HL Deb 18 February 1947 vol 145 cc721-37

4.8 p.m.

House again in Committee.

LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I think that just before we broke off I was asked by noble Lords opposite if I could extend the declaration which I had made. With regard to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, I do nor think it is correct that we have the powers to which he has referred, and I am afraid that I cannot go further than I have gone.

LORD RENNELL

I thank the noble Lord for his statement. I had thought of moving an Amendment to omit the clause, but I hoped that the Government would be persuaded to do it.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 [Other powers of Treasury]:

VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following subsection: (3) Any permission, consent, authority or direction granted or given by or under the authority of the Treasury under this Act (except in cases where such permission, consent, authority or direction is granted or given in respect of an individual) shall be published in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ensuring that it shall be adequately known by the persons concerned, and a failure to observe any such direction shall not be made the subject of a prosecution unless such failure arises after such publication as aforesaid.

The noble and learned Viscount said: Consideration of the Bill by the Committee has necessarily been interrupted in order that a very important statement might be made. I hope that I may now be allowed to submit to the House that the question raised in this Amendment put forward by Lord Balfour of Inchyre and myself is really a very important one. The question is whether or not we are going to provide in this Statute, in so far as the Treasury make general permissions, or give general authorities or directions, that what the Treasury thus decide is made public. I will not say any more in criticism of the form of the Bill, because it is really common ground between the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and the rest of us that this Bill does take an exceptional form (which is said to be necessary) in that it lays down enormously wide prohibitions for breaches of which, on the face of it, everybody may 133 prosecuted and, in some cases at any rate, may go to prison.

Those prohibitions, as I say, are enormously wide, but none the less, as the noble Lord rightly points out, it is hoped to make the actual effect of the Bill much less widespread, because it is the firm intention of the Treasury to issue general orders of exemption. That is all very well. Whether the right way is to prohibit all sorts of things and then excuse a large part of them is another matter. Already in the Committee stage to-day my noble friend Lord Moyne has been assured that the appeal which he made about people who come from Eire and who want to send postal orders and pound notes to their relatives in Eire, which under the terms of the Bill is a criminal offence, will be met, and that it will be met by a general Order such as the Treasury may make under the Bill. There are many other cases in the Bill where similar provisions are to be made. Of course, I do not suggest that the permission by way of exception given by the Treasury to an individual, such as a man who wants to travel abroad and asks if he can take with him a limited amount of sterling, should be published. It is a limited thing, and, indeed, I think the paper shortage would make it practically impossible to have it published.

But when you come to decisions by the Treasury—whether permitting things or prohibiting things under the terms of this Bill—which refer to a class, I do submit to the good sense and fair judgment of this House that these kings ought to be published. They ought to be published because, of course, everybody else in like case is entitled to know if the Treasury in their judgment think that a particular class of case should be exempted and the rigour of the Bill should not apply to it. It is no good their deciding or making an Order unless it is published. I speak subject to correction, and I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will correct me with his usual courtesy if I am wrong. But, so far as I have been able to see, there is nothing in this Bill, as it is now before us, which provides for publication. Therefore, it is quite possible, and indeed it will be the case, that permission of a general character will be given in various directions.

All I am saying in this Amendment is that there ought to be publication in some proper form of these general powers. I believe that the proposition is one that can hardly be resisted. I am sure it must receive the sympathy of everyone in this House, quite apart from Party, because obviously, if it can be done, it will be the fair thing to do. With that in mind, may I be allowed just to read the Amendment to the House, because not everyone has the Marshalled List in front of him? I am not saying that this is necessarily the best way to draft it, but I think it does express the idea. This is what I seek to add to Clause 37 in the Bill: (3) Any permission, consent, authority or direction granted or given by or under the authority of the Treasury under this Act (except in cases where such permission, consent, authority or direction is granted or given in respect of an individual) shall be published in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ensuring that it shall be adequately known by the persons concerned, and a failure to observe any such direction shall not be made the subject of a prosecution unless such failure arises after such publication as aforesaid.

I hope I shall not be met with either of two possible responses. In the first place, I hope I shall not be asked to consider whether the words are exactly right—I am sure I shall not be, with the Lord Chancellor sitting there. I am most willing to believe that those who are responsible for this Bill, and the noble and learned Viscount in particular, will see that it is put in the best possible words. I have done the best I could, and I hope, at any rate, that it is plain English, which is more than could be said of everything in Acts of Parliament. The second answer which I hope will not be offered is: "Oh, I can assure you that is what we always mean to do." The question is not whether the Treasury are going benevolently beyond what they are obliged to do; the question is whether it ought not to be put in the Bill. All sorts of things are prohibited under penalty in this Bill, subject to the class of cases in which the Treasury give permission. It is only common sense and reason that you should publish an explanation of Orders which the Treasury make in mitigation under the Bill.

Publication is necessary, first of all, in order that there may be fair play for everybody. If there is such a general permission given, and some people do not happen to know of it, then they may abstain from taking any action which they would be allowed to take because the Bill makes it a criminal offence to do it. It is also necessary because it is quite wrong to leave people to break the law on the chance that it will be forgiven or forgotten. I will take the case of these Irish employees over here which was mentioned by me on the Second Reading, and mentioned much more fully and persuasively by my noble friend behind me to-day. It is all very well to say: "You may take it the Treasury will not make any bones about these girls in restaurants in London sending money home to Eire by postal order." The fact remains that if I say that to one of these girls and she sends a postal order home she will, as things stand, be breaking the law—the criminal law—unless she gets permission. On the earlier Amendment I noticed my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence met the objection of Lord Moyne by saying: "Oh, the Treasury will make an Order about that." I am very glad to hear it. But are they going to publish the Order? I suggest it is only right that these things should be published, and I am encouraged to think that this will be received with some friendly consideration because, in answer to an earlier Amendment, my noble friend opposite, the Secretary of State, thought the Treasury had already been collecting a whole bundle of drafts which were going to be issued at the same time as the Bill.

Making an Order is one thing, but making it known to the public is another. I want to secure the provision in the Bill which I have here endeavoured to state. It seems to me manifestly wrong that anybody should be punished because he has not obeyed a Treasury direction, which is one of the features of this Bill, though he has had no opportunity of knowing what the direction is. There have been cases under the Food Regulations—and I speak subject to correction—where people have been prosecuted for breaches of Regulations although they did not know the Regulations existed. I am not asking for more now than that the noble Lord. Who is good enough to reply will give this House a firm assurance that the Government will put into this Bill the provisions which cover the ground I have indicated. I hope very much that they will do so. I feel sure it is the general feeling of noble Lords here that it ought to be in the Bill, and I hope very much we shall be able to see it put there by general consent.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

In the absence of other lawyers to speak to this Amendment I think it is desirable I should say just one word. Clause 37 of the Bill, subsection (3), obviously suggests that by virtue of a direction given by the Treasury under the Act no person may be convicted of an offence against the Act unless the direction was served on him or he knew, or avoided getting to know, of the giving thereof. There is a proviso about reasonable steps being taken for the purpose of bringing the purport of that direction to his notice. If these steps were taken, "it shall be for him to show that he neither knew nor avoided getting to know of the giving thereof"; that is to say, the onus is shifted in that case, and he has to prove that he did not know or (what would be a very funny conception) avoided getting to know. If it were a direction which was published anywhere there would presumably be no difficulty in his knowing without any such clause as this.

It seems to me that under a Bill of this sort relating to exchange control, no person ought to be prosecuted, or be subjected to the stigma of prosecution and possibly disagreeable consequences of a judgment against him, whether rightly or wrongly, unless he is aware, in the ordinary course of his business, that something is prohibited and that he does it at his peril. In such a measure as this, it seems to me that precisely the same principles apply as apply in the case of a taxing Statute—namely, that the offence should be made clear and that the facts upon which a prosecution may be launched should be obvious to any citizens of the realm.

It is new to me in a Statute of this character that there should be an obligation the breach of which involves a criminal act unless there is a full publication to all the people who might be affected by it and unless the man therefore knows precisely what risks he is running. I would observe for my part, without in any way limiting what other people may think about it, that the strength of the case against this clause as it stands is that it applies to any directions given by the Treasury under the provisions of this Bill, whether the directions are reasonable or unreasonable. In either case it applies.

VISCOUNT SLAION

And to any permission.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

And to any permission. Secondly, it applies however general the direction may be. So that anybody who is in any way concerned with any such transaction as is dealt with in the Bill may find himself subject to prosecution under subsection (3) of Clause 37. I cannot help thinking that the matter should be clarified a little more, so that what I would regard as a legal mistake should not be perpetrated and possible injustice done in the future under the provisions of this Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not quite certain that I understand the real point of this Amendment. I can only judge the Amendment by the words it uses. I quite realize that drafting errors may be put right hereafter. I want to try to follow the substance of the thing. The Amendment, as I follow it, falls into two parts. First, it is saying that any permission, consent, authority or direction (except in cases where such permission, consent, authority or direction is given in respect of an individual) must be published in the prescribed manner. "Prescribed," as the noble Viscount has pointed out, is defined in the Bill as meaning "prescribed, for the purposes of the provision in question, by order of the Treasury." That is all it means.

The Amendment goes on to deal with a criminal offence, and says that no one is to be found guilty of a criminal offence, which arises under a direction rather than under an exemption, unless the particular direction has been brought to his attention. It seems to me that in drafting that, the noble Viscount failed to notice subsection (3), because that was designed to deal with that point. We make it quite plain in subsection (3) that, so long as the direction is not published under the Rules Publication Act or the Statutory Instruments Act, when that takes its place—we had a discussion on the Statutory Instruments Act—the public are not presumed to have notice of these matters. If it is there then the man may be convicted, but if it is not there, he cannot be convicted "unless the direction was served on him or he knew, or avoided getting to know, of the giving thereof." That sometimes happens. It has to be proved that the man deliberately avoided getting to know, as, for instance, by deliberately abstaining from opening any letters that he thought might come from the Bank or the Treasury. But that has to be proved.

The subsection goes on to state: Provided that where reasonable steps are 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. That is our code and that is what we have set out to do. May I say one further word, so far as exemptions are concerned. I think the noble and learned Viscount had in mind particularly the case of the Irish serving maid over here who wants to remit money.

VISCOUNT SIMON

There are many more.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That was the one illustration given, but any other illustration you like to give will do. So far as exemptions are concerned, those have to be published by Order, and those Orders have to be laid, and all the exemptions that will be made will be made by Order laid before Parliament—every one of them. I am dealing, of course, not with a merely specific individual one. Your Lordships will see at the top of page 25 the words: Any Order made by the Treasury under this Act … shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. All the exemptions come under that. Moreover, the exemption will be not only published but laid. So far as permissions are concerned they are rather different, because in practice permissions are worked through the banks. When you give a permission—which is some concession from a airection—you notify the banks, and the banks, of course, notify their clients. But so far as directions are concerned there is really nothing of importance, as I see it, between the phrase in line 33: shall be given to such persons in such manner as the Treasury think appropriate, and the phrase: shall be given in the prescribed manner which means "as the Treasury may order." They both come to precisely the same thing.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Really I have not made myself plain. I know that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would not deliberately wish to remain under a misapprehension. I will take an instance, which is a common instance in the Bill. There are many clauses which say that something or other is prohibited except with the permission of the Treasury. I have not yet followed, with great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, what clause in the Bill provides that where that permission is of a general character it must be published. That was the point I was dealing with. I am quite willing to take the case of the Irish girl. Where is there anything in the Bill which says that because the Treasury is minded to excuse a class of people from sending postal orders abroad, and gives permission to that class of people, the permission shall be made known? With great respect I have not seen that. I am sorry if I introduced a complication by referring to directions; that is my fault. I still want to know the really important thing: how are people who ought to benefit by these permissions to know that the permissions are given? That is not laid on the Table of the House, surely.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

What has been the practice—and what I understand it is intended is to be the practice—is that the permissions are either given through the bank or are given by an Order which has to be laid.

I think—if the noble and learned Viscount will forgive my saying so—he has rather a habit of not listening to the answer, having made, as he always does, a very formidable case. One must not merely make a formidable case; one must be a good listener afterwards. What I was going on to say was this: I am quite ready to consider whether or not I am right on this matter. I realize that one should consider carefully whether exemptions should be given so that all the world should know about it.

VISCOUNT SIMON

Permissions.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, permissions. The words are "permissions, consent or authority", if we are to be quite accurate, but I do not want to recite those words each time. I am quite willing to look into it between now and the Report stage, if Report stage there be, or Third Reading if there is no Report stage. When my noble friend said that he would look into the matter before the Report stage, that means, of course, before Third Reading, if there is no Report stage. I am willing to consider that. However, the broad general principle which we desire to maintain here is that which we have laid down in subsection (3), which makes at any rate the last part of this Amendment completely otiose; that is to say, we make it quite plain that there can be no prosecution here unless' you bring home to the man against whom you are making a charge that he knew, or in substance deliberately abstained from knowing, what the direction was in respect of which he is being prosecuted. That we must adhere to, and I cannot get away from it. But for the rest, on the question as to the way in which the notice should be given, that I am quite willing to look at with my advisers, to see that, so far as possible, we make known to the world the various provisions which in this connexion are material.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for saying that he will look into the matter. May I remind the noble and learned Viscount, that on December 5—column 545 of Hansard—the Financial Secretary, who dealt with the question of permissions granted under Clause 22, subsection (1), of this Bill, said: I was asked whether a list of the prohibited articles would be published. Of course, it will be. But then if you search Hansard afterwards there has been no explanation as to how that publication would take place.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, that will take place by an Order laid before Parliament.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Yes. Now we come to permissions. One thing I am puzzled about is this: when does an exemption become a permission? Suppose the Treasury wish to give permission for postal orders for 7s. 6d. instead of 5s. to be sent to the Irish Free State, that would be a permission amending an exemption already made. It is that particular point we want clarified.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

General or specific?

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

general permissions. If we are satisfied that general permissions will be know a to all people, as well as the exemptions which are covered by the Treasury Order, then, either by some Amendment which the Lord Chancellor may consider necessary, or by his reassurance, I think the point will be met.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I would like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for all his observations, and I would say that I am very willing to await the result of his further examination. I merely submit to him, with great respect, that when that examination takes place it may turn out that in many places where the treasury may give permission there is no provision in the Bill for the fact that they have given that permission, and for the extent, though it is general, to which it shall be published. After looking at it maturely, if the noble and learned Viscount finds that I am wrong, I shall be willing to accept his correction. But at present, with all possible courtesy, I am afraid that I am quite right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clauses 38 to 40 agreed to.

Clause 41:

Determination of residence.

(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.

4.35 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

had the following Amendment on the Paper: To insert, after subsection (2), the following subsections: (3) If any person is dissatisfied with the directions given by the Treasury in regard to him under the last foregoing subsection, he may appeal to a Judge of the High Court nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose, in order to obtain as rapidly as possible a decision on the issues raised in accordance with Rules of Court, and the decision of the Judge shall be final. Provided that in any case where it is necessary for directions to be given the decisions of the Judge can be obtained, such directions shall be operative until the decision of the Judge is obtained. (4) The jurisdiction conferred by the last foregoing subsection upon a Judge of the High Court shall extend to the giving of a decision on the question whether a person is to be treated as resident or not resident in any territory upon an application made for the purpose at any time before a direction is given, and such application may be made either by the Treasury or by the person in respect of whom the direction is proposed to be given. The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the only other Amendment which I wish to ask the House to consider, but I do think the matter is an important one. I am not without hope that the object which I have in view is one that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, may feel to be deserving of a certain measure of sympathy. As things stand, the decision as to whether or not a person is or is not a resident rests finally and altogether with the Treasury. There are some purposes in this Bill for which it is important for a man to be held to be a resident. There are other purposes in the Bill for which I think it would suit him better not to be held a resident. At any rate, as things stand and as this clause says quite plainly, it is the decision of the Treasury which is to determine whether a person is resident or not, and whether a company is resident or not.

I hope the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me that it is' not a good thing that we should leave the decision on a question which is not a simple question to be determined by the Treasury. The only objection which could reasonably be taken to my Amendment would be that, however desirable it is in principle, it cannot be done. I am sure that nobody desires that the question should be carried from court to court or that it should be dealt with in the House of Lords. But there have been instances before in which difficult questions like this have arisen, in which the Act of Parliament has not said that it is to be finally decided by the Department concerned. On the contrary, the Act of Parliament has provided that on such a question the matter should be finally decided by a Judge of the High Court under the Rules of Court. That is what I desire to suggest here. It is not right, I venture to think, that the Treasury, which in one sense is one of the two parties—though no doubt they are acting in the public interest to the best of their ability—should be the final authority to decide who is a resident and who is not.

The main objection which I anticipate might be raised is that in some cases this matter has to be decided so speedily that it is difficult to see that there is room for any form of appeal. I have tried to deal with it in my suggested Amendment. It would perhaps make it plainer to my noble friends opposite if I explained it, as it is not correctly printed. What I want to insert is this: If any person is dissatisfied with the directions given by the Treasury in regard to him under the last foregoing subsection"— that is to say, the directions declaring that he is a resident or he is not— he may appeal to a Judge of the High Court nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose, in order to obtain as rapidly as possible a decision on the issues raised in accordance with Rules of Court,"— No doubt Rules of Court would have to be made as to whether the application should be in Chambers or in open court— and the decision of the Judge shall be final. There shall be no question of going to the Court of Appeal— Provided that in any case where it is necessary for directions to be given"— by the Treasury— before the decisions of the Judge can be obtained, such directions shall be operative until the decision of the Judge is obtained. The words as printed are a pure slip. My Amendment should read as I have just given it to your Lordships. A man may say: "I want, as speedily as possible, to get you to declare that I am a resident, although I have not been here long, so that I may be entitled to do those things which only residents may do under this Bill." The Treasury may say, "We do not agree that you are a resident." As the matter stands, the Treasury, and nobody else, have to decide that. I recognize that there may be cases where the applicant comes too late, and where the matter is so urgent that the question has really to be decided there and then. Be that so. But I suggest that provision should be made for the Judge to decide the matter as soon as possible, and if he comes to a different conclusion, the man may, in many cases, receive better treatment.

There is the further point that he may raise the question with the Treasury months before. He may say: "I am hoping to go on a business trip to South America in the autumn. I am making my provisional arrangements now, and I wish to take a certain amount of money with me. I want to know whether or not I am a resident." It is possible that there might be considerable correspondence before the matter is finally determined, and in the meantime he will be waiting for a decision, as he hopes, in his favour. Therefore I want to put in: The jurisdiction conferred by the last foregoing subsection upon a Judge of the High Court shall extend to the giving of a decision on the question whether a person is to be treated a resident or not resident in any territory upon an application made for the purpose at any time before a direction is given, and such application may be made either by the Treasury or by the person in respect of whom the direction is proposed to be given. Your Lordships see, as I am sure my noble friend opposite sees at once, what I have in mind. What I have in mind is that it is really not right, if it can be avoided, that a decision of this sort, on which much may turn so far as the individual is concerned, should be finally decided by a Government Department. I hope there is no one who thinks that that is the proper way in which to do it. The question is whether we can make arrangements which will mitigate that, and I think that we can if we adopt the procedure which was, I think, adopted under the Unemployment Insurance Act, where I recollect that Mr. Justice Roche used to sit especially to decide who came within the Act and who did not. If we can devise a machinery like that without destroying the machinery for reaching speedy decisions, we shall be doing a useful thing. I venture to put that suggestion before the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I hope very much he may, in the first place, feel that it is put forward with the intention of achieving an object with which he sympathizes, and that in the second place, he and those who advise him, may be able to see that it can be done. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 21, at end insert: ("(3) If any person is dissatisfied with the directions given by the Treasury in regard to him under the last foregoing subsection, he may appeal to a Judge of the High Court nominated by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose, in order to obtain as rapidly as possible a decision on the issues raised in accordance with Rules of Court, and the decision of the Judge shall be final. Provided that in any case where it is necessary for directions to be given before the decisions of the Judge can be obtained, such directions shall be operative until the decision of the Judge is obtained. (4) The jurisdiction conferred by the last foregoing subsection upon a Judge of the High Court shall extend to the giving of a decision on the question whether a person is to be treated as resident or not resident in any territory upon an application made for the purpose at any time before a direction is given, and such application may be made either by the Treasury or by the person in respect of whom the direction is proposed to be given.")—(Viscount Simon.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I fully appreciate the reasons which the noble and learned Viscount has in mind in moving this Amendment and I quite see the point of it. I am sorry, however, to tell him that it is one which we cannot possibly accept. We regard this as going to the root of exchange control. As he rightly says, rapidity of decision is necessary. That is true; and he tries to provide for it by his Amendment. But there is another quality which is wanted almost as much, and that is flexibility. One of the great features of our law is that it is a system whereby the law is declared, and the law so declared applies to all similar cases. If it is declared in the highest court which can speak on the matter, then only an Act of Parliament can alter it. I think it is right that that should be so, and I, for one, rejoice in the fact that it is so.

Here we are in, as I have said before, a line of country which I very much regret, as I regret this Bill. Here we are dealing with something in the nature of siege economics. I believe it would be absolutely disastrous for us if we followed the precedent of the ordinary Income Tax Acts, where there is a decision as to the law from a Judge and where, if the Judge by his judgment shows there is some loophole in an Act, evasions take place until the matter is put right in the next Finance Act. As I see it, it is idle to think that the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day are such that we can contemplate any such procedure at all. [...] leak may start by being a small leak, but a leak which starts by being small has a habit of becoming larger and developing into a rush. We really cannot face that element of rigidity (for which, in normal circumstances, there is so much to be said) which comes from having a Judge's decision, following precedent and all that sort of thing. That is not possible to-day.

Let me show your Lordships how flexible this system is to-day, and how this procedure has worked for seven years now with, I believe, almost universal consent. This applies not only to individuals but to companies and so on. We sometimes have a person who is at one and the same time treated as a resident and as a non-resident. Take, for instance, one of the Dominions with an insurance company over here. They carry on a business over here of collecting premiums in respect of risks which they write here, and of paying out sums in respect of the losses which they incur here. That is a resident business. Then they make a profit, and that profit they transfer to another account, which is a non-resident account. That is quite common.

The whole of the smooth working of this scheme is entirely due to the way in which the banks work it and in which the Bank of England supervise the work. An account is established with a bank, and if the banker is in any doubt at all as to that account he asks whether it is to be treated as a resident account or a non-resident account, and he gets his instructions. If it is an obvious case he decides for himself, but if he is in doubt about it he asks the Bank of England and they say: "Treat it as a resident account" or "Treat it as a non-resident account," as the case may be. Thereafter the account remains what it has been so designated, save with the consent of the Bank of England. Really we deal with these matters by—the word perhaps is hardly appropriate—looking at the account itself, rather than at the individual and by having in some cases a resident account and in other cases a non-resident account—two of them available for the same person.

In the seven years during which this thing has worked, so far as I know there has been only one case in which there has been any sort of complaint. There was one case where somebody treated as a non-resident said he ought to be treated as French, and that therefore the account should be in francs, rather than as an American, in which case it would be dollars. That is the only case in seven years in which there has been any trouble. Here we are following our experience, the experience of our friends in the sterling area and the experience in Canada. All of them have a provision similar to that which we have in this Bill. I am firmly convinced that if we are really going to get working with the necessary flexibility a system of exchange control which unhappily we certainly need, having regard to the strains and stresses to which sterling is going to be put, we can only get it if we accept this system here, which has worked so well, and eschew—though I dislike eschewing—the appeal to the courts, which, inevitably, is less flexible and more rigid, and which would expose us to all the troubles we had in the past.

Therefore, I must tell the noble and learned Viscount that although I fully appreciate his motive in bringing this Amendment forward, and though I sincerely wish that the times were sufficiently spacious and not sufficiently critical to enable us to accept an Amendment which, in normal circumstances, I should most certainly welcome, yet, having regard to our experience, the experience of our neighbours in the sterling area, and the experience of Canada, we cannot possibly accept this system which will destroy our flexibility and give us great rigidity. It is no good my saying I will consider this any more, because I have considered it and discussed it with the Treasury experts, and on this matter the Treasury say they must stand perfectly firm.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Before the matter closes, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it would not be possible to add only two words to show what is meant by "residence" in this connexion? I daresay it is not easy, of course, because "residence" does not merely mean, I suppose, residence at a hotel for a week. Something other than that is designated, and it is a matter of very great importance. I am acquainted with people who come here from time to time and who are not residents in this country. Unless words are added to make that clear I am afraid there will be great uncertainty, and even some uncer- tainty in the minds of the Treasury in deciding whether a man is or is not resident in this country.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid that that difficulty is inherent. These things turn on such fine points, and depend from the Treasury point of view very much upon whether there is any "monkey business"—as they call it—going on. I am afraid I could not possibly devise words which would make that which is very difficult appear any clearer.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for dealing so courteously with what I said. I confess to sharing the distress which he has expressed that this should be thought to be necessary. Time was when it used to be said that equity was the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. I think that probably none of us would wish to assert that now, but I can assert what residence is: residence is the length of the Treasury's foot. It just depends as to weather, in a particular instance, they think the case is one which they can deal with benevolently, or whether they should take the stricter view. I am sorry to think that it had not occurred to me that it was going to be decided on the lines of the Income Tax cases as to residence. If that is so, I am heartily sorry for the clerk in the Treasury or in the Bank of England who is to issue decisions on these matters. I thought it was simpler than that. Not only the basis on which we decide residence, but the tribunal which deals with the matter, will be left entirely to a Government Department. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.