HC Deb 17 July 1957 vol 573 cc1208-10
Mr. Roy Jenkins

I beg to move, in page 43, line 45, to leave out from the beginning to "section" in line 46.

This is really a paving Amendment for the next one, namely, in page 43, line 48, at the end to insert: shall have effect in relation to an Overseas Trade Corporation as if there were left out of that section— (a) in subsection (1) the words unless carried out with the consent of the Treasury'; and (b) subsection (4)". These two Amendments deal again to some extent with a point which was raised during the Committee stage, and to which we received an extraordinarily unsatisfactory answer from the Government. Despite having had rather bad experience, on the whole, during the Report stage, we have not entirely given up hope that on points on which we had a bad answer during the Committee stage we may get a better answer now. As we draw to the conclusion of the Report stage, therefore, this Amendment may provide an opportunity for such an improvement in the Government answer.

The point raised here is that we, throughout the entire consideration of Part IV of the Bill, have been constantly confused as to what is the intention of the Government about future policy on the migration of companies. In the past we have always understood that one of the main reasons why we must have the complicated piece of legislation which constitutes Part IV of the Bill, why we have had to make considerable sacrifices of revenue and why there had to be considerable sacrifices on our balance of payments was because it was essential that companies operating overseas should retain their seat of control in London, and it was difficult for them to continue to do so as long as this special concession to O.T.C.s was not made.

6.30 p.m.

If that is the case, and the concession which is being made is at considerable cost to the Revenue and to our balance of payments position, it is by no means clear why we wish in future to maintain the possibility of companies emigrating. These Amendments are for the purpose of deleting the part of the Section of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which enables Treasury permission to be given in certain circumstances.

I am very glad to see the Lord Privy Seal here taking part in our deliberations on the Bill. I am sorry that we did not see him here more at an earlier stage. I think he would have been shocked by some of the replies made by the Chancellor to the very important and detailed points which were raised. It would be very interesting if we could have the views of the Lord Privy Seal on whether he thinks the Chancellor is doing better at the moment than he was doing at this stage in 1955.

We have been glad to listen to the Economic Secretary replying to points, but perhaps we might now have the Lord Privy Seal replying to this rather important Amendment as a symbol of his interest in the Bill although he has not previously been here as much as we would have wished. At all events, we welcome his presence, for I think it is a sign that he regards the Amendment as important, as we do. Even if he is unable to speak except on the question of the Chancellor's record, I hope that we shall get a better reply from the Economic Secretary than we have had on previous occasions.

Forward to