HC Deb 21 June 1948 vol 452 cc987-1005

(1) If under any enactment of practice whereby—

  1. (a) goods liable to customs duty are allowed to be delivered without payment of duty on condition that they will not be sold or will be re-exported or upon any other like condition; or
  2. (b) the amount of customs duty payable on any goods depends on their being imported on any such condition;
any goods are allowed to be delivered without payment of duty or on payment of duty calculated in accordance with the enactment or practice, and the condition is not fulfilled, the goods shall be forfeited.

(2) The provisions of this section shall apply whether or not any undertaking or security has been given for the fulfilment of the condition or for the payment of the duty payable apart from the condition, and the forfeiture of any goods under this section shall not affect any liability of any person who has given any such undertaking or security.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause provides that in certain circumstances goods which are imported, and which are liable to Customs Duty, may be forfeited. The circumstances, as they appear in the Clause, are that a condition that they will not be sold or will be re-exported or any similar condition has been broken. The object of the Clause is as follows. It is to put an end to a rather undesirable form of dealing which can only be described as black market dealing. I will give an example of the sort of thing that has happened. Under the internationally recognised system to which we in this country have given legislative effect, by Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1938, a car can be brought to this country without payment of duty on the production of a triptyque, issued by a recognised motoring association, which guarantees payment of Duty and tax if the vehicle is not re-exported. That is a familiar type of transaction, and a tourist or anyone else who brings a car into the country on that understanding is expected, in due course, to take it out again.

What has happened is that that permission, which is applicable not only to the bringing in of cars but to a variety of other goods, has been abused. We have had the case of a car being brought into the country on the condition that it shall be subsequently taken out, being allowed in without payment of duty, and then being sold here at an exorbitant price, with the result that the State has been deprived of Customs Duty. That is a form of black market dealing which has occurred—I do not want to exaggerate—to a not inconsiderable extent, and it is now felt to be necessary that there should be some drastic way of stopping that sort of thing. The Clause provides that when goods are brought in in these circumstances, subject to a condition of that sort, and that condition is broken the goods may be forfeited. In the case I have instanced the car would be forfeited to the State, so that those who have engaged in the transaction would suffer a loss.

I will quote a case of the sort of thing that has happened. Two cars, at a total cost, c.i.f., of £1,400, were brought into the country and were sold within a few days—notwithstanding the conditions contained in the triptyque—for about £5,900. That is obviously a proceeding which no Member in any part of the House would seek to justify for a moment. I believe the House will agree that it is necessary that that kind of thing should be stopped by drastic methods. Various things may be said against the Clause. It may be asked, "What about the innocent purchaser?" but, generally, he is not so innocent as all that. He knows, when he buys a car of that sort, where it comes from. He has not bought it from a recognised distributor, or in any of the available markets. If he takes a chance in buying the car it cannot be said that he has been harshly dealt with if he has suffered loss as a result. He does not buy the car at the ordinary price. He buys it at an extremely excessive price. If he does that he has been put on his guard and knows there is something unsavoury about the transaction. The Clause is designed to guard against that kind of business; it is an anti-black market Clause. It is not confined to cars. It is confined generally to goods which are brought in subject to the condition I have described, which condition is thereafter broken. The Clause seeks to combat what is a very much too prevalent abuse.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanley

I am not entirely happy about the effects of this Clause, or the reasons for the penalty it prescribes. We all want to stop black market offences, but it is not sufficient argument in favour of a Clause of this kind just to say that black market offences have occurred and we must all stop them. We have to be convinced that the provisions of the Clause are effective and necessary to stop that black market. I cannot see why the penalty of forfeiture is particularly likely to put an end to the black market. I should have thought that the penalty upon the guilty person could have been made just as severe by making him liable to a fine up to the value of the article in respect of which he has offended. That would be the same, as far as he was concerned, as forfeiting the article.

The provision of a fine, as opposed to forfeiture, would make certain that no penalty could fall on the person who was innocent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman airily dismissed the possibility that a wholly innocent person might buy something, in breach of an undertaking, of which he was wholly ignorant. In that case, the penalty inflicted by the Clause would fall wholly on the buyer. If the black marketeer is a man of straw, as he may well be, the buyer would have no remedy. He would pay his £5,000 or more, as in the case quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and the cars would be taken away, but he would be the only person who had to suffer. We have had no justification for this Clause.

The Solicitor-General cited the case of two cars. I presume that in that case the purchaser was not an innocent purchaser. Has he any evidence of that? If he says, "In all cases where this has happened the purchaser has not been innocent," we must assume that in the case he quoted he has evidence that the purchaser was not innocent. Is that so? Could he reply? He cannot because he knows quite well that his wild extravagant statement is quite insupportable. One can quite well imagine circumstances where a wholly innocent party, who would not dream for one moment of taking part in a shady transaction, may be asked to buy something and it excites no suspicion at all. He may enter into the transaction in perfect good faith and suddenly find himself, with no warning at all, subject to forfeiture of the article which he has bought.

We want some assurance that the innocent person in a position of that kind is safeguarded. It may be that further penalties have to be imposed upon the man who is responsible for this improper transaction, but surely it should be possible to include in these cases some safeguard for the wholly innocent purchaser who can prove he had, and could have had, no suspicion of the transaction, and who finds himself quite unexpectedly and undeservedly involved in a very heavy loss. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who is holding the fort in the absence of his right hon. Friend, whether it would not be possible to insert in this Clause some such provision to protect the wholly innocent purchaser on whom otherwise a grave injustice might be done.

Mr. Benson (Chesterfield)

There is an old saying, caveat emptor—let the buyer beware. In the case of motor cars, if the position is taken up that only the guilty seller who has broken the terms that were imposed on the importation, shall suffer, we are, in fact, in nine cases out of ten, making it impossible for the Government to take any action whatever. Motor cars—and I think it is motor cars which the Government have mostly in mind—are brought in by the importer not as a commercial transaction, but for his use during his temporary stay. If it is possible for the importer to sell his car at a handsome profit and then go back, the only person the Government can get at is the purchaser of the car. The importer or seller has gone back to the country of origin and is outside the long arm of the Government. If it is only the importer who may be dealt with, in effect it means that the Government shall have no recourse against anybody in the event of a breach of contract and, therefore, a breach of the law in a case of this kind.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

Would it not be perfectly possible for the Government to require that a deposit or guarantee be given by the importer before the car is admitted to this country?

Mr. Benson

Of course it would, and it would be equally possible for the French Government, which has an exactly similar arrangement with regard to the importation of privileges, to demand a similar deposit from every tourist who goes to France and takes his car with him. What the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) would do by that move is to put a considerable inconvenience on every innocent tourist who brings a car here. I do not think there will be many cases. Quite frankly, it seems to be that any other method leaves the Government without recourse or remedy, except for the alternative proposed by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, which means putting an intolerable burden upon people who go about their tourist business decently.

Mr. David Eccles (Chippenham)

Surely it is an extraordinary argument which the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has put before the House. He says that if the Government cannot have recourse against the guilty party they should have recourse against the non-guilty party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is precisely what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Benson

What I did say was that here is a case where the buyer must beware. Those who purchase a foreign motor car must understand that it is up to them to scrutinise very carefully where it came from and also whether it may be purchased.

Mr. Eccles

The real point is not the car business. As many hon. Members know, members of the Diplomatic Corps, who have privileges in importing things through their status, occasionally sell them. I want to ask whether this Clause, which is most unsatisfactory in its present form, means that there is a widespread abuse of this kind of thing through diplomatic privilege. I do not believe there is in London, but there is in other countries. In my experience there has not been in London a large amount of importation free of duty under diplomatic privilege, but if hon. Members go to some of the smaller capitals of Europe they will find it is absolutely rife. It has never been rife at the Court of St. James's, and I want to know if this Clause put down in this way, is not rather insulting to the Diplomatic Corps in London.

Is it not a fact that there are many other goods coming in, because if not motorcars, what are the other goods? The Solicitor-General has told us that motorcars were not the only goods. The only other things I could think of would be things brought into this country under diplomatic privilege. I cannot see any other class of goods at the moment. Of course, it is a delicate matter to have recourse against a foreign diplomat accredited here. Therefore, I suppose the Government say, "We cannot touch these people. We will try to warn them off this particular kind of racket by getting at the people who ultimately buy these goods." That is not justice.

If there is widespread abuse—I doubt if there is great abuse—it could be cured quite properly by bringing the attention of the heads of missions, who in this city behave extremely honourably, to this matter and so make it quite unnecessary to have this Clause. If there is a big abuse we ought to go for the people who are really the guilty parties—the people who make the money out of it. Let us assume it is not an article which can be very easily identified as having been brought in from abroad. Anyone can see what a foreign motor car is and that it must come from abroad, but what about a necklace or something of considerable value where the duty would be a large part of the purchase price over here? How is any buyer to know, and yet if it can be traced back the goods are likely to be seized and confiscated? I support my right hon. Friend in urging that we ought not to pass this Clause unless there is some provision whereby the people who purchase of goods of the type which it is sought to seize shall be protected.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) I am concerned at the possibility of an innocent man being penalised under the proposed new Clause. I am made to feel that way by the remarks of the Solicitor-General, who does not appear to have been as closely in touch with second-hand values as some of us. He suggested that if a man asked an exorbitant price for an article there must be something fishy about it. Nearly every secondhand car changing hands today would come into that category. Arrangements have been made by the industry under which people sign a guarantee, backed by a heavy penalty, that they will not dispose of new vehicles. At a time when 75 per cent. of car manufacturers go abroad, the price of second-hand vehicles is high.

I see the possibility that a man may be shown a motor car and may buy it in perfect good faith that it has been used for the purpose allowed under an agreement and that now it is possible for the vendor to dispose of it. Not everyone understands all the rules and regulations made by the trade, or can distinguish a motorcar with a foreign name and manufacture from one which may have been made here by a company with the same name. I am in favour of doing everything we can to stop the man who sells the motor car under those conditions from getting away with it, and the man who, in collusion with him, buys the car. I fear, however, that people will innocently get themselves involved in this matter without any bad intention.

We ought to have a safeguard for the innocent man. I agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) that we do not want to interfere with the ordinary export of touring cars to the Continent under the system which has worked so well for many years. That would mean that every one would be penalised in the same way. There should be some protection for the innocent man who might easily be deceived by a plausible rogue in the secondhand market and left with one of these cars.

Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury)

I would point out that the system of bank guarantee worked well when the tourist traffic was on a considerably greater scale than it is now, and when cars passing from one country to another did not have to go through a complicated ceremony. That system had the merit that the effects of any abuse of the guarantee fell upon the person who abused it and not, as in this case, upon someone who may be an innocent party. The Solicitor-General produced the case of two motor cars costing £1,400, and sold at the exorbitant figure of £5,000. If those were American cars I can tell him that 5,000 is the market value and is not ex-orbitant. He seems to have mistaken the symptoms in this case. It would not be the car sold at a high price but the car sold at a low price which would be suspect. The Solicitor-General ought to get his case up a little better before he brings it to the House. The new Clause would fasten the penalty where it should not lie. There is nothing easier, on the other hand, than to get a bank guarantee, as has been done for many years. It would not impede traffic and would definitely fasten the penalty on the sinner and upon no one else.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

It is obvious that there is something mysterious about the proposed new Clause, which does much to enlarge the frontiers of confiscation. The Solicitor-General says that it is intended to apply to the black market. It is remarkable how the black market flourishes like a green bay tree under Socialist government. I ask the Economic Secretary why, if this is a really serious abuse, such a provision was not inserted in the original Bill. What has happened since the Committee stage a fortnight ago? Why, on Report, do we find this new, heavily penal proposal?

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) invited the Solicitor-General to give us examples of where persons had been found guilty of these offences, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was unable to do so. I understand that he has since been to the source of inspiration under the Gallery. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, if he has not, it merely enforces my point. Are there any cases? When did they take place? Why is this new Clause being produced only at this moment? The Solicitor-General has gone on record with a dictum, which is very strange coming from a Law Officer of the Crown, more worthy of Mr. Justice Stareleigh in the celebrated case of Bardell v. Pickwick. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the innocent person is not generally innocent.

The Solicitor-General

I intended to say "the so-called innocent purchaser."

Commander Braithwaite

I wrote down what the Solicitor-General said but I did not hear the "so-called." If it was inserted, I hope that he will see that it appears in the record tomorrow. If "so-called," by whom is it so called? Is it merely so-called by the Law Officers of the Crown, or by the Customs officials, or by whom? Here, and not for the first time during the lifetime of the present Government, we have, as we have had over and over again in previous Bills, a provision by which a person is assumed to be guilty. It is almost becoming common form for the British citizen to be assumed guilty. I think that principle is inherent in the administration of Socialism. No longer are persons innocent until they are proved guilty. When a Law Officer of the Crown says, "so-called innocent persons," it is time that some protest was made from this side of the House. One argument has already been knocked out of the Solicitor-General's case, about motor cars changing hands at what he calls excessive prices. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said "let the buyer beware," only he said it in Latin.

Mr. Benson

I translated it for the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

The buyer can still beware. This purpose can be carried out without this very heavy, confiscatory proposal, which may hit people who are entirely innocent. The House ought not to pass this very wide Clause until we have heard from the Law Officer what examples he has in mind and what has happened since the Committee stage to cause this proposed new Clause to be put upon the Paper.

Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

I want to put one point to the Solicitor-General with regard to what I am afraid is going to be bad legislation. We must not focus our minds too much on motor cars. We have had mention of jewellery, and there is also clothing which cannot be registered in any way. A person who comes into this country and sells these things must go out again. Surely there could be some method of checking these people when they go out? They would have the money on them. Is this Clause designed entirely to get at the Diplomatic Service? I do not think that is so. Why cannot the Government check the people when they go out of the country and put the onus on them by making them pay the money?

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay)

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) asked whether this difficulty had arisen mainly on account of the Diplomatic Corps. I can assure him that that is not the case. It is not the Diplomatic Corps which we have in mind; it is mainly people coming into this country, particularly tourists from abroad, who are the source of the trouble. He also asked whether anything other than motor cars was involved. Other articles are involved. Fur coats have unfortunately led to this practice, and also jewellery. The main question of the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) was: Why should we proceed in these cases against the party who might be innocent instead of the guilty party? The short and simple answer is that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), that unfortunately in most cases the guilty party is out of the country by the time the facts are known.

Therefore we adopt a solution—evidently the right hon. Gentleman did not realise this—which has been adopted in the case of smuggled goods for generations. In the case of smuggled goods it has always been the law of this country that forfeiture was applied against the holder of the goods. We are making no change whatever in the law in this respect. The reason for this provision is that we cannot get at the guilty party and because the holder of the goods is in the majority of cases not innocent—

Mr. W. Fletcher

rose—

Mr. Jay

Perhaps I may just finish. That has been the case for many generations in regard to smuggled goods, and really there is no difference in principle between these and smuggled goods—

Mr. W. Fletcher

rose—

Mr. Jay

May I please finish this very brief speech.

Several hon. Members asked why there should not be some provision to remit the penalty in the case of the innocent party. There is such provision under the present law. There is power for the Commissioners to remit the penalty in cases where they are satisfied that the holders of the goods are innocent. That has also been the case for all smuggled goods ever since the Inland Revenue Act of 1890, and we are simply following the same procedure. The flights of fancy of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) about what happens under Socialist Governments and so on, even if they were relevant, were in this case beside the point. What we are doing here is exactly what every Government has done in regard to smuggled goods of all kinds ever since 1890.

Mr. W. Fletcher

The essence of smuggled goods is that they are brought in by concealment. The essence of this is that the goods are not concealed. This relates to motor cars brought in by tourists, and fur coats which cannot be put in one's waistcoat pocket. Why should they suddenly be classified as smuggled goods? It is no use talking about what was done in the case of smuggled goods in the past because that bears no analogy to what is happening now. These goods are brought in openly and those goods were concealed.

Mr. Jay

In principle the situation is exactly the same. These are goods brought into the country on a certain condition, and that condition has been broken.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question why this Clause is only now, on the Report stage, being introduced if this has been going on for so long?

Mr. Jay

Mainly because the evidence of this type of transaction has been steadily accumulating and we came to the conclusion that it was time to introduce it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

During the last fortnight?

5.45 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

The Government are making extremely heavy weather about this. Obviously these articles are not smuggled into the country. I should have thought that when an individual brings a car into the country his passport could be endorsed to that effect. When he left the country and his passport was examined it would be seen that he had brought a car into the country. He has to have a passport to get out of the country. That is a simpler way of getting round these difficulties than the one which the Government proposes. We want to encourage tourists to come to this country and do not want to create unnecessary difficulties, and this endorsing of their passports would be a simple matter. I do not believe it is beyond the Government's powers to think of something of that sort, and I suggest they look into it again.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I should like to ask the Chancellor to reconsider this Clause. When the Economic Secretary replied, he overlooked one category which might very easily be affected by the Clause—those who bring in furniture including antique furniture and objets d'art. I have several constituents who have brought in furniture from European countries during the war, and I imagine that they have been allowed to bring them in duty free, although many of the items may have been subject to duty in the ordinary way if brought in commercially. Those people might die in the fairly near future and their executors might sell the furniture. Will they be liable under this Clause? It seems to me that the breaking of the law might be quite unintentional. The executors might not know of the existence of this Clause.

I hope it will be realised that this Clause may react very unfairly on those who are not fully aware of its terms. It may be contravened quite unintentionally and the confiscation may react most unfairly. It may concern some valuable heirloom—something with more sentimental value than anything else. We must think of other things besides motorcars, and I hope we shall realise that the goods I have mentioned are certainly not smuggled but are brought in quite openly. I am certain that offences arising under this Clause might arise quite unintentionally. The idea of confiscation is completely abhorrent.

This Clause rather reeks of the Russell Vick Report on petrol. It seems to be assuming people guilty and letting them prove their innocence if they are lucky to be given the opportunity. I described that as tyranny and I will describe it as tyranny again today. If we in this country once let go of that old principle on which we have always worked—that the individual is innocent until he is proved guilty by the prosecution—we shall never cease to regret it. I therefore hope that the Chancellor will reconsider this Clause.

Mr. C. Williams

There is one point which has not been mentioned in connection with this Clause. Surely this can be checked by means of the existing currency regulations? This is concerned not with small transactions but transactions on a considerable scale—£500 or £1,000 and so on—and it seems that we could check it under the currency regulations or, if we cannot under the present regulations, it must be so close to them that it should be quite easy to do so. Some of my hon. Friends think it is possible to do that, and I ask the Government if there is any real necessity for the Clause from that point of view alone.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) gave the House a good warning—let the buyer beware. I agree that in making any form of bargain the purchaser ought to be careful, but it is not really necessary to remind the ordinary person of this at the present time because too many of them realise how badly bitten they were by the bad pup they bought at the last General Election, so that his advice is really out of date unless he is one of the people who think they were bitten by the present Front Bench.

I am not really concerned about the buyer having to be beware, but I am deeply concerned as to why this Clause should be brought forward now. The hon. Gentleman said the Government had been accumulating evidence. Surely this ought not to be brought forward a fortnight or so after we have dealt with the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? It seems to me perfectly monstrous that on the Report stage, a Clause dealing with such a comparatively simple matter should be brought forward. It should have gone into the main body of the Bill. I see that the Chancellor is looking unhappy; I have no doubt he realises his error, and I am glad of that, because it is gross negligence on the part of the Government not to have brought this in at an earlier stage. It is unfair to every hon. Member that we should have to deal with odd Clauses flung at us now, for some comparatively simple thing. This stage ought to be held for more important Clauses, and the Government should prepare their Finance Bill properly.

I was rather horrified, being of Cornish extraction, to hear the hon. Gentleman compare those who deal in this underhand way with honest smugglers. There is a risk about smuggling, and from my West Country background I say that this kind of little deal, under various diplomatic or other privileges, ought not to be compared with another form of evasion, which of course I should not dream of approving except for Cornwall. The Government have the full sympathy of the House on every side in trying to do away with this kind of thing, because we all realise that any one who indulges in it is hitting every other taxpayer in the country.

We do not want to help these people, we want to stop them, but if there is anything which is certain in this world from the time when the hanging penalty for stealing was suspended, it is that an excessively higher penalty has never stopped the worst type of criminal. In these circumstances, to impose a penalty of confiscation, although it may rejoice the hearts of the type of individuals sitting on the Government Bench today, is not British, it does not appeal to the sentiment of the country, and it would be much better if the Government gave a reasonable sentence, and still better if they put a little time into organising their views before bringing them to this House.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

I do not know if my ancestors were smugglers or not, but I rather suspect that some of the ancestors of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) were wreckers.

Mr. C. Williams

No.

Mr. Nicholson

The Clause refers to goods brought in "on condition that they will not be sold." Can one assume that the condition would be enshrined in a document? If that condition is enshrined in a document, nothing is more simple than that the existence of that document should be enshrined in the passport. Will the Chancellor say if it is a written or an implied condition?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps)

I do not think it would in all cases be a written condition. As regards motor cars, it is on the triptyque which is the international document granted for the introduction of a motor car into any of the European countries but that, unfortunately, does not stop people engaging in this practice.

Mr. Nicholson

Cannot that be enshrined in the passport when the individual leaves the country? Could they not be asked what has happened to that document?

Sir S. Cripps

One is anxious not to make things too difficult for tourists coming into this country. These inquisitions on everybody are very difficult. In 99 per cent. of cases it would be quite unnecessary. People do not do this sort of thing because they are decent people, especially when they have had warning and know that they have been given a privilege on condition that they have undertaken an obligation. We do not expect them to disobey the obligation but, unfortunately, in some cases they do. The only way to deal with those people is to deal with the goods which are being converted to a use other than that for which entry was permitted. They are not the same as smuggled goods.

Mr. Nicholson

They are not smuggled goods.

Captain Crookshank

Before the Chancellor sits down, can he explain why this has only come forward at this late stage? In my experience of many Finance Bills it is unusual for a Government to put down new Clauses on new subjects on Report. Of course they put down Clauses of clarification on points which have arisen during the Debate, but this is a bolt from the blue. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain how this has happened, it will help, and if he can promise us that it will not happen again, it will be even better.

Sir S. Cripps

My hon. Friend has explained how it has arisen. This practice has been developing rather rapidly. Perhaps it is the weather and the time of year which causes things of this kind to happen. It has developed to the extent that we felt it essential to take this step, so we took the earliest opportunity of doing it.

Captain Crookshank

Does that mean that there have been a tremendous number of cases during the last two or three weeks?

Sir S. Cripps

No, it means that there has been evidence of accumulation of these cases which we felt must be dealt with now.

Mr. Donner (Basingstoke)

The Chancellor now says there has been an accumulation of cases. The Solicitor-General and the Economic Secretary both talked about accumulating evidence, but no Member of His Majesty's Government has yet told us how many cases there have been, in fact, during the last year of persons entering this country with a car and an ordinary international carnet who have subsequently left, having sold that car in this country. The Solicitor-General based his case on a black marketeer. He said that this new penalty must be imposed because of black marketeers. The Economic Secretary took quite a different line. He said, in answer to a question put to him by one of my hon. Friends, that we were dealing with the casual tourist. The casual tourist is not a black marketeer, and the matter ought to be cleared up.

If it is the black marketeer, why should the Government insist upon the inclusion of this Clause without any consideration having been given to the suggestions made by hon. Members on this side of the House in regard to marking passports? The Chancellor said that would be too heavy an imposition upon tourists, but surely it is no imposition upon anybody if a special mark is made on a man's passport to the effect that he entered the country with a car?

Mr. E. P. Smith

Suppose some of these goods which the Chancellor is anxious to deal with under this Clause were to get into a genuine public sale, as they might quite easily do. Somebody buys them by public auction and pays for them, yet they are tainted goods. What is the position in a case like that where the purchaser must quite clearly be innocent?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Sir S. Cripps

I was just about to answer, if I might be allowed to get up. In answer to the hon. Member for Ashford

(Mr. E. P. Smith), the position would be that, however the goods were sold, they would be subject to forfeit unless the Customs, under the authority they possess under the Act, held that it was a case in which they should not be forfeited. In cases where there was a perfectly bona fide purchaser, probably, in general practice, they would not hold that the goods should be forfeited.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 97.

Division No. 230.] AYES [6.2 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Donovan, T. Leslie, J. R.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Driberg, T. E. N. Levy, B. W.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Dumpleton, C. W. Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Alpass, J. H. Dye, S. Lipson, D. L.
Attewell, H. C. Ede, Rt. Hon J. C. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Austin, H. Lewis Edelman, M. Longden, F.
Ayles, W. H. Edwards, John (Blackburn) Lyne, A. W.
Bacon, Miss A. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) McEntee, V. La T.
Balfour, A. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) McGhee, H. G.
Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J. Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) McGovern, J.
Barstow, P. G. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Mack, J. D.
Barton, C. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Battley, J. R. Ewart, R. McLeavy, F.
Bechervaise, A. E. Fairhurst, F. Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Belcher, J. W. Fernyhough, E. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Benson, G. Field, Capt. W. J. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Berry, H. Foot, M. M. Mann, Mrs. J.
Beswick, F. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Marquand, H. A.
Bing, G. H. C. Glanville, J. E. (Consell) Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Binns, J. Goodrich, H. E. Mellish, R. J.
Blenkinsop, A. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Messer, F.
Blyton, W. R. Grenfell, D. R. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Grey, C. F. Mitchison, G. R.
Bowen, R. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Moody, A. S.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Morley, R.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Gunter, R. J. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Bramall, E. A. Guy, W. H. Morrison, Rt. Hon- H. (Lewisham, E.)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hale, Leslie Moyle, A.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Murray, J. D.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Neal, H. (Claycross)
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Hardy, E. A. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N)
Burden, T. W. Harrison, J. Noel-Buxton, Lady
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Herbison, Miss M. Oliver, G. H.
Byers, Frank Hicks, G. Orbach, M.
Callaghan, James Holman, P. Parkin, B. T.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)
Chamberlain, R. A. Horabin, T. L. Pearson, A.
Champion, A. J. House, G. Peart, T. F.
Chater, D. Hoy, J. Popplewell, E.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Porter, E. (Warrington)
Cluse, W. S. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Porter, G. (Leeds)
Cobb, F. A. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Price, M. Philips
Cocks, F. S. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Proctor, W. T.
Collins, V. J. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Colman, Miss G. M. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Randall, H. E.
Comyns, Dr. L. Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Ranger, J.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Jay, D. P. T. Reeves, J.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Cove, W. G. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Rhodes, H.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Daggar, G. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Daines, P. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Keenan, W. Rogers, G. H. R.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Kendall, W. D. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Key, C. W. Royle, C.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) Kinley, J. Scott-Elliot, W.
Deer, G. Kirby, B. V. Shackleton, E. A. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lang, G. Sharp, Granville
Dodds, N. N. Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Shurmer, P. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) White, C. F. (Derbyshire W.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wilkins, W. A.
Simmons, C. J. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C. Thurtle, Ernest Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Skinnard, F. W. Tolley, L. Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Smith, C. (Colchester) Tomlinson, Rt Hon G. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Snow, J. W. Turner-Samuels, M. Wills, Mrs E. A.
Solley, L. J. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Woods, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Wyatt, W.
Soskice, Sir Frank Viant, S. P. Yates, V. F.
Sparks, J. A. Walker, G. H. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Steele, T. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Younger, Hon Kenneth
Stubbs, A. E. Warbey, W. N. Zilliacus, K.
Sylvester, G. O. Weitzman, D.
Symonds, A. L. Wells, P. L. (Faversham) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) West, D. G. Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh E.) Mr. Hannan.
NOES.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Grimston, R. V. Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Nicholson, G.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Astor, Hon. M. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir C. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldwin, A. E. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Pickthorn, K.
Beamish, Maj T. V. H. Hollis, M. C. Pitman, I. J.
Birch, Nigel Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Ponsonby, Col C. E.
Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells) Hope, Lord J. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Howard, Hon. A. Price-White, Lt-.Col. D.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Keeling, E. H. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Bullock, Capt. M. Kerr, Sir J. Graham Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Butcher, H. W. Lambert, Hon. G. Robinson, Roland
Challen, C. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Ropner, Col. L.
Clarke, Col R. S. Langford-Holt, J. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Savory, Prof. D. L.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Linstead, H. N. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Crowder, Capt. John E. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Smithers, Sir W.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Low, A. R. W. Spearman, A. C. M.
De la Bère, R. Lucas, Major Sir J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Donner, P. W. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S. Sutcliffe, H.
Drayson, G. B. Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A (P'dd't'n. S.)
Drewe, C. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Duthie, W. S. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Vane, W. M. F.
Eccles, D. M. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon W. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Marlowe, A. A. H. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Marsden, Capt. A. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Mellor, Sir J. Major Conant and
Gammans, L. D. Molson, A. H. E. Major Ramsay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.