HC Deb 11 June 1947 vol 438 cc1233-43

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

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I am slightly worried about this Clause, because it will lead to a reopening of a great number of cases. As I read it, under this Clause a company which has additional nominal capital will have to consider right back to 1939 whether or not it comes under Section 113 of the Stamp Act. So far as I can see, that relates only to public utility companies, for practical purposes. I should like to know just what companies are, in fact, affected, and to know in how many cases, in the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will these recalculations have to be made. I should like to find out exactly what is the purpose behind the introduction of the Clause, because it seems to me to have very little practical value, but will cause a lot of trouble to a good many companies.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Originally, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, when a capital issue was made by a company it had to pay Stamp Duty on the full nominal value, whether the full amount was actually issued at that particular time or not. During the war, as the Committee knows, fairly rigorous restrictions were placed on capital issues, and it was agreed—and, I think, rightly, as I hope the Committee agree—that it would be grossly unfair when a company was making an issue, or wanting to make an issue, that it should be charged Stamp Duty on the full nominal sum, and not on the actual amount that was issued. Therefore, it was agreed between the Inland Revenue and those concerned with the Stamp Duty that the sum actually issued should be paid, and not Stamp Duty on the full nominal amount. This Clause gives that arrangement statutory effect, and it will now be continued until Parliament desires and resolves otherwise.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I should be glad if the Financial Secretary would follow this a little further, because, unless I am mistaken, he has referred to Section 112 of the Stamp Act and not to Section 113, which is mentioned here. Section 113 merely deals with companies whose nominal shareholding is governed by letters patent or Acts of Parliament. I think that the case he has made is related to Section 112, where he is perfectly right, but I cannot see that his case has any relation to Section 113, particularly as the specific limitation is to Section 113.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

My advice is that it applies to both cases, both Section 112 and Section 113. Therefore, it is essential, when dealing with this matter, to cover ordinary companies and companies under letters patent.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Stanley

I think we really must ask that this be looked into a little more closely, because the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman gave clearly refers, not to the Section of the Stamp Act mentioned in this Clause, but to another one. The explanation he gave was that it was necessary, from the point of view of the taxpayers, that what hitherto had been the rule or custom should now be put on a statutory basis under the Defence Regulations. He gave us the impression that a benefit was going to be conferred on the taxpayer on the whole range covered by Section 112, but if we look at Clause 48, we see it will be limited to the very narrow confines of that particular Section. Which does the right hon. Gentleman means? If he means that these are to be widespread, we must amend Clause 48 in order to read it with Sections 112 and 113.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I think I now have the point. It is really a separate one from the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was putting to me. Normally, in private companies, as the term implies, the authority of the House has to be sought, and that being so, the Statute itself as a Private Act itself makes provision, and, therefore, it is not necessary in this particular Clause to make provision in addition. We simply make provision for the examples which I gave. Where provision is desired in a private Act by a corporation, it will make provision of its own in the Act which it promotes.

Mr. Stanley

I cannot help saying that the right hon. Gentleman's intervention has not left me any clearer than I was before, because I thought it was the private company which might be covered by a Private Act which was the subject of Section 112. What happens to companies under Section 112, which he described in glowing terms as conferring a benefit?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I may be very obtuse, but surely the right hon. Gentleman refers to Section 113. He is answered by the very first line of the Clause we are now discussing. The Clause refers to Section 113. The two Sections have to be taken together, but the operative Section is Section 113, and that is why it is referred to in this Clause.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think he ought to have a look at Sections 112 and 113 before he makes that statement, because Section 113 deals with public companies where nominal and actual capital may be different. Section 113 takes the matter further; it talks of companies only which are guaranteed in addition to the law of registration in some respect by Private Acts of the House or by letters patent. The Clause we are now discussing is conferring on private companies or companies affected by letters patent only. The Financial Secretary, in his first statement, made it apparent that the case he was putting to the Committee was based on Section 112. What I want to know is why this benefit is being given to private companies or those limited by letters patent. The reference ought to be in respect of Sections 112 and 113. If that were so, we would have no comment. We cannot see any justification for this, or why the Financial Secretary has given any answer on Section 112 and ignored Section 113 altogether.

Mr. Stanley

We must have an answer on this matter. I think it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman has not had the advantage of reading the relevant Section. The right hon. Gentleman, in the intervention he made in my speech, said that he had now got the point. I do not know whether it would be advisable that the charge of the Old Guard should be stayed until Blucher arrives. The right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that there had been a misunderstanding because he said that these companies which were regulated by Private Acts did not need the protection of Clause 48, because the matter would be dealt with under the Private Acts themselves. But Section 113 refers only to companies which, in fact, have got, and are set up by, these Private Acts, and I really think he must have made a mistake in the figure. Number 112 is very close to 113. Anyone might have made a slip of that magnitude. Considering some of the arithmetical mistakes we have come across in the course of our financial discussions in the last few years, it is a very minor one; but even though it is a minor one, it should be put right.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I apologise to the Committee for misleading them. It was due to the fact that, for the moment, I failed to find a copy of the Stamp Act. The right hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me. It is quite obvious, from what he said, that he had turned this Section up, as I should have done, and had seen that this does not, in fact, refer to registered companies. I understand that registered companies are, in fact, not included, and the reason is that they are now very rigidly controlled by the Treasury, and would have to come to the Treasury for consent before they made a public issue. All we have done in this Clause has been to make this limiting concession to these companies covered by Section 113.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Stanley

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

I move this Motion in order to have an opportunity of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer his intentions. I think it is a convenient moment to do so, for we are now at the beginning of a number of Clauses which deal with one of the most important points in the Bill—that new duty on the issue of bonus shares. This is an innovation which has been criticised in many quarters. It raises very difficult practical points, and it is certainly one that will require full consideration and should receive that consideration at a reasonable hour of the day. It is very unfortunate that we should arrive at this matter at a late hour. In our desire to facilitate the progress of Business—although we registered our protests against it—we curtailed discussion on the matter on the Budget Resolutions. It would be too bad if we were to be asked on this occasion, which will probably be the final opportunity to discuss the subject in detail, to do so at an unsuitable time. We cannot expect to be lucky on the Report stage. We cannot then expect to he able to make a renewal of the arguments which we have to make. If this subject is taken at this hour, it will also have the effect of denying adequate publicity for what many people consider to be a most important Debate.

I am sure the Chancellor would be the last to deny adequate public reporting of this controversial Clause, but if we are to spend two, or even three or four, hours discussing an important Amendment, I can only say that whatever explanation the Chancellor is prepared to give, and whatever emollients he may offer, the matter will go largely unreported because of the hour of the night. I think it is wrong that a matter of such importance should be taken at this hour. May I remind the Committee that we have two full days after this for the discussion in Committee of the Finance Bill, and I can speak for most of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that, with this particular part of the Bill, we shall have come to the end of those matters arising from the Budget which we believe require the most careful and the longest investigation. I think that the reasonable thing to do would be to report Progress now.

Mr. Gallacher

Not at all.

Mr. Stanley

The hon. Member really must not treat the Front Bench opposite as if it were a puppet Government. That may, in fact, be true. We do not know what is going on behind the scenes. The right hon. Gentleman may be going up and others may be going down, but decency demands that in public the hon. Member should exercise a certain amount of restraint and not make such remarks. Therefore, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman, who is still a nominal head of the party opposite, ought to agree to adjourn now and let us start early on Monday on this important Clause, and trust to the co-operation which I can offer him from this side of the Committee. By that co-operation we would make every endeavour to see that we would finish the Finance Bill without having to sit unduly late either on Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. Dalton

We have been watching the clock as well as our own progress during today's Debates. I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and my mind was by no means clear as to how far it would be wise to go. I make no complaint that there has been undue delay on any part of the Bill caused by any part of the Committee; but none the less, it has taken us two days, and until one o'clock this morning, to get 48 Clauses. Many of them have been gone throughout without debate. I do not complain—I merely take note of the fact that we have taken two days to get thus far. In terms of Clauses, I must point out that there are 63 Clauses, and after that, there are 10 Schedules, and a formidable body of New Clauses, on quite a number of which I should think there will be a good deal of discussion.

1.0 a.m.

I think that in our proceedings here, the majority, or at any rate a substantial number of hon. Members, find that when we have gone past, say, a quarter to twelve, then their communications are interrupted and it is impossible to get home. That being so if there is to he one late sitting on this Bill, it would be better to have it now, as communications have been interrupted for this evening, and we will be sure of getting through at a relatively early hour on the two days next week which are proposed for the completion of the Committee stage. It is not my fault, and the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest it was, that this particular matter of bonus issues happened to be reached at this particular hour, being Clause 49. It would have been possible—I make no complaint that it was not done—to have stepped up the discussion of some of the earlier Clauses so as to arrive rather earlier at Clause 49.

Mr. Stanley

It would have been possible not to have discussed them at all. Then we could have started at Clause 49.

Mr. Dalton

Well, most of the discussion has come from the other side of the Committee. My own suggestion to the Committee would be that, having reached one o'clock, when it is impossible for hon. Members to get home unless they have private conveyances it would be better to go straight ahead. I should think there would be no great loss of publicity on this matter of bonus issues, which is admittedly contentious. We shall have our say, of course, and there will be plenty of scope for speeches and reports of speeches from time to time.

Sir J. Mellor

The right hon. Gentleman said that conveyances are not available now. They were available, and were made specially available, as we know; but they were not used. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman's point has really no application, because the transport which was specially provided for hon. Members when we were sitting late was virtually not used. Therefore I do not think he can say that that is one reason we should continue tonight.

Mr. Dalton

I was citing the fact, which cannot be denied, that there is no transport available for hon. Members who have not private conveyances of their own. That is a fact. It is a fact which we are entitled to take into consideration. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who caused that fact?"] Therefore, I suggest that, this being the case, a substantial number of hon. Members would perfer to continue consideration of the rest of the provisions of this Bill with a view to getting, shall we say, to the end of Clause 63. That would leave the Schedules and the new Clauses for next week. I think that those could be fairly adequately discussed in the two days which remain, without any need for further late Sittings. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that we should not at this stage report Progress, but should continue with our work; and I am quite sure we would be prepared that the ordinary formal stages of the Bill should run their course. We would not deny discussion of these Clauses, however it is decided to deal with the Business. Hon. Members often make speeches in the country, and there are many organs of opinion which are only too ready to give expressions to their views on these and other matters. Therefore the point of view and arguments of any side can be put forward. I suggest that we carry on with our work.

Mr. Stanley

As the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do anything to meet the wishes of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, any offer which I made for co-operation during the remaining stages of the Bill is, of course, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, in control of the situation, backed by his large Parliamentary majority. His argument strikes me as slightly curious. He says if we sit beyond the departure of the last two trains, we should sit until the services recommence somewhere about six a.m. He says that after the Sitting goes beyond a certain hour, it is a good thing to carry on until the trains start again. It strikes me as slightly curious to suggest that the discussion of important matters in this Committee should not be carried on in relation to a proper time considered likely to be most effective by those whom we represent, but for the convenience of ourselves as Members. We are not here for our personal gratification. Every hon. Gentleman who sits here is sent here by a majority of electors. I am as much a democratic representative as the right hon. Gentleman is, and we must regard it as a duty to our constituents that matters of importance should be discussed at an hour when there will be adequate space in the newspapers for a report.

I insist that Business done at this hour is invariably badly done. None of us is quite as mentally alert as we were yesterday afternoon, and when one gets to an important subject like this, I suggest it is difficult to give it proper consideration. Already there is creeping into our proceedings that hilarity that always marks the first stage of an all-night Sitting, followed by somnolence, followed by irritability, which is then followed by a fresh outbreak of hilarity when the dawn comes. I suggest that the Chancellor will still get the Bill through Committee on Tuesday if we adjourn now. We might sit late on Tuesday, and then we should all "buck in" and do our part. If our hope is not fulfilled, we will continue the battle with a far less co-operative spirit than has prevailed so far.

Mr. Gallacher

I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Member that in school we were always told never to put off till Tuesday what we can do on Thursday morning.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

What about the 40-hour week?

Mr. Gallacher

At the same time, I would like to apologise to the Front Bench if I have been indiscreet and to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) that many times this afternoon I have taken a vow of silence, but have always been forced to break it by the arguments made from the other side. I feel that hon. Members

on this side, even though some of us were sitting on the Scottish Committee this morning and will have to be on it when we finish up here, are quite capable of carrying on the work of this Committee and doing the job at any hour.

Mr. Walker Fletcher (Bury)

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor used with frequency the words, "I do not complain," but that is not what he meant in the least. What he meant was, "I do complain bitterly that the Opposition have not done exactly what I want them to do; I complain that the Opposition have the temerity and bad taste to discuss at considerable length questions which affect the country; I complain that they do not toe the line and listen, and even kiss the rod which I wield; I do complain, and I will show them I am complaining." If one were really to paraphrase what the Chancellor has said, it would be, "I will keep you here tonight and teach you that lesson not to oppose Clauses which I want to push through with my machine-made majority." If that form of mechanized warfare is to be introduced by the Chancellor at this time of night, gloating on the idea of private cars—[Interruption.] He has a private car.

Hon. Members

It is a public car.

Mr. Fletcher

All I can say is that he is setting an exceedingly bad example to the Committee and to the country, and lowering his office in the eyes of others.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 68; Noes, 160.

Division No. 250.] AYES. [1.12 a.m.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Nutting, Anthony
Baldwin, A. E. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Pitman, I. J.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Gage, C. Price-While, Lt.-Col. D.
Birch, Nigel Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Bossom, A. C. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Ramsay, Maj. S.
Bower, N. Grimston, R. V. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Haughton, S. G. Ropner, Col. L.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Shephard, S. (Newark)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hope, Lord J. Spence, H. R.
Byers, Frank Jarvis, Sir J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Keeling, E. H. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lambert, Hon. G. Teeling, William
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E Low, Brig. A. R. W. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Cuthbert, W. N. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Touche, G. C.
Digby, S. W. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Wadsworth, G.
Drayson, G. B Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Ward, Hon G. R.
Drewe, C. Mellor, Sir J. Wheatley, Colonel M. J
Duthie, W. S. Molson, A. H. E. York, C.
Eccles, D. M. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Neven-Spence, Sir B. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Nield, B. (Chester) Mr. Studholme and
Fox, Sir G. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.
NOES
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Hewitson, Captain M. Rhodes, H.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Hobson, C R. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Anderson, A (Motherwell) Holman, P. Robertson, J J. (Berwick)
Attewell, H. C. Holmes, H E (Hemsworth) Rogers, G. H. R.
Austin, H. Lewis Hoy, J. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Baird, J. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Royle, C.
Barton, C. Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.) Sargood, R.
Berry, H. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Segal, Dr. S.
Beswick, F. Janner, B. Shackleton, E. A. A
Blackburn, A. R Jay, D P T Sharp, Granville
Blyton, W. R. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S E.) Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Jones, D T (Hartlepools) Simmons, C. J.
Bramall, E. A. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Skinnard, F. W
Brook, D (Halifax) Jones, J. H (Bolton) Snow, Capt. J. W
Brown, George (Belper) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Sorensen, R. W.
Burke, W. A. Keenan, W. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
Callaghan, James Kinley, J. Stokes, R. R.
Champion, A. J. Lang, G. Stubbs, A. E.
Collindridge, F. Lee, F. (Hulme) Swingler, S.
Collins, V. J. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Symonds, A. L
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W) Levy, B. W. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Corlett, Dr. J. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Crawley, A. Lipton, Lt -Col M Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Daines, P. Logan, D. G. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Longden, F Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) McAllister, G Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Mack, J. D. Timmons, J.
Deer, G. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Tolley, L.
de Freitas, Geoffrey McKinlay, A. S. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Delargy, H. J McLeavy, F. Usborne, Henry
Diamond, J. Manning, C (Camberwell, N.) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Dodds, N. N Mellish, R. J. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Driberg, T. E. N. Middleton, Mrs. L. Watson, W. M.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bomwich) Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R Weitzman, D.
Dumpleton, C. W. Mitchison, G. R Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C Monslow, W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Farthing, W. J. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) West, D. G.
Fernyhough, E. Moyle, A. White, H. (Derbyshire, N E.)
Foot, M. M. Neal, H. (Claycross) Whiteley, Rt. Hon W
Forman, J. C. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) Noel-Buxton, Lady Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Oliver, G. H Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Gallacher, W. Paget, R. T. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Gibbins, J. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)
Gilzean, A. Pargiter, G. A. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Paton, J. (Norwich) Willis, E.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Peart, Thomas F. Wills, Mrs. E. A
Gunter, R. J. Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Wilson, J. H.
Guy, W. H. Popplewell, E. Woods, G. S.
Hall, W. G. Pritt, D. N. Wyatt, W.
Hardy, E. A Proctor, W. T Yates, V F
Harrison, J. Pryde, D. J
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Ranger, J TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Rankin, J. Mr. Pearson and
Mr Hannar.