities there, to be set against any black mark he might have earned for any other activities But I would say that I shall be grateful to the noble Lord for any information which he may be able to give me—entirely in confidence—as to what he knows about this. At present I know nothing at all about it.
    I can only say that this Bill is intended to prevent a black market in exchange assuming any serious practical importance. It is, as I have said before, a Measure of national financial defence. It is designed primarily to protect our foreign exchange reserves, and indirectly, the value of the currency which we use. It is a very British Bill. It is based upon common sense, upon the trust which one Englishman reposes in another, the confidence which we all have in the probity and the integrity of the Bank of England and the other banks, in the Treasury, and in all persons engaged in lawful and
    2318
    proper business of all kinds. The Bill has powers which must necessarily be very wide, to enable us to catch the miscreant. At the same time it is a Bill which ensures that these very wide powers will be sensibly and practically used by those to whom they will be given. Therefore, I make no apology whatever for the fact that these powers are very wide and very strong, and that the Bill is drawn in such general terms. With conditions as they exist, in this post-war world, it does not matter what Government, what party, is in power—I am making a quite general proposition—it would find it necessary to have a Measure if not precisely like this, very like it as to powers and intent. The right hon. Gentleman had said—although I am not at all sure that those who sit behind him agree with him—that some measure of exchange control is now necessary, and it would be necessary to continue it for some time. In that I agree with him. But as I say, I do not think there is any unanimity of opinion on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman about it. If there had been a Conservative Government in power at this time, and looking beyond the rather temporary period covered by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Bill, I am certain a Government of that nature would have needed a Measure not very dissimilar from the one on which we are going to vote tonight.
    As to the question of the length of time and the duration of the Statute which has been raised more than once, I have challenged the Opposition to name a period. I have already stated, and I repeat—for it seems to me to be the whole of the controversy—that the party opposite need only win an Election and they can repeal the Measure, and then it will not be permanent. It is our view that so long as this party controls the destinies and the policy of the country, it is not possible to name and date—and again we challenge the Opposition to name one—at which we could be sure that it would be safe then to bring this Measure to an end. That is the point, and when the Opposition was challenged to name a date they finally came down upon the year 1950. That was the best date they could name, and that is immediately before we are due to begin to repay the large interest liabilities in respect of the Canadian and American credits. That, as we have previously said, would be the most undesirable date to

    2319
    select for this purpose. Therefore, I ask the House to give a Third Reading now to a Measure which, so far as we can foresee, will be necessary for an indefinite time, a Measure that can be administered in relation to the ever-changing situation which will develop. We hope there will gradually come an easement of the pressure upon sterling and upon our foreign exchange reserve, and if that comes, then this Bill is perfectly adapted to the lesser pressure, and as an instrument can be handled and used in an increasingly elastic and tolerant fashion, towards transactions, of which, so long as pressure is as extreme as it is now, we cannot afford to be tolerant.
    It is, as I say, an essentially British measure. This Government are gradually writing into the Statute Book a number of Statutes which are, admittedly, of a somewhat new type in terms of drafting. We are trusting a great deal to common sense and reason in the administration of wide and strong powers, but it is always in the power of the House of Commons to challenge any misuse of these powers, not merely by such means as prayers or affirmative Resolutions, but by votes of lack of confidence in the Government or by Motions to reduce the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other responsible Minister. That is a sufficient safeguard against any misuse of these powers.
    In conclusion, I say that this is not a time for unilateral disarmament—I hope the Conservatives will agree with that—in regard to the finances of this country. We cannot go forward into the years that lie ahead, unless we have strong powers to shield and safeguard our dollars, our gold and our hard currencies of every kind which it is essential to handle with the same economy and the same circumspection as a reserve of armed men and of munitions of war. These are now the munitions of peace which we must cherish, and which we must marshal with the very greatest care. Again I say it is our duty to our country, it is our duty to the years that lie ahead of us, and the situations we shall find there, to give the Government these powers. None of us can look into the future but, so far I am concerned, if the House gives me the continuance of these powers, I will seek to use these powers in the national interest, as they were used in the last seven years during
    2320
    the conditions of war. Although we have have passed out of the conditions of war conditions are still serious, and in the critical days that lie ahead His Majesty's Government, and I personally, will do all we can to see that these powers, great and strong as they are, are used with reasonableness and commonsense. I ask the House, therefore, to assent to the Third Reading after this long Debate.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am sorry to crash in on the right hon. Gentleman's peroration, but could the right hon. Gentleman say a word upon the matter of authorised dealers?
    Mr. Dalton: I was going to refer to it, but the hon. and gallant Member was not at that time in the House. I have a note here, a note especially procured in order to enable me to reply to that question. We have considered the question of the authorised dealers and their definition, and we think that it is much the best—I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not disagree with this—that the authorised dealers should be defined primarily by categories and groups, and not by lists of personal names, which might become invidious. The authorised dealers whom we think should be given the authority to deal under the Bill include, first of all, all those who are full members of the British Bankers' Association; secondly, the leading acceptance houses; thirdly, the United Kingdom offices of the banks of issue and the central banks of the scheduled territories—any of the Dominions within the scheduled territories—and finally, so far as foreign currencies are concerned, the British branches of recognised foreign banks. My submission is that it is best to leave the administration in that form of specification by category rather than by a list of names. We have no wish to exclude any reputable and proper person from being authorised to be a dealer, but we suggest that the proper course for him to follow in order to become an authorised dealer is to make himself a member of whichever of these categories and associations it is most suitable for him to belong to. I have no reason to suppose any reputable person would have difficulty in fitting himself into whichever of these categories most suited his line of business. I hope that may be an assurance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is no desire to draw this narrowly, but that we do desire to draw

    2321
    it in an impersonal rather than in a personal fashion.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: It is not a closed shop?
    Mr. Dalton: It is not a closed shop, in the sense that no one of repute will be excluded, I think I am entitled to say, from joining whichever is the appropriate
    body for him to belong to. After that explanation, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will vote with the Government in favour of the Bill.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes, 79.

    Division No. 51.]

    AYES

    [11.27 p.m.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Gilzean, A.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Gordon-Walker, P. C

    Randall, H. E.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crawe)

    Granville, E. (Eye)

    Ranger, J.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Grierson, E.

    Rhodes, H

    Attewell, H. C.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Hale, Leslie

    Royle, C.

    Baird, J.

    Hall, W. G.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Balfour, A.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

    Shackleton, Wing-Com. E. A. A

    Barton, C.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Sharp, Granville

    Battley, J. R.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F.J.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Benson, G

    Holman, P.

    Simmons, C. J

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Skeffington, A. M

    Blackburn, A. R

    Hubbard, T.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Boardman, H.

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

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

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

    Bowles. F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Irving, W. J.

    Snow, Capt. J. W

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

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Solley, L. J.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Soskice, Maj. Sir F

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Sparks, J. A

    Brown, George (Belper)

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

    Stamford. W

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Steele, T

    Bruce, Major D. W. T

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Buchanan, G.

    Keenan, W.

    Stubbs, A. E

    Burke, W. A.

    Kenyon, C.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Callaghan, Jamas

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Champion, A. J.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Cobb, F. A.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Cocks, F. S.

    Longden, F.

    Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

    Collick, P.

    McEntee, V. L. T.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Collins, V. J.

    McGovern, J.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Colman, Miss G. M.

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

    Thurtle, E

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    McLeavy, P.

    Tiffany, S.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr G

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Titterington, M. F

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

    Mathers, G.

    Tolley, L

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Corvedale, Viscount

    Moody, A. S.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Crawley, A.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B

    Vernon, Maj. W F

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Morley, R.

    Viant, S. P

    Daines, P.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

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

    Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Murray, J. D

    Warbey W N

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Nally, W.

    Weitzman, D.

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

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

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Deer, G.

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

    Wigg, Col. G E.

    Delargy, Captain H. J

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Wilcock, Group Capt CAB

    Diamond, j

    Oliver, G. H

    Wilkins W A

    Dodds, N. N.

    Orbach, M.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Driberg, T. E.N.

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Durbin, E. F M.

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Williams W. R (Heston)

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Willis E

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Pearson, A.

    Wilson J. H.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Peart, Capt T F

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Perrins, W

    Woodburn A

    Field, Captain W. J.

    Piratin, P

    Yates V F

    Follick, M.

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F

    Zilliacus, K.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Popplewell, E.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Price, M. Philips

    Mr. Collingdridge and

    Gibson, C. W.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Mr. Coldrick.

    Beamish, Maj T. V. H

    Grimston, R. V.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig O

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Ramsay, Maj. S

    Boothby, R.

    Herbert, Sir A. P.

    Renton, D.

    Bossom, A. G

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Bower, N.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Spence, H. R.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P G. T.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh, W)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Kingsmill, Ll.-Col W. H.

    Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

    Lambert Hon. G.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Teeling, William

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

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

    Lucas, Major Sir J.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O.E.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Macdonald, Sir P (Isle or Wight)

    Wakefield, Sir W W

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Digby, Maj. S. W.

    Maclay, Hon J S.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. j

    Dodds-Parker, A D

    Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)

    White, J B (Canterbury)

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

    Manningham-Buller, R. E

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Marlowe, A. A. H

    Willoughby de Eresby, L

    Drewe, C.

    Maude, J C.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Elliot, Rt. Hon W E.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    York, C.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Nicholson, G.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Noble, Comdr A. H. P

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Gage, C.

    Peto, Brig, C. H. M.

    Sir Arthur Young and

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. O.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Commander Agnew

    Gridley, Sir A.

    Pitman, I. J

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  PRIVILEGE (COMPLAINT).
  11.35 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: The House will be aware that it was reported to me during this Sitting, that an alleged assault had been made upon a Member of Parliament within the precincts of the House. I, therefore, directed the Serjeant at Arms to make inquiries, and report to the House. I now call upon the Serjeant at Arms to come to the Table, and make his Report to the House.
  The Serjeant at Arms(at the Table): According to your instructions, Mr. Speaker, I investigated the facts in connection with the disturbance- within the precincts of the House of which complaint was made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). I have to report that a disturbance undoubtedly occurred within the precincts, but the evidence appears to be conflicting, and further investigation is required to determine the actual facts of the case.
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House now, seeing that one hon. Member of the House who took part in this affair is present, if he would perhaps wish to say something before I declare whether this is a prima facie case or not.
  11.36 p.m.
  Mr. Piratin: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should really apologise for the fact that twice in the one day I should have been the centre of a personal matter. But in view of the fact that, as with many other hon. Members of this House, I regard this event, not as a personal matter, but an affront to the dignity of the House, it is in that light that I have raised the matter. There were actually two events. On the first occasion, in the cafeteria, this man did attack me after having used offensive remarks. On that occasion I struck him. I am apologetic, and I express my deep regret that I should have struck him, in spite of the provocation which I received. And if I may say so, I did what any other Member of the House would have done in the circumstances. He not only insulted me, but he also insulted my race. The second occasion was one and a half hours later, when the whole matter, so far as I was concerned, was forgotten, except that I was going to make a formal report to the Serjeant at Arms with whom I had an appointment at 6.45 p.m. I was upstairs to meet a reporter, and as I left the reporters' room, this man deliberately attacked me when I was not in a position to defend myself and struck me as, of course, the House can see for itself. It was on that occasion, Sir, that I felt there was no ground whatsoever for the attack. This man's evidence had already been taken by a policeman, and as far

  2325
  as I was concerned, my statement was waiting to be submitted to the Serjeant at Arms Therefore, although I express my deep regret to the House, in all sincerity, that I did allow provocation to incite me to return the blow, in the first place, I must ask you, Sir, and the House of Commons, to take into account the second occasion, which was absolutely unprovoked and, further, was premeditated, in view of the fact that the man had said in the cafeteria after the first event, Wait until I get you alone," Therefore, I have reason to believe that it was premeditated, and I am prepared to leave the matter in the hands of you, Mr. Speaker, and of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would also be for the convenience of the House to say that, as Speaker, I have received a letter which perhaps, in fairness to the other side, I should read. It reads:
  "Sir—I beg your leave and indulgence to express to you and, through you, to the House of Commons, my profound regret that I should have been involved in an affair within the precincts with a Member of your honourable House. I deeply regret my part in what occurred, and ask you to believe, Sir, that no disrespect was ever intended to you or the dignity of the Commons, either individually or collectively "
  "I hope, Sir, that you will be generous enough to extend to me your leniency and forgiveness. During eight years as a member of the Press Gallery, I have never been hitherto involved in any untoward incident, and I trust that you will believe me when I say that I shall never allow it to occur again. I repeat my sincere regrets to you, Sir, and to the House of Commons, the dignity of which I had within my limited sphere, diligently sought to preserve."
  11.39 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am sure the whole House will agree that we all regret that this incident has occurred at all. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has recounted the incidents as he recalls them, and has expressed regret, up to a point, for the part which he has played. On the other hand, the journalist has expressed very deep regret for the part he has played. In these circumstances, this is a very human affair, in which there was a sharp difference of opinion. I want to say, straight away, that if there was any question of a Member of Parliament being assaulted by a stranger in the discharge of his duties, my bias and, I am sure,
  2326
  that of all hon. Members of this House, would be with the Member. Hon. Members of this House must be protected against any degree of physical assault. On the other hand, the account of the hon. Member for Mile End does leave the issue a bit uncertain, as to which party played this part, and which the other, if taken in conjunction with the report of the journalist. The facts are pretty clear, and the question is whether, the issue having been boiled down to a somewhat fine point, the House wishes to make heavy weather of it, or not such heavy weather. This is an occasion when the House should have a sense of proportion. The hon. Member for Mile End has been straightforward and very reasonable in the matter, and if it had been the case that he had been the victim of any unqualified and unprovoked assault on the part of anybody—I do not care, as Leader of the House of Commons, what political colour is concerned—I would say I would always defend the rights of hon. Members of this House, and I do not care whether a Member is popular or unpopular, or whether he represents a majority or a small minority.
  The hon. Member has expressed, up to a point, an indication of regret. Tempers were flying a bit, and perhaps he did one or two things which he would not have done on reflection. On the other hand, the journalist is apologetic. He admits that he is wrong, and no doubt his employers will take account of whether he had better function in the House of Commons, or somewhere else. I must say that it is profoundly important that journalists who function in this House should function in the spirit of this House, and if their temperament is such that they cannot live with this House, then their employers might say, "Well, brother, you had better do a job somewhere else and not in the House of Commons". If that be the case, I hope it will be so. Both sides have indicated that they are not sure about the matter, and there is an expression of complete regret on the part of the journalist and, on the part of the hon. Member for Mile End, a partial regret.
  The only question that remains for the House is whether this matter should go to the Committee of Privileges, which is a very high-powered affair, where we would hear evidence from the parties to the dispute and thereafter report to the House. If the House feels that to be

  2327
  necessary, it can go to the Committee of Privileges, but I feel that in view of the observations of the hon. Member for Mile End and the communication Mr. Speaker has received from the journalist, the issues are perhaps rather fine between them. I should have thought that having heard the observations of the hon. Member for Mile End, and the observations of the journalist, together with, the report of the Serjeant at Arms, we might take note of those statements and let it go at that. I think honour is served all round. We shall all learn from the experience, and might we not avoid making terribly heavy weather of it by referring it to the Committee of Privileges?
  I would hope that the House would take note of what has been said and thereafter let the matter pass, on the understanding that the rights of Members of this House must be maintained and that if any stranger, whoever he may be, interferes with a Member of this House in the discharge of his duties, or makes any physical assault upon him this House will defend that Member, whoever he may be. Upon that I think we must agree, but in view of the statement of the hon. Member for Mile End and that made in writing to Mr. Speaker, from the journalist concerned, I should have thought we could take note of what they say and pass on, thus avoiding the rather unnecessarily high-powered reference to the Committee of Privileges.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you with great respect and some diffidence that the proceedings are getting a little out of hand. It seems to me—and I ask for your guidance in the matter—that before this House is entitled to discuss what it will do with this incident, it is for you, Sir, to decide whether a prima facie case is made out. If in fact it has been made out, then the House may decide to do one thing or another with it, but surely your decision should be made first?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is in error there. Once I declare the matter to be a prima facie case, the Leader of the House has no option but to refer it to the Committee of Privileges. For that reason I was deferring the matter, on purpose to hear the views of the House.
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, what is the Question before the House?
  Mr. Speaker: Actually there is no question at the moment, but if the Leader of the House chooses to move that we take note of the statement of the Serjeant at Arms, that suits me.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: We all appreciate the conciliatory spirit in which the Leader of the House has addressed himself to this topic, and many will feel that there is great wisdom in his idea that it ought to slide away and be passed off, without making heavy weather of it, and so on. At the same time, I must be permitted, if I may, with great respect to the Chair and to the Leader of the House, to submit to the House that there are certain rather serious principles involved. I do not think it right that hon. Members of the House of Commons should be knocked about by strangers when they are in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I am not in favour of that. It matters to me nothing whether they are Communists, or Socialists, or Tories, or whatever they may be. This is a great institution and it must guard its rights with great care. Some time ago we had a talk about a poster and all that, and examined it in the Committee of Privileges. This is a case of violence done in the precincts of the House of Commons, and it cannot go unmarked. It must be, in my opinion, examined by the Committee of Privileges. I most respectfully submit that it should be so examined. I cannot attempt to form an opinion from what I have heard in this House, but any hon. Member of this House who is assaulted or struck in the course of his work and life in the precincts of this Palace in which we live, has a right to require of the House of Commons that the matter shall be carefully and precisely investigated. If by chance a man had struck a blow and so on, of course there is a sort of British rule that alters the position a little. All the same, let us make sure of where we are. We are not going to have hon. Members of Parliament, whoever they may be —whether they are in a minority or unpopular or whatever it may be—assaulted by strangers in the precincts of the House of Commons. I, therefore, most respectfully submit to you, Sir, that the matter should go before the Committee of Privileges.
  Mr. Speaker: I then rule that a prima facie case has been made out.
  Mr. Morrison: Then, Sir, in that case may I say I was only trying—
  Mr. Churchill: There is no real difference.
  Mr. Morrison: — to get this matter settled amicably, if we could without bad blood on either side of the House. But in view of your Ruling, I beg to move,
  "That the matter of the complaint, together with the Reports received by the Serjeant at Arms, be referred to the Committee of Privileges."
  11.53 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I, on a personal matter, ask your permission and that of the House, in view of certain circumstances—this is an important matter because of the prerogative of the Committee of Privileges—to be excused from adjudicating on this particular matter?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know if I can give authority for that, because the noble Lord is elected by the House, but I certainly appreciate his reasons and quite understand them. He can use his own discretion in the matter.
  Mr. Piratin: Further to that point of Order, Sir. May I for myself say that in view of the noble Lord's apology this afternoon, I, personally, would have no objection whatsoever, and would have confidence in the decision reached by the Committee of Privileges upon which the noble Lord sits.
  Mr. Churchill: With great respect, it would be more becoming if my right hon. Friend did not present himself on that occasion to the Committee, and it would be a matter for the House to judge how the matter stood.
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I might, for the noble Lord's consolation, say that this matter did not arise out of the incident this afternoon. It is another matter altogether.
  Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of procedure, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what is going to happen to the other party in this dispute, particularly as the Christmas holidays are coming on?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member need not think that the other party to the dispute will be kept in close confinement. Now that the matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, I have no doubt that he will be able to go back home, and return to attend the Committee when he is summoned.
  Mr. Churchill: With great respect, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it might not be possible to dispose of this matter tomorrow? It ought not to take very long.
  Mr. Morrison: I do not know, I would not like to give an opinion on that right off. The right hon. Gentleman and I have had experience of the Committee of Privileges, and some of our proceedings have lasted a long time.
  Mr. Churchill: They arrived at a good conclusion
  Mr. Morrison: It may be so, but it took a long time; but if it can be disposed of tomorrow, and if I can help, I will. There are some other responsibilities to the Government that have to be carried on, but if I can help dispose of it tomorrow, I will. It may not be possible but in the meantime, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the other party to the dispute will not necessarily be kept in durance vile.
  Mr. Speaker: That is so. That is perfectly true. He can now be released.

  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 Borough of East Retford, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th 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 Darlaston, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th December, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of King's Lynn, a copy of which Order was presented on 17th December, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

  FLYING-BOAT BASES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Joseph Henderson.]
  11.57 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Owing to the lateness of the hour, I would appreciate raising on the Adjournment the question of flying-boat bases available in this country. More than one hon. Member on this side of the House has taken a considerable interest during the past year in the provision of a flying-boat base in this country which will be adequate to the needs of this country's civil aviation in the forseeable future. We have raised this during Question Time letters have been addressed to the Minister of Civil Aviation, and interviews have been held, but still a decision on a suitable base seems to be held up.
  I do not want to go into this question myself in detail because it is a matter which intimately affects my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), who will be able to put before the Parliamentary Secretary the details of his case, but I would like to stress the matter of urgency. It is for that reason that I have been so bold, even in spite of the lateness of the hour, to ask the indulgence of the House to allow this matter to be discussed.
  In May of this year the Pakenham Committee was set up by the Minister of Civil Aviation. It was asked to come to a decision, if possible, at an early date. The matter was urgent then; it is even more urgent now, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some statement tonight to allay some of the disturbance that there is in the minds of many people who are interested in the future development of flying-boats by this country, which depends to a great extent on the provision of an adequate flying-boat base.
  11.59 p.m.
  Major Bruce: I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity afforded me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) in being able to discuss the subject of flying-boat bases tonight. The last occasion I had an opportunity of raising the matter was on 25th January last, when I endeavoured to put before the
  2332
  House the view that the flying-boat, as such, had a very valuable part to play in the future of this country's civil aviation —a matter which I ventured to elaborate at some considerable length. I also ventured to suggest that it was vitally necessary that there should be an Empire flying-boat base established in this country. As is sometimes customary on these occasions, I did emphasise the claims of my own constituency in this regard, and I did point out to the House the advantages of having an Empire flying-boat base established at Langstone Harbour on the east side of Portsmouth. The Minister who replied at that time was good enough to say he did not think that I had in any way over-elaborated the case, or that I had claimed any advantage for the Langstone Harbour Scheme which it did not, in fact, possess.
  I will not weary the House tonight by a long description of the advantages of the Langstone Harbour Scheme itself, which has often been discussed at some considerable length by the air correspondents of the various newspapers, which have exhibited a surprising unanimity on this subject. I will content myself tonight with saying that it is possible to establish on the East side of Portsmouth, a flying-boat base which would be worthy of the whole Empire, which could have the finest facilities for flying-boats to alight there for the handling of passengers, and for all the other purposes which a modern up-to-date flying-boat base should offer to the public it serves.
  On that occasion I received an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation that, to use his own words:
  "I hope we shall be able to reach a decision in a short time.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 511.]
  He made it quite clear, as it was quite right and proper to do, that there were other places in the United Kingdom, not excluding, of course, Scotland, that had other great claims to make in this regard, but he did say the matter was going to be considered as an urgent matter. The Minister of Civil Aviation at that time was as good as his word, and on 13th April he visited Langstone Harbour at the invitation of the Portsmouth City Corporation and myself and went over the whole project. This project, incidentally, has received the support of magazines such as "Aeroplane", one of the

  2333
  leading technical magazines on this subject and containing articles by experts on all matters concerning civil aviation, and also the support of "Airport", a trade journal, which, in its own line, has a very admirable reputation.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the Langstone Harbour Scheme is purely a flying-boat scheme, or whether it also envisages land based aircraft?
  Major Bruce: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The scheme submitted by the Portsmouth Corporation provides for both a land and a marine terminal air base. What action His Majesty's Government take, and which facilities they decide to use, are for them to decide, but the original scheme most carefully provides for both, and also provides for the largest for-seeable type of aircraft, whether land-based or flying-boats.
  On 30th May, in answer to a Question of mine in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary announced the appointment of a Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Pakenham, to inquire into the relative merits of the various schemes which were likely to be submitted. I cannot say the number invited, but altogether I think there were 16 of them. On 18th June the representatives of the city corporation, headed by the Lord Mayor, myself, and the city's technical experts, were invited to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to meet the Pakenham Committee and to consult with them on the various details of the scheme. On 16th July, according to the Minister himself, the Pakenham Committee's Report was on its way to him. On that particular occasion, he made quite clear something which had not been entirely clear before, that the Pakenham Committee were going to decide this question on the basis of civil aviation merits alone, and that there were other Departments concerned, and that there were probably defence considerations also to be taken into account.
  On 17th July, with commendable promptitude, the Parliamentry Secretary announced in the House that the report had been received. Since that time, four and a half months have elapsed during which there has been a complete silence as to what is happening in regard to the establishment of a flying-boat base in this country. It was quite inevitable, of
  2334
  course, that during that silence certain speculations took place. It would be quite idle to conceal from the House that it is now common knowledge—and I do not think it would be very easy to deny— that the Pakenham Committee itself came to the conclusion that the Langstone Harbour base, from the civil aviation point of view, was the base which commended itself as being the best one. Obviously, there has been no decision on this point, but, of course, this speculation is not surprising in view of the fact that civil aviation opinion over a prolonged number of years— in fact, ever since 1936—has viewed Langstone Harbour with some favour in that regard.
  On 6th November, I put a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary asking him whether he was in a position to publish the report of the Pakenham Committee. I thought thereby it might be possible, not only for the country, which is vitally concerned in this matter, but also for my city, which is in great measure also concerned, to know exactly where they stood, but we received the reply that there were various other considerations which had to be taken into account—and which, I agree, must be taken into account—before a decision is made. Here the matter rests, and one can only assume—I say this with all the diffidence of a backbencher in these matters—that it is still being considered by the various other Departments and by the defence interests concerned.
  It is known, and has been known for some time, that the Board of Admiralty— I am very pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty here this evening—have, in fact, had objections to the particular scheme, and it is quite obvious that anything that impinges, however slightly, upon the first naval port of the Empire must obviously be a matter of some fair concern to the Admiralty. As long as this matter was being considered on a national basis, I, for my part—and I feel quite sure other hon. Members would agree—was quite content to leave it at that. Indeed, on 18th April, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary for
  "an assurance that the matter shall be considered only on the basis of the national interest, and that parochial considerations shall not be taken into account."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1946; Vol. 421. c. 2895.]
  If this matter is being considered on a national basis, there can, I submit, be only one issue on which the Admiralty can

  2335
  be concerned, and that is the overall issue of National Defence. There was an obsolete view which did obtain in Admiralty circles some time ago, when the matter was being discussed, in the late 30's—an old-fashioned view which I am sure would not be endorsed today—which said that we did not want planes flying over the Royal Dockyard in Portsmouth in peacetime, because the intelligence obtained, obviously, would be a menace to the installations there in time of war. There is a local enecdote about this which has considerable truth. We are told that a local commander-in-chief, who has since left the Admiralty, said at that time that, of course, the layout of the Admiralty installations there was secret: whereupon one member of the city corporation replied that they were printed upon the Ordnance Survey map. This was denied, and the delegation left, went to the local newsagent, purchased a copy of the local one-inch Ordnance Survey map, upon which all the dockyard installations were quite clearly marked, and forwarded it to the commander-in-chief concerned.
  We are not concerned with those conditions here today. We are not even living in a military or defence era which is in any way comparable with that existing prior to the war. We are living at a time when there are types of missiles in existence which, in effect, are far more deadly than aircraft, even assuming that the aircraft consideration had any validity in those days. I am bound to suggest to the House that the presence of the marine airport at Langstone Harbour less than three or four miles from Portsmouth dockyard is not any greater menace to that valuable installation than is Heathrow airport a menace to London as, the capital of the Empire and the largest city in the world.
  It seems to me that I could give very good reasons for assuming that local considerations are now being taken into account, and in view of this I ask the indulgence of the House in order to bring a few more local considerations into the matter which I feel should also be borne in mind at the present time. The Admiralty at Portsmouth have a gunnery school which is at Fort Cumberland on one side of the mouth of the proposed harbour base. I have no doubt that this country is grateful to that gunnery school,
  2336
  for it has done a tremendous amount of good. It has trained a large number of people and it has been of great value to the country as a whole. However, it does seem to me that we should regard these matters in perspective. In regard to this school, I am fortified by naval opinion as to the installations. My predecessor in the Parliamentary representation of North Portsmouth, who is no longer with the Admiralty and who is a gallant Admiral with a fine record of service to his country, made investigations into this subject while he was a Member of this House. In referring to the naval anti-aircraft gunnery range, which in 1938 constituted, from the Admiralty standpoint, the obstacle to the airport in the neighbourhood, he said that he found it difficult to believe that under different conditions after the war a relatively small establishment, the removal of which would be comparatively simple, would stand in the way of the scheme of the magnitude of that suggested by the Corporation, providing always that Portsmouth was the site selected for such an undertaking. That is responsible naval opinion in 1943.
  I know for a fact, as is well-known, that extensive improvements have been made to the gunnery range in Portsmouth, and, in fact, certain types of radar installations have been installed there, but I should like, if I may, to have this reviewed in the light of other considerations obtaining within the city. The relationship between the city of Portsmouth and the Navy is not a one-way traffic It is often said that the great naval dockyard installations in the city of Portsmouth have conferred a great benefit upon the city. That is undoubtedly true, and the city of Portsmouth is very proud indeed to serve the Navy and it hopes that it will continue to be able to do so in the future. But it has also served the Navy very well, and whenever the Navy in Portsmouth or the Admiralty have required further installations or further facilities in the city the Portsmouth Corporation have always been most willing to consult on these matters, and to accord every facility which was required.
  However, there are other considerations which must be borne in mind. Owing to the presence of the dockyards, Portsmouth was, during the war, an easily recognisable target from the air and the

  2337
  city was often attached. It is very questionable whether it would have attracted quite the same attention as it did had it not been for its importance as a naval centre and the fact that the dockyards were there. But the result of that has been that the city has very substantially suffered in the blitz, and in the years in which we are now living following one of the greatest wars in which we have ever been involved, the City of Portsmouth finds it very difficult indeed to get itself rebuilt, and to get itself rehabilitated. It is entitled, I think, in its hour of need, to look towards the Royal Navy, and to ask that the Admiralty shall bear in mind the city's requirements as well. Removal of the naval gunnery school would obviously require a certain amount of expenditure and also administrative rearrangements. I could say, too, that the reconstruction of the city, which is dependent on planning considerations, has also been arrested because there was a request from the Air Ministry, at one time, that planning on the East side of the city should be suspended until the future of the Langstone scheme was known. Therefore, there has been a certain adverse effect on the city, as it has always had to keep in mind that it might at some future time have an airbase established there.
  This matter has been discussed before. There was a time when the Langstone Harbour Scheme was put before the Air Ministry, as it then was prior to the establishment of, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, in which these considerations arose in a more modified form. At that time there was little difficulty with the Departments concerned, and I have a letter, dated 21st September, 1937. in which the Board of Admiralty are good enough to agree to certain things inherent in the establishment of the scheme. The Board of Trade expressed full concurrence with it, and other Departments notified, via the Air Ministry, the Town Clerk of Portsmouth that they agreed. It seems that this scheme has been considered now for many years. It is a scheme which has been reviewed over and over again by the Departments. And I say that not only for the sake of the City of Portsmouth, which is not the dominant consideration in this matter, but for the sake of the nation, some firm decision should now be reached. After all, it is a long time since 26th January last when the Parlia-
  2338
  mentary Secretary stated that he was going to make a decision at a very early date. Furthermore, delay means extra expenditure. It is known that unless an early decision is made, and construction work proceeds quickly, large sums of money will have to be expended in enlarging the port facilities of Southampton Such facilities there can only be of a temporary nature, and the Parliamentary Secretary on a previous occasion stated that Southampton Water could not are accepted as a satisfactory base. Moreover, large flying-boats are now coming off the line, and are now having to use Poole. It is going to cost the taxpayer a considerable amount of money at Poole as long as these aircraft have to land there. I do not want to weary the House at this late hour much longer. What I want to ask is that His Majesty's Government, and the Admiralty, in particular, shall not pose a small installation such as the naval gunnery school at Fort Cumberland, in Portsmouth, in firm opposition to a scheme of the magnitude, and with the vast possibilities, that the Langstone Harbour scheme holds not only for the City of Portsmouth, but for the whole of the future of civil aviation for this Empire and the world.
  12.25 a.m.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: I will only take one or two minutes of the time of the House at this late hour. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) has put his case cogently. We had this scheme before the House many times before the war, and there have been other schemes before the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Committees have been appointed to report, but we are still without any announcement from the Ministry of Civil Aviation as to which harbour or which scheme it has been decided to support.
  If I may have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary for one moment— it will help at this late hour—I would like to say that I think this matter has become a very urgent matter for the Ministry of Civil Aviation for many reasons which have been put forward. But I will put forward another. Heathrow is going to be overcrowded, and probably obsolete. The first civil airport of the British Empire is obsolete before it is completely in full use. I have seen something of this matter.

  2339
  I do not want to get into an argument with by hon. Friend, as I have admiration for Prestwick, which is open when Heathrow is closed. But it must be a matter of urgency for the hon. Gentleman's Department to make arrangements for an auxiliary port very rapidly. This is not the occasion to deal with the reason for serious drops in passenger traffics, not only in this country but all over the world. But the hon. Gentleman's Department has passed a Bill which has taken over this matter. He is the boss in charge of all civil aviation, and, therefore, the responsibility rests with his Department. He has the responsibility to make an urgent decision of all reserve areas to take the overflow traffic from Heathrow. This is a very urgent problem in the terms of the safety factor. I have seen a little of the scheme referred to, and, as I understand it, it is the best scheme that has been put forward from Southern quarters so far.
  I am surprised to find that there is opposition from the Admiralty on this matter, and the representative of the Admiralty on the Front Bench should have an opportunity at some future date to make a statement. I should have thought it would have been a good thing for us to have had a flying boat base there which seaplanes could use. If we are to be told that there has been no decision, and the "nigger in the woodpile" is on the Front Bench, then we must go to the Admiralty to find out what the reasons are. I hope the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that a statement will be given, if not to-night, in the immediate future, of what is to be the new seaplane base on the South Coast.
  12.25 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lind-gren): Portsmouth has been very well served indeed by my hon, and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) because he has been persistent in questioning the Minister and myself, both by letter and deputation,
  2340
  with regard to the claims of Langstone Harbour. I had, out of courtesy to him, prepared a statement which anticipated many of the points he has raised and which I could have made were it not for the fact that, in accordance with Mr. Speaker's Ruling with regard to Debates on the Adjournment, the time has now elapsed. Since that is so, all I can say is that the points which have been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be taken very carefully into account and all possible pressure will be brought to bear by my noble Friend and myself on the Departments concerned to come to a decision.
  Sir William Darling: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the subject of the Debate is not "Flying-boat bases in Great Britain"? We have heard of nothing tonight, but the claims of Portsmouth. Should not a discussion of flying-boat bases in Britain cover a wider field, including the rivers Clyde and Forth?
  Mr. Lindgren: At the moment I am concerned with a modern base to deal with the major portion of traffic in South-East England, and proximity to London is of great importance.
  Mr. Cooper: May we expect an announcement or a decision within a matter of days or weeks? The hon. Gentleman seems, once again, to be putting off this vital matter.
  Mr. Lindgren: I am not in a position to say. As far as the Ministry of Civil Aviation is concerned, the matter has been put to the other appropriate Departments and there, for the moment, it rests.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten 0'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 Twenty-six Minutes past Twelve o'clock.