HL Deb 14 July 1921 vol 45 cc1083-90

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Clinton.)

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, I desire to ask what is the position of the Government with regard to this Bill. I notice that serious Amendments have been put down by the promoter of the Bill which, if they are carried by your Lordships, will require that the Bill shall, go back to the House of Commons. Then, as your Lordships who have been members of another place are aware, it goes back merely as a Private Bill, and there will be no time for those Amendments to be considered in another place, unless the Government are prepared to give facilities. The effect will be that the Bill will be dead, and that would be a great injury to the people of England, who are perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it stands. I appreciate the difficulty of the noble Lord, LordClinton, in regard to Scotland, but it is unfortunate that the difficulties were not discovered during the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. Unless we get some assurance from the Government that they will give facilities in another place for the consideration of the Amendments which your Lordships propose to make to-day— Amendments which are very far-reaching— I do not think we ought to make any Amendments at all. The Bill as it stands is, from an English point of view, better than no Bill at all. I should like to know what is the attitude of the Government.

LORD EMMOTT

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken does not desire to pass an imperfect measure through this House. I do not rise to make any further reference to what he has said, but to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill one or two questions. I had meant to put down Amendments for this stage, but by an unfortunate chapter of accidents I was unable to do so, because I was not in the House yesterday or on Tuesday. There are only two points to which I want to draw attention, with the leave of the House. In the debate on the Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, stated most emphatically, as his considered opinion, that the whole of our import trade is left out of this Bill altogether, and in another sentence, he said: "It does not apply to corn which at the date of the contract was not within the United Kingdom." I bow to the legal opinion of my noble and learned friend, and I dare say that he is perfectly right in that opinion, but I should like to have a definite assurance that this is the considered view, not only of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill— for I know that is what he intends— but also of His Majesty's Government. If that be the case, there would be no necessity for me to move any Amendment in regard to it, either at this or any future stage.

The second point about which I want to ask is in regard to corn exported, or reexported, from the United Kingdom to the Continent. A very large amount of trade is done in the export of cereals and, particularly, of offals to the Continent of Europe. It is done in foreign money and in metric centals— that is, in centals of 100 kilos— and it is most undesirable that the contracts made in that business should be illegal if they are made in metric centals. That would be the effect of this Bill. Those who arc supporting the Bill do not desire to interfere with our export and reexport trade. This Bill will certainly interfere with it. I will not argue the question now, but I shall put down an Amendment for the Report stage, unless the noble Lord and the House generally would desire that it should be taken now on the Committee stage.

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

My Lords, in reply to Lord Strachie may I say that the Amendments are put down on the initiative of my noble friend, Lord Clinton who is the patron and sponsor of the Bill, and who has come to the conclusion that these two changes will make the Bill into a thoroughly workmanlike measure in certain respects where he now believes it to be defective. So far as the Government are concerned, Lord Clinton has been good enough to take into consultation my noble friend beside me (the Earl of Ancaster), and the Government have not the smallest objection to either of Lord Clinton's Amendments. Indeed, they will support them, but I think it unwise to suggest at the present stage that unless the Government can promise facilities in another place for consideration of these Amendments, the Amendments should therefore be defeated, and that your Lordships should take upon yourselves the responsibility of passing a measure which the promoters themselves admit to be defective.

LORD STRACHIE

As regards Scotland.

LORD CLINTON

My Lords, I agree with Lord Strachie that it is very unfortunate that an Amendment has to be moved to a private measure which will, no doubt, make it more difficult to get that measure passed before the end of the session. At the same time, I am confident that unless the Amendment relating to Scotland is inserted in the measure the Bill is quite incomplete so far as Scotland is concerned, and I. myself will not be responsible for pressing any measure which is so obviously open to criticism. With regard to Lord Emmot's point, upon which the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Buckmaster, was good enough to speak, and to make an exceedingly effective reply the other night, I would say that that reply was entirely in accordance with my reading of the measure, and it was certainly in accordance with the intentions of the promoters. I hope that Lord Emmott will take it that the effect of the measure will be as the noble and learned Lord described it. With regard to exports and re-exports, my impression of the Bill itself is that they would not be seriously, or at all, affected, and if the noble Lord, Lord Emmott, wishes to press his Amendment to-night. I would certainly have to oppose it. If, on the other hand, he likes to leave it until the Report stage, I will have the matter very carefully looked into, and if his fears are really well founded I will endeavour to give effect to his Amendment, for naturally I do not desire to do anything which would injure the export trade of this country.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Sale of corn to be by weight.

1. From and after the commencement of this Act, every contract, bargain, sale or dealing relating to corn shall, unless it is made or had by weight only and in terms of and by reference to the hundredweight of one hundred and twelve imperial standard pounds, be null and void:

Provided that this Act shall not apply to any contract, bargain, sale or dealing—

  1. (i) for or relating to a less quantity of corn than one hundred and twelve imperial standard pounds;
  2. (ii) for or relating to corn which at the date of the contract, bargain, sale or dealing in not within the United Kingdom, or to corn imported into the United Kingdom so long as the same shall remain in the warehouse, or store, or shed where the same shall have been first stored on importation;
  3. (iii) for or relating to corn imported into the United Kingdom in. cases where such contract, bargain, sale, or dealing provides for delivery in the original bags in which the corn was imported (subject only to rebagging in replacement of damaged bags);
  4. (iv) for or relating to corn growing on or in the land and not severed therefrom.

LORD EMMOTT

I do not propose to move any Amendment now. It is hardly fair to the House to do so. I could only raise my point on the question that the clause stand part.

LORD CLINTON moved, at the end of the clause, to leave out "and not severed therefrom" and insert "or to corn unthreshed." The noble Lord said: The Amendment to which we have already alluded is in connection with the last of the provisos to Clause 1, exempting certain things and certain transactions from the provisions of the measure. The last proviso states that where sales of corn un-severed from the land take place the Bill should not apply. That safeguarded a large number of sales by the acre, both of corn and other crops, which take place particularly in Scotland, but it did not go quite far enough, because it left out of account certain similar transactions of sales of corn by the acre after it is cut but before it is threshed. In addition there are other transactions, mainly between outgoing and incoming tenants, where corn is sold by the stack. It will be quite impossible to carry out those sales by weight, which is unascertained, and, indeed, cannot be ascertained, and includes also straw from which the grain has not been separated. The Amendment covers the ground entirely.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 2, line' 4, leave out ("and not severed therefrom") and insert (" or to corn unthreshed ") — (Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill—

LORD EMMOTT

I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he can give me a more definite answer regarding the opinion of the Government on the question I raised as to the effect of the clause as it now stands on our import trade. The point about which certain traders are nervous is this. The original form of words when the Bill was introduced, was— for or relating to corn grown outside the British Isles until such corn has been brought into these Islands. That paragraph has been amended so that it now reads— for or relating to corn which at the date of the contract, bargain, sale or dealing is not within the United Kingdom, or to corn imported into the United Kingdom so long as the same shall remain in the warehouse, or store, or shed where the same shall have been first stored on importation; The first form deals with corn bought for shipment and in transit. The doubt in some traders' minds— it is a legal question whether it is justified or not— is whether the new form also includes corn bought for shipment and in transit. My opinion is that it does, but my opinion is worth nothing. It is a matter on which we want legal opinion, and if the noble Lord is not able to answer me perhaps he will look into it by Report stage and I can then move an Amendment which will meet the case.

LORD BUCKMASTER

After all, you do not want legal opinions on matters that are plain, and if there be any doubt as to the meaning of this paragraph, it should at least be capable of being stated in order that one may know what is the cause of the uncertainty. I turn to the paragraph and I find no case for doubt at all, unless I totally misapprehend the nature of the commercial transactions to which Lord Emmott refers. If these purchases of corn for re-export are made while the corn is in transit then that corn is not within the United Kingdom when the contract is made. If these contracts are made when the corn has been landed, unless it has been taken out of the warehouse, or store or shed, where it was put on importation, equally the Bill does not apply. It expressly provides that it shall not apply so long as the corn remains in the warehouse, store, or shed, where it was first stored on importation. I am consequently quite unable to understand what is the mystery and difficulty.

LORD EMMOTT

I am sorry if I have not made it clear. The real doubt, as I understand it, in the minds of the traders, is whether corn imported into the United Kingdom also means corn before it is imported into the United Kingdom; corn bought for shipment or in transit.

LORD BUCKMASTER

The noble Lord has really taken two paragraphs, mixed them up together, and has produced confusion from the natural process of putting two things together which are intended to be read separately. Proviso (ii) is not in relation to corn imported at all. It provides that the whole Bill shall not apply to corn which at the date of the contract was not within the United Kingdom. If, therefore, these contracts are made for corn that is in course of shipment, the Bill does not apply.

In proviso (iii) there is an additional provision that it does not relate to corn imported into the United Kingdom in eases where such contract, bargain, sale, or dealing provides for delivery in the original bags in which the corn was imported (subject only to rebagging in replacement of damaged bags). If, therefore, by some means, the contract should be effected under the latter part of proviso (ii), when the corn had been imported into the United Kingdom but no longer remains in the shed, then it again would not apply if the contract related to the delivery of the corn in the original bags in which it had been sent forward.

I rather gather that something has happened to the Bill in the course of its introduction which has led to its terms being changed, and the people who are objecting to the Bill are objecting to it on the ground that it is in the form in which it was originally contemplated and not in the form in which it has been introduced. As it was introduced I confess I do not understand the difficulty. If there be a difficulty I cannot quite see how Lord Emmott can reasonably ask Lord Clinton to obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. Speaking as an ex-Law Officer, if any member of this House had asked my opinion I should have been glad, as a friend, to have done what I could. But if he had asked me for my opinion as a Law Officer of the Crown I should have asked him by what authority he did so, and I do not think he would have got much of a reply.

LORD CLINTON

I do not think the noble Lord will expect me to give him a further reply on the point, and I hope he will not expect me to face such terrible things as would happen if I asked a Law Officer of the Crown for his opinion.

On Question, Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Adaptation of Acts and awards providing for payment based on price of imperial bushels or other measures.

5.— (1) Where under the provisions of any Act or award or other instrument any payments are to be calculated on the price or value of an imperial bushel of wheat, barley, or oats, those provisions shall have effect as if the payment were to be calculated on the price or value of sixty imperial pounds of wheat, fifty imperial pounds of barley, or thirty-nine imperial pounds of oats, as the case may be.

(2) Where under the provisions of any Act or award or other instrument any payments are to be calculated on the price or value of any measure of wheat, barley, or oats other than the imperial bushel, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may certify what number of imperial pounds ought, having regard to the foregoing provisions of this section, to be substituted for that other measure, and thereupon those provisions shall have effect as if the payment were to be calculated on the price or value of the number of imperial pounds so certified.

LORD CLINTON had an Amendment on the Paper, in subsection (2), after '"Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries" to insert "or as regards Scotland by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland." The noble Lord said: This is also a Scottish Amendment. They prefer that their weights should be settled by the ('hair-man of the Board of Agriculture in Scotland rather than by the Minister of Agriculture in England. I think, however, the word "by" in the Amendment should be omitted in order to make it read.

Amendment moved— Clause 5, page 3, line 27, after ("Fisheries") insert (" or as regards Scotland the Board of Agriculture for Scotland.')— (Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.