Sitting of 26 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Ramsgate Corporation Bill [Lords]. Bill to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Herriard and District Water) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Burnham and District Water) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Sheppey Water) Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
London Passenger Transport Board (Interim Financial Arrangements) Bill,
As amended, considered:
Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Glasgow Corporation," presented by Secretary Sir Godfrey Collins; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act of 1899) to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 4th July, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  BRITISH ARMY (SUBVERSIVE LITERATURE).
  Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the nature of the new by-laws which have been issued preventing the sale of revolutionary and seditious literature on War Office land; and whether this applies to all War Office stations or only to London?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Under the by-laws for Aldershot and District made in 1930 it was made an offence to enter War Department land for the purpose of depositing or distributing any handbills or literature or other printed matter of any description. Opportunity is being taken to insert similar provisions in by-laws of other military stations, and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the recently revised by-laws for the Woolwich District.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will not my hon. Friend consider extending the appli-

  945
  cation of these by-laws to all War Office stations in Great Britain?
  Mr. COOPER: That is the policy
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman issue copies of the revised by laws and place them in the Library so that Members can see them?
  Mr. COOPER: I will consider whether that is necessary or desirable.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: If these powers of making by-laws are effective, does it not show that it is unnecessary to introduce special legislation to deal with this kind of problem?

  SCOTLAND.

    MILK PRICKS.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the committee of investigation appointed to report on complaints regarding milk prices in Scotland last met; how many meetings have taken place; if he is aware of the dissatisfaction throughout Scotland concerning the prolonged delay which has taken place in connection with the issue of the committee of investigation's finding about the complaints; and will he consider the advisability of setting up new machinery to expedite the investigation and settle the grievances?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The committee last met on 18th June and have held altogether three meetings in connection with their investigations into this matter. As regards the third and fourth parts of the question, I am informed that the committee are making every effort to reach a conclusion on the important issue before them, and I am not aware that there has been any unreasonable delay on their part. I may remind the hon. Member that legislation would be required -to alter the statutory procedure.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: Is it not possible to accelerate the deliberations of this committee, which was appointed a considerable time ago, as the matter is very urgent?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am well aware of the urgency of the matter, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the committee is approaching a new problem and
    946
    is anxious to give full consideration to all the various interests concerned.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: How many specific complaints have been investigated?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I shall require notice of that question.

    FOOD INSPECTION (FOWLS AND RABBITS).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what system of inspection is directed towards fowls and rabbits exposed for sale as food, by auction or in shops; if he is satisfied that it is adequate; and whether he will take steps to substitute a close season to apply to the killing of rabbits?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): Ample powers are conferred by Section 43 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, on local authorities for the purpose of securing the inspection of meat, including fowls and rabbits, exposed for sale for human consumption in shops, markets, and other premises. The work of inspection under the section is carried out by sanitary inspectors and veterinary officers employed by the local authorities and includes visits to the shops and markets where fowls and rabbits are sold or exposed for sale and the seizure and destruction of unsound or diseased animals or meat found there. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the inspection is adequate. As regards the last part of the question rabbits are a serious pest in agriculture and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to take any steps to reduce the existing rights and facilities for their destruction.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Glasgow the inspection is practically confined to public markets and that a large amount of food of this description is sent to shops direct from places where there is no inspection?
    Mr. SKELTON: If the hon. Gentleman has any cases he would like to bring to my notice, I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the Cooperative shops specially inspected?

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether the whole area of 420 acres at Barns of Claverhouse

    947
    has been irrevocably gifted to the nation for land settlement purposes; what area has been allocated for smallholdings and what area is reserved for plot-holders; what is the estimated cost to the nation for development of the smallholdings area and the plot-holders area, respectively; what is the total return payable by the respective classes of holders; if a return for land is included, what is the respective amount; and what security of tenure are the respective holders to have?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Subject to the completion of the necessary legal formalities the gift will be irrevocable by the donor. It is anticipated that the areas referred to in the second part of the question will be approximately 200 acres in each case. On this basis the cost of developing the property is provisionally estimated to be in the region of £13,000, of which £12,000 relates to the smallholdings. These numbers and costs are given with great reserve. As regards the remaining parts, details of the scheme are being worked out by the Department. The terms of tenancy will be the same as those in operation in other recent settlements of similar character, namely, for equipped holdings seven year leases under the Agricultural Holdings Acts and for plot-holders yearly agreements.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if moneys voted under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Bill are available for women as well as for men?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The Department of Agriculture for Scotland will be prepared to consider, on their merits, applications for small holdings from women who have the necessary experience and capital.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to introduce the new Housing Bill for Scotland; whether he can give any particulars of the types of houses that are to be built; whether they will be let at rentals within the means of the people for whom they are being built; and what amount of State assistance will be provided per house?
    Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend proposes to introduce the Bill next Session. With regard to the second and
    948
    third parts of the question, the object of the Bill will be to stimulate the erection of houses which can be let at rents within the means of people, living in overcrowded conditions, who cannot afford to pay ordinary rents. With regard to the last part, the hon. Member must await the publication of the Bill.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the strike which held up the completion of the corporation housing schemes in Glasgow has now been terminated; that the houses cannot now be completed within the period required to obtain the larger subsidy; and whether, in view of the loss of approximately £280,000 which this will place on the Glasgow Corporation, he will take the necessary steps to extend the time limit of the subsidy at the higher rate?
    Mr. SKELTON: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject given on the 31st May.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there has been an extension of the subsidy period in other parts of the country where it was found impossible for the local authority to build the houses within the stipulated period, and can he see his way to have a similar extension permitted in Glasgow?
    Mr. SKELTON: I think I am right in saying that there has been no extension in either country beyond the extension stated by Parliament.

    EDUCATION (MARR TRUST)
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money was left by the late Charles Kerr Marr for the endowment of education in Troon; who were the original trustees, the contractors for the erection of the college, the total amount expended on the building, and if the plans and estimates were submitted to the Department of Education for approval; and will he consider the advisability of holding a public inquiry into the administration of the affairs of the Marr Trust since its formation, in view of the Endowments Commission having reported that there were many public expressions of dissatisfaction with the administration of the trust?
    Mr. SKELTON: The net amount of the late Charles Marr's estate available for educational purposes in Troon was about £331,000. The original trustees were Mr. Thomas Frank Neighbour, solicitor, London, and the person who at the date of Mr. Marr's death was Provost of Troon, namely, Mr. Alexander Muir. The present trustee, Sir Alexander Walker, K.B.E., was appointed on 4th June, 1928. With regard to the con-tractors, I have a long list of these, which I propose with the hon. Member's consent to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total amount spent on the site, building, equipment, laying out of grounds, etc., up to date is about £204,000, but this amount is not final as certain items are still in dispute. The plans were forwarded for the Department's consideration and were approved as being satisfactory for secondary school purposes. No estimates accompanied them and, as the cost of the building was to be met from private funds, estimates were not called for by the Department. With regard to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is advised that he has no power to order such an inquiry as is suggested. I may add that I am informed that, even after allowing for the above-mentioned expenditure and the considerable expenditure on bursaries, the endowment fund now stands at about £400,000.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his long reply. Is he aware that to-night there is to be a mass meeting of the inhabitants of Troon to protest against the present position, and that they are sending a petition to the Secretary of State demanding that an inquiry be held with regard to the whole financial position of the Marr Trust? Id the event of the right hon. Gentleman getting that petition, what action will be take?
    Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend will have to wait the arrival of the petition, but the law is that no such inquiry as is suggested in the question is open to my right hon. Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the expressions of dissatisfaction to which reference is made were due to the delay in the opening of the college?
    Mr. SKELTON: The hon. Gentleman who put the first supplementary question asked about the future, and I prefer not to discuss that yet.
    Following is the List:
    The contractors for the erection of the College were Matthew Muir and Company, Limited, Kilmarnock (mason and joiner work); R. Fulton and Sons, Troon (slater work); Moses Speirs and Sons, Glasgow (plumber work); Falconer, Elder and Sons, Troon (plaster work); Guthrie and Wells, Glasgow (leaded glazing work); John Milroy, Troon (painter work).

    HERRING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any statement to make on the negotiations for financing the sale of cured herrings to Russia?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am informed that the British Herring Trade Association have approached the Co-operative Wholesale Society for an advance, and are now awaiting a decision.

    CIVIL DISPUTES (POLICE EVIDENCE).
    Mr. H. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that chief constables in Scotland have recently instituted certain charges for the services of police officers who are asked to give evidence as witness to parties interested in civil disputes; upon what authority these charges are made; and upon what basis their level is fixed?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware that fees are charged in respect of police officers who are cited as witnesses in civil courts in Scotland. The fees payable to witnesses in civil cases are prescribed by Acts of Sederunt made by the Court of Session.

    NURSES' TRAINING AND REGISTRATION (COMMITTEE).
    Mrs. SHAWasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the need for improvement in the system of training and registration of nurses in Scotland, he proposes to institute an inquiry into the subject?
    Mr. SKELTON: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has appointed a Departmental Committee on this subject. With my hon. Friend's permission I will print the

    951
    terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The members of the committee are as follow:

    Sheriff A. Campbell Black, O.B.E., K.C. (Chairman).

    William Leslie Burgess, Esq., M.D., D.Ph., R.S.P.S.E. and G. (Medical Officer of Health, Dundee).

    Lady Susan Gilmour (Queen's Institute of District Nursing).

    Miss Mary Reid Knight, M.A., M.B., Ch.B. (Medical Superintendent, Paisley District Asylum).

    Thomas Bell Maxwell Lamb, Esq., M.A. (Scottish Education Department).

    Sir Henry Mechan, D.L., LL.D. (Western Infirmary, Glasgow).

    John Reid, Esq., M.D., D.Ph., F.R.F.P.S. (Medical Superintendent, County Hospital, Motherwell).

    Miss Elizabeth Dunlop Smail, R.R.C. (Matron, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary).

    Miss Christina Whyte (Matron, Rob-royston Hospital, Glasgow).

    John Young, Esq., M.B., C. M. (Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary).

    Mr. W. T. Mercer of the Department of Health for Scotland has been appointed Secretary to the Committee.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: While appreciating the fact that this is a large committee, will the hon. Gentleman not consider putting on it some of the ordinary everyday working nurses rather than those who are heads of institutions?
    Mr. SKELTON: I think their case is rather a matter for evidence.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Would not the same consideration apply to the large number of matrons of hospitals?
    Following are the terms of reference of the Committee:
    "To inquire into the training and system of registration of nurses in Scotland and to recommend what Amendments, if any, should be made in the Nurses Registration (Scotland) Act, 1919, or the rules made thereunder, and -what other steps, if any, should be taken to improve the existing system of training and registration."

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME (FIFE).
    Mr. J. WALLACEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists in Fife with the milk marketing scheme; and, in view of the recent meeting of the Fife Milk Producers' Association held at Kirkcaldy, when a resolution was passed that unless level producers in the scheme received a premium of not less than 2d. per gallon on their immediate supplies they have decided to take steps to break away from the scheme by ignoring it altogether, he will look further into the matter?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have seen a report of the meeting referred to. The complaints by the East of Scotland Milk Producers' Federation as to the operation of the scheme, which have been referred to the Committee of Investigation for Scotland for consideration and report in accordance with the Act of 1931, include representations regarding the position of level producers under the scheme. On receiving the Committee's report, I will consider what action should be taken with regard to these complaints.
    Mr. WALLACE: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious urgency of this matter; and is he further aware that various milk producers in Fife who were doing quite well before the scheme was introduced are now on the eve of bankruptcy?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware of the feeling which exists, that the Committee of Investigation should hasten their procedure, and I am convinced myself that the Committee are well aware of the urgency of the matter and are dealing with it with despatch.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CANADIAN TARIFF BOARD.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the functions of the Canadian Tariff Board as modified by the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in Canada?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement, as I am

    953
    still awaiting a copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in regard to the Canadian Tariff Board. It is, however, I understand, expected shortly and I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as it has been considered.
    Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to get the information by telegram, seeing that this is so important a matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: It is a very important answer which I shall have to give, and I am sure my hon. Friend will recognise that it is desirable for me to get the fullest information.

    AUSTRALIAN MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will draw the attention of the Australian Government to the fact that the British Government is compelled to subsidise the production of milk products in this country while direct bounty-fed milk products are imported from Australia?
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia have already been fully informed of the proposals now embodied in the Milk Bill.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask what action is to be taken to prevent the British taxpayer having to subsidise milk products in this country in competition with subsidised milk products from Australia? Is any action to be taken?

    AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of agricultural machinery, other than tractors, have increased from 183 tons in May, 1932, to 609 tons in 1933, and to 836 tons in 1934; and if he is now in a position to announce any policy to deal with the growing threat to the British agricultural machinery industry?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention. As regards the second part of the question, I fear there is nothing I can add to the reply which was given to him on the 8th May.
    Mr. LIDDALL: In view of the increasing number of implements which are
    954
    coming into this country, will not the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Tariff Advisory Committee to do something?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: This is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and approach can be made to them.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Are not some farmers finding this imported machinery of help in producing food more cheaply?

    IMPORTED FLOUR.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of flour have increased from 916,000 cwt. in the first five months of 1932 to 1,349,000 cwt. in the first five-months of 1934, while the average c.i.f. value has fallen by 44 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with the situation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend has in mind imports of wheat meal and flour from foreign countries, I would refer him to the answer I gave to a similar question on the 27th March, to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Is it not a fact that the greater proportion of imports of flour into this country are bounty fed and are adding materially to the difficulty of the Wheat Commission?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If that be so, no doubt it is a question which will be considered by the commission.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered proposals from sections of the shipbuilding or shipping trades for the purpose of scrapping obsolete shipping and building new ships with the assistance of Government loans at a low rate of interest; whether he is aware that the advocates claim that if their method were-adopted 100 ships of 7,000 tons deadweight capacity each could be built; and whether, in view of the distressed condition of shipbuilding areas, he will give the proposal his serious consideration?
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether general agreement has now been reached among British shipowners in relation to the future of this industry, and if he is pre-

    955
    pared to implement the promises made by the Government to introduce remedial measures when this state of affairs has been reached; if he is aware that the percentage of world shipping tonnage owned by Great Britain has fallen from 41.6 in 1914 to 27.9 in 1933; if he is aware that subsidies to shipping are in operation in most foreign countries; and if he is now in a position to declare the policy of the Government in order to save British shipping from ultimate ruin?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope within the next few days to make a statement on the Government's policy in regard to British shipping, and I prefer not to anticipate that statement.
    Major RENWICK: May I ask whether it is a fact that the shipping industry has not suggested that the Government should adopt the replacement scheme, but that on the contrary, it is the expressed view of the industry that such a scheme should not be adopted?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I can say nothing until I make my statement in the House.
    Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make a statement about the coasting trade?
    Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to make a complete statement of the Government's policy regarding this particular scheme?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I cannot make what might be called a complete statement. The subject of British shipping is so very large that I could not do that within the limits of question and answer. Regarding the coasting trade, if the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) will wait for the statement, he will know what it contains.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to give us now a forecast of the point of view held by the Cabinet on this important matter?

    PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION (CO-ORDINATION).
    Mr. MABANEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the increased and in-
    956
    creasing importance of distribution as a factor of prosperity, he is prepared to give careful consideration to the proposal to appoint a Royal Commission to examine and report upon existing methods of distribution;
    (2) whether he is aware that no machinery exists for co-ordinating the activities of those engaged in the productive side of industry with the activities of those engaged in the distributive side; and, in view of the great benefit which would accrue to producers, distributors, and the community if such machinery did exist and of the fact that the difficulties in the way of establishing such machinery without an initiative from the Government are almost insuperable, whether he is prepared to give careful consideration to proposals which have for their object the establishment of such coordinating machinery?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I share my hon. Friend's view as to the increasing importance of distribution and as to the desirability of close co-operation between producers and distributors; and I shall be glad to consider any specific proposals to that end. As at present advised, however, I think the question can best be considered in relation to particular trades, and by those engaged in those trades rather than by an inquiry relating to trade as a whole.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would receive support from all parts of the House for the appointment of a Commission to investigate the question? Does this mean that the hon. Member who puts the question favours the planning of industry?
    Mr. J. WALLACE: Is not this a matter entirely for the industries themselves?

  AGRICULTURE.

    EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of eggs from foreign countries increased from 1,090,000 great hundreds in May, 1932, to 1,200,000 great hundreds in May, 1933, and to 1,403,000 great hundreds in May, 1934; and when he hopes to be able to announce his policy to protect the British poultry industry?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I was aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend refers. The Government's emergency action to protect the poultry industry was announced on 15th March, when it was stated that, in order to hold the situation for the time being, the Governments of countries exporting eggs to the United Kingdom were being asked to ensure that their exports to this market during the six months 15th March to 14th September, do not exceed the figures for the corresponding period of 1933, when, for the year as a whole, imports of eggs in shell from foreign countries were the lowest for 10 years. As I have indicated, the standstill arrangement covers a period of six months. Imports vary from month to month, and no special significance should, therefore, be attached to the figures for any particular month. It is satisfactory to note, however, that in the 13 weeks from 17th March to 16th June, imports of eggs from foreign countries were actually lower by 247,000 great hundreds, or about 8 per cent., compared with the corresponding period of last year.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if all the eggs imported in a week were put end to end they would stretch from here to New York?

    CROWN FARM, SPITTALHILL, FINTRY (SHEEP STOCK).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture what prices were paid for ewes and lambs, eild ewes, ewe hoggs, and stock rams by the Commissioners of Crown Lands to the outgoing tenant of Spittalhill, Fintry; what prices were paid to the Commissioners by the incoming tenant for the same sheep stock; and what ratio did the total amount paid to the outgoing tenant for the sheep stock bear to the total amount paid to the landlord for the land?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As the answer contans a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The acclimatisation prices fixed by the Arbiters to be paid by the Commissioners to the outgoing tenant are as follow:
    958

    Black faced ewes and lambs

    …

    £7

    Eild ewes

    …

    90s.

    Ewe hoggs

    …

    £4

    2 and 3 year old tups

    …

    £14

    The prices to be paid by the incoming tenant, as agreed with the Crown Factor on the basis of then market value, for the same stock are:

    Black faced ewes and lambs

    …

    £3

    Eild ewes

    …

    35s.

    Ewe hoggs

    …

    35s

    2 and 3 year old tups

    …

    £14

    The total valuation of the sheep stock taken over by the Commissioners from the outgoing tenant is £4,755 16s. 8d. The rent of the farm at the expiry of the tenancy was £200 per annum.

    MEAT SITUATION.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture when he will be in a position to make a statement on the Ottawa agreements relating to beef, mutton and lamb?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As I have already informed the House, the meat situation is receiving the Government's active attention. I cannot at this stage indicate when I shall be in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of when he may be able to reply to a question?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am afraid I cannot.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does he not agree that as certain agreements terminate at the end of June some statement is urgently necessary?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I think the hon. Member may have seen a statement by the Leader of the House in which he said that some statement would certainly be made before the House rose.

    BARLEY (IMPORTS).
    Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of barley in the first five months of 1934 were 40 per cent. higher than in the same period of 1933 and 111 per cent. higher than in the same period of 1932, while the average c.i.f. values in 1934 were 30 per cent. less than in 1932; and what steps he proposes to take to give effective protection to our farmers?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the facts to which my Noble Friend refers. The increase in pig production in this country has made it necessary during recent months to import a larger quantity than usual of feeding barley. The home crop last year was below average in quantity, but was of very good quality and a larger proportion than usual has been sold for malting. For these two reasons, a larger proportion of imported supplies has probably been of feeding quality and it is not, therefore, a matter for surprise that the average price of imports has been on a lower level. In this connection, it should, however, be remembered that the price of home-grown barley in England and Wales during the first five months of this year was 31 per cent. higher than in the same period of last year. In these circumstances, I see no grounds for taking action as suggested in the last part of the question.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Does that not show that imports are on the whole good, and that they benefit some people or some animals?

    FOREIGN OATS.
    Lord SCONEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of foreign oats in bond throughout the country on 1st February, 1st April and 1st June, respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The quantities of oats in grain in bonded warehouse on the dates specified were as follow:

    1934.

    Cwts.

    1st February

    …

    …

    17,529

    1st April

    …

    …

    157,796

    1st June

    …

    …

    93,662

    CANNED FRUIT.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Financial Secertary to the Treasury whether he will state the present duties per pound on canned apricots, peaches, pears and fruit salads, and the comparative rate in the event of the additional duty under application by the Association of Fruit and Vegetable Canners being imposed; the annual consumption of those goods in this country; the proportion of the total quantity which is grown in Empire and foreign countries; and the total amount payable on the proposed
    960
    scale of duties if the present consumption of canned fruits is maintained?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Canned fruits preserved in syrup, to which it is presumed the question refers, are at present subject to customs duty at the rate of 15 per cent. ad valorem under the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, in addition to any sugar duty chargeable on their sugar content. The information asked for in the third and fourth parts of the question is not readily available, but I will send the hon. Member such figures as I can supply. The second and last parts of the question are hypothetical and relate to a matter which is now under the consideration of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I do not think it desirable that I should give detailed information in such a case.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what approximately will be the duty per lb. when the additional duties have been imposed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman is asking me what would be the duty per lb. if certain applications were conceded. I am sure that he will appreciate that the applications may not be conceded in the form in which they are submitted, and that therefore to work out those hypothetical figures would be an additional task upon the Department which the hon. Gentleman would not I am sure wish to impose upon them.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that this will be a very heavy additional charge on the poor people who are the consumers of what is to them the only available kind of fruit?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman is putting a question to me upon certain assumptions which may or may not be fulfilled. If they are fulfilled, perhaps he will put the question down again.
    Mr. GRENFELL: With pleasure.

  ROYAL NAVY (VISIT TO SWINEMUND).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when and why he authorised the visit of a section of the British Fleet to Swinemund, in Germany?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The visit to Swinemund, as well as to other German ports, was approved in April last, in the course of the ordinary consideration of the proposals of the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet, for the annual summer cruise.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether this special recognition, this act of friendliness, in regard to a Government of which you do not approve and which is not friendly to us at the present time, is desirable?
  Lord STANLEY: I have already said that it is in the normal routine of the summer cruise.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not possible to make the normal routine of friendly cruises to friendly countries instead of to potentially enemy countries?
  Mr. MAXTON: Could they do anything in the way of collecting the debts when they are over there?

  BOLIVIA AND PAEAGUAY (ARMS EMBARGO).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the conditions attached by Italy to her acceptance of the arms embargo to Bolivia and Paraguay; whether these include a freedom to complete present contracts; and, if so, what period these contracts cover?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I understand that the Italian Government have made their acceptance of the contemplated measure conditional upon its acceptance by a number of other specified Governments. As the Italian list included the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan, invitations were duly transmitted by the League Committee of Three to the Governments of these two countries to participate also. The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have announced their agreement: the position as regards Japan is as stated in the answer given to the hon. Member on 19th June. The Italian Government have also stipulated that current contracts shall be exempted from the proposed embargo. This difficulty has not yet been overcome, though the League Committee of Three have recommended
  962
  that, if such a reservation is to be made, a definite and very brief time-limit should be laid down during which it is operative. I have no information as to the duration of existing Italian contracts.
  Mr. MANDER: Is there any foundation for the statement that it will cover something like 10 years?
  Mr. EDEN: I have no information on that point.

  PALESTINE.

    ACHI MEIR.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any appeal is possible from the sentence of 20 months' imprisonment imposed upon the Jew, Achi Meir, for belonging to an illegal association; and whether this sentence is in addition to the year he has already spent in prison on a charge of murder for which he has been acquitted?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Achi Meir was convicted on the 19th June by a district court on charges of conspiring to effect acts in furtherance of a seditious intention, being a member of an unlawful and seditious association and being in possession of seditious literature. In sentencing him to 21 months' imprisonment, the president of the court said that he gave full weight in determining the appropriate sentence to the fact that Achi Meir had been in custody for a very long time on another charge, but that he could not regard the offence as other than most serious and that 21 months was the least that he could impose. An appeal lies from the district court to the court of appeal within 10 days of conviction. No appeal has yet been lodged.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If this sentence be justified, does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is justified in letting Jemal Husseini off with one month's imprisonment when he not merely made these speeches, but when they were followed by violence, and—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

    CITIZENSHIP.
    The following question put upon the Order Paper in the name of Colonel WEDGWOOD:

    963
    29. "To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a British subject can now become a Palestinian subject without losing his British citizenship, in view of the franchise restrictions recently imposed; and how long does it take in such circumstances for Palestinian citizenship to be obtained and at what cost?"
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I observe, in putting this question, that I certainly think these are matters which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has to consider?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know why the right hon. and gallant Member should say that. I have been asked the question which I now propose to answer. His Majesty's Government have been advised that a British subject who acquires Palestinian citizenship by naturalisation does not cease to be a British subject. A certificate of naturalisation as a Palestinian citizen may be acquired by any person who has resided in Palestine for a period of not less than two years out of the three years immediately preceding the date of his application, provided that he is of good character, has an adequate knoweldge of either English, Arabic or Hebrew, and intends to reside in Palestine. The fee for naturalisation is 10s.

  DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS REPRISAL BILL.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any estimate has been formed of the amount of currency transferred by Germany recently abroad for propaganda purposes which would otherwise have been available for the payment of debts to British nationals?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): So far as I am aware, no such estimate is available.
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the considerable sums spent on propaganda in Austria, is it not possible that the amount is now quite considerable, if you take into account all the countries where propaganda has been conducted?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Possibly.
  Major NATHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer his estimate of the debts, other than in respect of the
  964
  Dawes and Young Loans, now due from persons in Germany to persons ordinarily resident or carrying on business in the United Kingdom; and, separately, to British subjects wherever resident, to corporations incorporated by or under the laws of the United Kingdom or of a country forming part of the British Empire as defined by the Import Duties Act, 1932, and to persons who are afforded His Majesty's protection and ordinarily reside or ordinarily carry on business in such a country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The nominal amount of the medium and long terms German loans (other than the sterling issues of the Dawes and Young Loans) held by persons in the United Kingdom may be estimated at approximately £41,000,000. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to him yesterday.

  WATERLOO BRIDGE.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London County Council propose to disregard the twice-expressed opinion of Parliament that Waterloo Bridge should not be pulled down, notwithstanding the fact that this bridge was specially named by Act of Parliament and accepted by Parliament as the national memorial of the battle of Waterloo; and whether, in view of the doubts which have been expressed as to the power of the London County Council to demolish Waterloo Bridge without the authority of Parliament, he will refer the question to the Law Officers of the Crown?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I was not aware that any doubts have been expressed with regard to the London County Council's powers to demolish Waterloo Bridge, but I understand that they have been advised by counsel that they have power to proceed with its demolition without the further authority of Parliament.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ancient Statute upon which the London County Council rely for power to pull down this bridge without the authority of Parliament specifically provides that a bridge shall not be pulled down unless it shall be

  965
  so much in decay as to render the taking of the same wholly down necessary or expedient; and is he aware that the Royal Commission on Cross River Traffic, a statutory body appointed by Parliament, unanimously found that it was neither necessary nor expedient to pull the bridge wholly down and that it could be repaired?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will supply me with those points, I will undertake to have them examined.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did supply the points to the Attorney-General, on the assumption that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be consulted in the matter?
  Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the Prime Minister inform the House who won the Battle of Waterloo?

  AVIATION (ACCIDENT, YATE).
  Captain GUNSTON(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has any information to give the House with regard to the fatal flying accident which occurred at Yate, Gloucester, yesterday?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am sorry that I have no information at present to supplement what has already appeared in the public Press in regard to this regrettable accident; a full investigation will, of course, take place. It appears that two aircraft from the Bristol Aeroplane Company at Filton, near Bristol, at which members of the Royal Air Force Reserve are trained, were engaged on a training flight, when a collision occurred at a height of about 3,000 feet. As is already known, one occupant of one of the aircraft made a safe descent by parachute, and was the only survivor of the accident. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my noble Friend's and my own deep personal sympathy with the relatives of the three officers who were killed.
  Captain GUNSTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the inquiry will be public or private; and also whether he will convey his admiration for the gallant effort at rescue made by two onlookers, who were badly burned?
  Sir P. SASSOON: With regard to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, the form of the inquiry will follow that which is usual in the case of these accidents. With regard to the second part, of course that shall be done.

  BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.
  Mr. PIKE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the resolution of the "Sheffield United Action Committee" (composed of representatives of several trade unions, the Independent Labour party, some co-operative organisations, the Anti-War Committee, and the Communist party) pledging itself to demonstrate against the meeting to be held at the City Hall, Sheffield, on Thursday, 28th June, to be addressed by Sir Oswald Mosley; whether he is aware that 109 delegates representing 63 organisations unanimously endorsed this resolution; and if, in the interests of public life and property, he will ban both demonstrations?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend has been good enough to send to me Press cuttings relating to the Fascist meeting to be held in Sheffield on the 28th instant and to the proposed counter-demonstration. I have no power to ban these or any other meetings. I have been in communication with the Chief Constable of Sheffield, who informs me that the police are making all necessary arrangements to preserve order both inside and outside the meeting.
  Mr. PIKE: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the organisations to which the question refers claim to have between 6,000 and 7,000 sympathisers who are likely to join in a demonstration against the Mosley meeting; and, as access to and egress from the meeting will be subject to the actions of the demonstrators, will he ensure, in the interests of the public, that adequate protection against demonstration will be afforded to them, without unnecessary or additional cost being thrown upon the ratepayers of Sheffield as the result of imported police services?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no direct responsibilty for this matter, but I have every confidence that the Chief Constable will deal with it adequately.
  Sir FRANK SANDERSON: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that it is about time that this House refrained from giving free advertisement to such persons?
  Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps the police in Sheffield would take to preserve order inside the meeting?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: That would be a matter for the police on the spot.
  Mr. MAXTON: Did I not understand from the right hon. Gentleman in the previous Debate on this matter, that the police had no right of access to a meeting?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have said to the House, the police only have a right to enter a meeting if the promoters of the meeting are prepared to ask them to do so, or if they subsequently ascertain that a breach of the peace is actually taking place. I have no reason to suppose that they will not be in a position to take all the steps that may be necessary.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 51.

Division No. 304.]

AYES.

[3.25 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Horobin, Ian M.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Horsbrugh, Florence

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Atholl, Duchess of

Davison, Sir William Henry

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Denman, Hon. R D.

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Denville, Alfred

Jamieson, Douglas

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Dickle, John P.

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Doran, Edward

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Drewe, Cedric

Ker, J. Campbell

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C)

Duckworth, George A. V.

Knight, Holford

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Knox. Sir Alfred

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Dunglass, Lord

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Eady, George H.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Blindell, James

Edmondson, Major Sir James

Lees-Jones, John

Borodale, Viscount

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Bossom, A. C.

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Boulton, W. W.

Elmley, Viscount

Liddall, Walter S.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Emrys- Evans, P. V.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Everard, W. Lindsay

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Loftus, Pierce C.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Fox, Sir Gifford

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Mabane, William

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Fuller, Captain A. G.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Ganzoni, Sir John

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Brown, Brig. -Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

McKie, John Hamilton

Burghley, Lord

Golf, Sir Park

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Gower, Sir Robert

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Burnett, John George

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Magnay, Thomas

Calne, G. R. Hall-

G rattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Maitland, Adam

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Graves, Marjorie

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Carver, Major William H.

Grimston, R. V.

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Martin, Thomas B.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Christie, James Archibald

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Hales, Harold K.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Milne, Charles

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Hartington, Marquess of

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Conant, R. J. E.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Cook, Thomas A.

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Cooke, Douglas

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Cooper, A. Duff

Hepworth, Joseph

Moreing, Adrian C.

Copeland, Ida

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Morgan, Robert H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Holdsworth, Herbert

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Morrison, William Shephard

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Munro, Patrick

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Tate, Mavis Constance

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Salmon, Sir Is dore

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Thompson, Sir Luke

North, Edward T.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

O'Connor, Terence James

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Patrick, Colin M.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Train, John

Peake, Osbert

Savery, Samuel Servington

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Pearson, William G.

Scone, Lord

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Peat, Charles U.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest w.

Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Pike, Cecil F.

Shute, Colonel J. J.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Ray. Sir William

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Smithers, Sir Waldron

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Somervell, Sir Donald

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Wills, Wilfrid D

Rickards, George William

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Robinson, John Roland

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Womersley, Sir Walter

Ross, Ronald D.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Stevenson, James

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Runge, Norah Cecil

Storey, Samuel

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Banfield, John William

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Batey, Joseph

Hamilton, Sir R.W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

Harris, Sir Percy

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Cape, Thomas

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Cove, William G.

Kirkwood, David

Tinker, John Joseph

Daggar, George

Lawson, John James

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Leonard, William

White, Henry Graham

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Edwards, Charles

Lunn, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Mainwaring, William Henry

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Milner, Major James

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Resolution agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

  SHOPS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Wednesday, 4th July, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

  NEWPORT EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
Order [20th June] that the Bill be committed read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
"That, in the case of the National Maritime Museum Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Bill be permitted to proceed."

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Amendments to—
Gas Undertakings Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable persons injured on the road by a motor vehicle (other than motorists themselves) to recover compensation in certain cases without proof of negligence on the part of the defendant;

971
and to make other provision, in connection with the matters aforesaid." [Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
  That they request that this House will pleased to give leave to the right hon. Wilfrid Guild Normand, K.C., Lord Advocate, a Member of this House, to attend To-morrow, in order to his being examined as a witness before the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the Sheriffdom of Perth and Angus Order, 1934.

SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
So much of the Lords Message as requests the attendance of the right hon. Wilfrid Guild Normand, K.C., Lord Advocate, considered:—
And the Lord Advocate in his place having consented:—Leave given.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS REPRISAL [MONEY].
  Resolution reported,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the setting up of clearing offices for collecting and dealing with certain debts, to authorise the imposition of restrictions on imports from certain foreign countries and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

  (a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Board of Trade in carrying the said Act into execution and of the expenses of any clearing office set up under the said Act to such an amount as may be approved by the Treasury, and

  (b) to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of any fees or commissions received under the said Act by the Board of Trade or by any clearing office set up under the said Act."

  DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS REPRISALS BILL.
  Order for Committee read.
  The following Notices of Motion appeared upon the Order Paper:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, one to authorise the setting up of clearing offices for collecting and dealing with certain debts and the other to authorise the imposition of restrictions on imports from certain foreign countries.—[Mr. Attlee.]
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts, one relating to the power of the. Treasury to set up clearing offices and the other to the imposition of restrictions on imports from foreign countries."—[Sir A. Sinclair.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: There are on the Paper two Instructions, one in the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and other Members and the other in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). I am afraid I shall have to rule them out of Order, because it would be impossible to carry them out. It is true that there is in the Bill a distinction
  978
  between Clause 1 and Clause 2, but the two subjects raised in those Clauses are so intermixed in the remainder of the Bill that it would he quite impossible to divide it into two Bills.
  Mr. ATTLEE: Would it not be possible for the Committee, in dividing the Bill, to repeat those parts of it which are common to Clauses 1 and 2? The whole procedure by which one can seek to prevent the Government tackling two incongruous proposals in one Bill is defeated, merely by a process of intermingling two Clauses. If you cannot do it because there happens to be one not very important Clause which relates both to the subject matter of one Clause and that of another, it would be quite possible for the Committee to insert an additional Clause in order to divide the Bill.
  Mr. SPEAKER: In that case, the Bill would be almost unrecognisable.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I submit that the Clauses that are common to both parts of the Bill are only common form. It is a mere repetition of something that appears in almost any Bill of this kind.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Of course, the Committee are quite at liberty to do what they like with the Bill provided they do not alter it altogether. They can do what they please in its different Clauses, but I do not think an Instruction to make two Bills of it would be in order. After all, the House of Commons passed the Second Reading unanimously yesterday.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HEBBEKT in the Chair.]

  DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES AND IMPORT RESTRICTIONS REPRISALS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Treasury in certain circumstances to set up Clearing Offices.)
    3.39 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "if," to insert:
    "at any time prior to the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-five."
    This Amendment seeks to limit the duration of the Bill to a period of one year. Some of my colleagues were disposed to oppose the Bill yesterday, but out of respect to the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by my right hon. Friend, that it is necessary that something should be done at this stage to mark the crisis in regard to debts owing by Germany we abstained from

    979
    taking any action and not from any love for the Bill. There was not a single speech yesterday, with the exception of that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which expressed support of the Bill. He himself hoped that the Bill would not become operative. It might reasonably be asked why should a body like this support a Bill for which no one has any love and many regard as not calculated to advance the object which the Bill is supposed to have in view, namely, to increase our trade and to be assured of the probability of the interest on the debt being paid. Therefore, it seems right to many of us that we should try and limit the mischief by asking the Committee to support-an Amendment limiting the operation of the Measure to the period of one year.
    It may be of interest to the Committee, as showing that it should not have been possible for this Bill to be brought in with the object of ensuring the possibility of Germany resuming the payment of debt, to know that the Dawes Loan, for example, may be refunded next year. Assuming that a satisfactory solution is arrived at in these negotiations, as we hope will be the case, I look to a considerable rise in the price of that loan and an improvement in the credit of Germany. Instead of a Bill of this character being brought in at this stage something might have been done to help to bring nearer increased trade relations with Germany which we all desire and also to help to ensure that there will be no question in the future of the service of the loan being short. It is most important that this Committee should give an indication of that desire by limiting the period to 12 months as a gesture to Germany that this country does not wish to engage in reprisals and to use weapons to retard trade, but rather to do everything possible to get rid of restrictions on all sides, quotas and so forth, in order to facilitate and increase our trade with Germany.
    With reference to the question of the conversion of the debt, Germany is naturally very anxious to reduce, if she can, the interest on that debt, and negotiations will take time. Therefore, it is essential to facilitate that matter by creating a state of affairs which will enable her possibly to bring about a conversion scheme. I believe many investors who hold the bonds would much rather have a certain 5 per cent. than an un-
    980
    certain 7 per cent., and when Germany sees other countries converting their debt she feels very much aggrieved at the very heavy burden of the 7 per cent. loan. It may possibly be argued that she attempted in the most stupid way to improve her credit by threatening default and proceeding by this clumsy method to precipitate a crisis by default. I recently visited Germany and I had an opportunity of meeting authorities there. I met Dr. Schacht and I discussed the problem with him, and it may interest the Committee to know that the two things he desired were, increased trade with this country, and a conversion scheme for the debt. I suggested to him—I was not there in an official capacity but as an ordinary Member of Parliament—that the method Germany had adopted of seeking to bring about the conversion of debt was the least calculated to effect that purpose.
    There were three things she ought to do to facilitate a better atmosphere. There ought to be a cessation of her anti-Jewish campaign. No country anxious to convert her debt could afford to go out of her way to antagonise that very important financial power, and I was assured by authorities there that the campaign would cease. I hear some hon. Members scoff at that, but the impression conveyed to me—and I tried to appeal to their sense of right—was that it was essential to try and conciliate that Jewish power and cease their foolish policy, come in with us on disarmament, and return to the League of Nations. All these things are possible if we can limit the duration of the operation of this Bill for 12 months. I believe that there is a disposition of the best opinion in Germany to come to an amicable settlement. It was pointed out to me that any proposal should come from the creditor. If some proposal had been made to reduce the rate of interest possibly a settlement might have been arrived at and default avoided, and the Bill would not have become necessary. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be good enough to consider the idea of the limitation of time. It is not a great concession. If it should become necessary to extend the time it would be a simple matter to bring in the Measure again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the opinion that it might not be necessary even for the Bill to operate, and if the British Government

    981
    at this stage could make a gesture that we did not propose to proceed with the operation of the Measure beyond the year, I believe that it would help very considerably to bring about an honourable and an amicable settlement.
    3.49 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. EVANS: I urge the acceptance of the Amendment on the ground that the clearing office arrangements are obviously intended for a specific purpose. I would not lend support to an Amendment of this character limiting the duration of the operation of the Bill were it proposed to set up a whole system of clearing houses in order to facilitate trade under the exchange conditions of the present moment. Some of us have felt for a considerable time that some sort of system of this kind would have to be implemented if international trade were to be carried on at all. You have a whole tangle of debts, and, apart from cutting away completely from that tangle and starting afresh, it is clear that some sort of system will have to be devised. That is not the object of this Bill. It has a restricted object; it is meant to deal with the Anglo-German situation. I am certain that some hon. Members would not have given it their support yesterday if it had been aimed at Russia. We ought not to legislate according to our prejudices.
    In view of the possible repercussions Parliament ought to retain control. One can envisage all sorts of entanglements and dangerous reactions. If Germany, for example, at the conference refuses to operate a bilateral clearing house system great harm may be done to traders in this country; they may have their property in Germany impounded. This is an experiment, and I have no objection to it on that ground, but I feel that there is a real danger in the Government, on the plea of an emergency, taking powers which they can exercise long after the emergency has passed. Let us make no mistake. With the exchange situation as it is, with tariffs and quotas, and all sorts of restrictions being placed on international trade, we are in this Bill asking for a new weapon in economic armaments. We were told yesterday that 29 countries have imposed exchange restrictions and 23 countries have imposed discriminatory duties, and, therefore, with the world situation what
    982
    it is, I can understand a weapon of this kind becoming a real menace.
    We are not asking too much by the Amendment. We do not want to hamper the Government. This country has been generous to other countries almost to the point of being quixotic. Germany is not the only country that has defaulted, but she has done so in a way with which it is easier to effect reprisals. British bondholders were rather shabbily treated by France when she wiped off four-fifths of her indebtedness. It is clear that the Government must take strong action. I hold no brief for the German Government, I am not asking for easy terms. Britain must put up a stand for her rights. But I do want Parliament to assert its claim to review these terms in the light of our experience of the operation of the Bill.
    3.53 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I desire to support the Amendment, but first of all I must ask the Financial Secretary a question as regards our procedure. I want to ask whether, in view of the fact that the Report stage and Third Reading are to be taken this evening, it is possible for the Government to accept any Amendments to the Bill? Are we not merely exercising the futile function of discussing the Bill when the Government cannot accept any Amendments whether they are desirable or not. It would assist the Committee if we could have an answer to that point. As regards the Amendment, it is an attempt to limit the period of operation of the machinery of the Bill. It appears to me that where you are setting up machinery avowedly to deal with an emergency it should be limited to the emergency with which it is required to deal. You have no right to force arbitrarily through this House a Bill of a general character in order to deal with a specific event. It is a precedent of considerable danger, if merely because some particular action is required as a result of a particular event, the Government adopt special means of getting a Bill through the House covering a wide area quite unconnected with the particular emergency.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is elaborating his point at some length, the answer to it will presumably be equally long. I think there-

    983
    fore it would be better for him to move to report Propress if he requires an answer to it.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I desire the Bill to be limited by the insertion of the Amendment. Wide powers are being given to the Government under Clause 1—
    The CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. and learned Member was dealing with the point which he has raised, as to the further stages of the Bill; if he is not going to say any more on that, I do not propose to intervene.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sorry that I did not make it clear that I had departed from that Parliamentary point. As regards the other and more important question, I was dealing with the necessity for limiting the operation of this Clause to the immediate period of time in which the emergency is likely to arise, and the danger of passing a general resolution on the excuse that an emergency of a particular character has arisen, may be taken as a precedent for future Parliamentary action. A future Government, whatever it may be, will be able to say: "Here is an emergency of a particular kind, and we propose to legislate perfectly generally, not merely to cover the emergency but to cover all other matters which may conceivably be useful "—Clause 2 of the Bill admittedly has no connection with the emergency at all; it gives general powers—and, having said that, to force a Bill through the House of Commons without proper or full opportunity for the House to consider it or for people outside to allow their views to be reflected within the House. I ask the Financial Secretary to consider that aspect of the case, and, as a matter of precedent, not to allow a general Bill of this kind to go on the Statute Book in order to deal with a specific emergency.
    Earl WINTERTON: While I do not agree with hon. Members who have supported the Amendment, I do think it is a very grave disadvantage to embark on a parliamentary discussion on a Bill of this kind, which has some provisions which can be regarded as emergency provisions and others which are of a less emergency character, if we are met by the situation that it is impossible for mechanical reasons or under the Rules of Procedure, to move
    984
    Amendments. As an old Member of the House, I fear the effect of certain things which have grown up in recent years. Could the Financial Secretary give us an assurance that, if there be any Amendment which the Government are prepared to accept, the Report stage and Third Reading will be taken to-morrow?
    4 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I want to say a word in support of this Amendment from the point of view of one who thinks that this Bill is absolutely necessary, and that the Government were right to introduce it., I hope to be permitted to elaborate the reasons why I think it is necessary to bring in this Bill on the Question "That the Clause stand part," but it does seem to me that as we are dealing now with a specific and definite case without which the Bill would never have been introduced, the effect would be much more dramatic on this occasion and on other occasions if a special Bill had to be brought in for the purpose. Cases of this sort are not often likely to arise in the history of this country, but when they do I should have thought that we could have obtained our object better by introducing a Bill for that definite purpose, with all the publicity and debate which would take place. The effect on Germany, I should have thought, would be far more likely to be affected by introducing the Bill in a dramatic way, rather than relying on a Clause in an old Act. It is because I want to see the weapon of economic sanction used in specific cases that I think it would strengthen the object we have at heart if this Amendment were accepted.
    4.2 p.m.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. and learned Member has spoken of an emergency, but I think that we must distinguish between what we commonly call an emergency and the special circumstances, as I should prefer to call them, which have induced us to introduce this Bill. Emergency in the ordinary acceptation of the term, or, at any rate, in its ordinary use, is something which has occurred, but is not expected to occur again. But can we assure ourselves that, in the absence of any powers such as we propose to take in this Bill, similar circumstances may not arise in the future

    985
    which would require similar treatment? I confess that I feel no such confidence either in respect of the powers required in Clause 1 or those required in Clause 2, and although the hon. Member who has just spoken has suggested that it is much more effective and dramatic to introduce ad hoc legislation as occasion arises, I think he would agree that it is very much better that the occasion should not arise, and the reason for taking these powers is that I believe by being armed with such powers we are giving notice to all the world that we are armed with these powers, and we shall in that way make it less likely that the circumstances will arise which will require the use of these powers.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I understand this Bill is to be got through in two days of Parliamentary time, and the emergency surely is that it has to be got through very quickly. But if the right hon. Gentleman now tells us that it is only for the purpose of being armed with these powers, there can be no reason why the House of Commons should not have the full right of amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is attempting to twist my words into a meaning which they will not bear. I do not deny that in the present case the matter is urgent. That, of course, is agreed on all hands. The only question that I understood was raised by the hon. and learned Member was whether the powers which are undoubtedly required now were likely to be required hereafter, and whether it was not very much better to limit the powers to the case now before us, and, if necessary, take further powers on some future occasion when similar circumstances arose.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: If this Bill were passing through ordinary stages in ordinary time, there would be no argument on the point, but if this is only to deal with an urgent matter, and therefore has to be passed urgently, I was suggesting that the provisions should be limited to that urgent matter, and that they can be passed through in an urgent manner.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the question of procedure, about which my Noble Friend put a question, I think the situation is this: We desire that this Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment, and, of course, if Amendments
    986
    are accepted that means having a Report stage, and we cannot get the Third Reading of the Bill to-night. I do not say that it is impossible to have the Third Reading to-morrow and a Report stage, but I say that it would be better to have the Bill to-night, unless there are Amendments of such substance and importance as to outweigh the disadvantages of that further delay. As far as I have had an opportunity of studying the Amendments—and I confess that I have not had much opportunity—I have not seen any Amendments which appear to me of such weight and importance as to justify the delay; but I am quite willing to hear anything said on any particular Amendment.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman's arguments, of course, apply only to Clause 1 and the other Clauses ancillary to it which he must have now; but he pointed out that he did not require Clause 2 now specially, and, therefore, I take it that he will be quite prepared, in these circumstances, to drop Clause 2, and to give the Committee full right of discussion.
    4.7 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now exposed to the Committee that he stands on the horns of a dilemma. Yesterday, in introducing this Bill, he gave an account of the Notes addressed to the German Government by the British Government, and used these words:
    "That very brief account of the circumstances—I refer hon. Members to the British Note for further detail—is the justificatoin for the Bill that I am now presenting."
    and ho proceeded to say that he hoped that the negotiations now to be undertaken
    "will ensure fair treatment for British bondholders and British traders before 1st July."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1934; col. 807 Vol. 291.]
    If it be the case that the justification for the Bill is the situation which has arisen with Germany, and only that, and if it be the case that the object of the Bill is to give powers to the Government to ensure fair treatment for British bondholders before 1st July, then there is great force in the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he must have his Bill, and have it now. But, also, there is support for the argument that it must be limited to the necessities of the situa-

    987
    tion which he himself has expressly stated to the House as being the justification, and, as far as his speech went, the only justification for the Bill which we are now considering. I earnestly hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accede to the view either that the Bill should be limited to the particular instance of Germany—
    The CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that if we are to have this discussion on something which has really nothing to do with the Amendment, it must be based on a Motion to report Progress.
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Naturally, I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis. I was endeavouring to follow the remarks which have been made by the speakers who preceded me, but to put myself in order I move to report Progress. I believe that I shall be in order if I now continue the speech I was making. I have pointed out one horn of the dilemma on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds himself, namely, immediate emergency, and, therefore, immediate and urgent legislation requires that it should be limited for the purpose for which it is needed. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a few moments ago that other occasions may arise, and that he requires to have powers extending over a far wider field than anything he now specifically contemplates. If this House is to be asked to give wide powers to the Government— and wide powers are asked by the Government in both parts of this Bill—surely the House should have an ample opportunity of considering such grave matters in detail—matters so grave that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought the Bill before the House after very short notice. If I understood him correctly—he will correct me if I am wrong—it was at such short notice that he himself has not even been able to read the Amendments set down to the Bill.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that. I said that I have not had time to study them.
    Major NATHAN: I should be the last person in the world to do the Chancellor of the Exchequer the injustice of mis
    988
    representing him. He has not had much time to study the Amendments, nor, it may be assumed, have other hon. Members who received them this morning. Yet the Amendments touch vital questions of principle. Opinions may differ as to the relative importance of this Amendment or that Amendment, but he would be a rash Member of this House who would say that there is upon the Order Paper no Amendment which is worthy of serious consideration and incorporation in this Bill. I will give only one instance. There is an Amendment on the Paper for incorporating in the terms of the Bill a declaration made by the Financial Secretary yesterday. If it were sufficiently important for my hon. Friend to make to the world a statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government as to how the Bill was to be operated, it cannot be said to be unimportant that hon. Members should seek to have that undertaking incorporated in the Bill itself. I only give that as one instance.
    I do press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only in the interests of Parliamentary procedure and orderly conduct of Bills through the House of Commons, but in the interest also of the good standing of this country in the eyes of the world in its international industrial relations, that it should maintain the dignity required in dealing with matters of this kind, and give that consideration and deliberation which are essential before a decision can be reached with full knowledge of all the facts and with appreciation of all the circumstances. The Bill, I think, has been hurriedly drawn. It has certainly not been as fully considered either in its terms or its implications as it might have been. If the right hon. Gentleman will limit it to Germany and to the particular emergency in which he finds himself, I think he will probably find the Committee very willing to let the Bill go with far less discussion than if he insists upon pressing the Bill forward, extending over a far wider field of activity than anything which is justified by anything the right hon. Gentleman or his colleague said yesterday in this House.
    4.14 p.m.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I understand, Sir Dennis, that you are of opinion that this discussion would take

    989
    place better on a Motion to report Progress than on the Amendment, for the reason that it raises the whole point whether this Bill should be proceeded with in this manner, in view of the fact that it is not wholly an emergency Bill, but introduces various matters of permanent, standing legislation intended to be operative over a period of years. To that point I would, therefore, now address myself, and not specifically to the Amendment which was previously before the Committee. The procedure which the House of Commons and this Committee have been asked to adopt is undoubtedly a very exceptional one. The announced business of Parliament was suddenly put aside, and, although the Session was crowded with business, this Bill was brought forward unexpectedly as a matter of such great urgency that we are asked to pass it through all its stages in two days.
    That, in itself, is a procedure which should only be adopted in very urgent and exceptional cases. It gives exceedingly little time for the preparation of Amendments and the Government and their draftsmen have not time to consider adequately the Amendments which are put down. The Bill raises all kinds of technical points of great importance to the commercial and financial community. It is nearly novel legislation as far as this country is concerned and yet Parliament is expected to pass it through all its stages at this exceedingly short notice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when asked whether the Government were prepared to accept any Amendments—such acceptance involving a Report stage, and therefore a prolongation of the proceedings on the Bill—could not, of course, get up in his place and say, "No, we are not proposing to accept any Amendments of any kind." That would be so disrespectful to the House, that no Minister could do it. But, in substance, he has said that he does not see any Amendment on the Paper which is worthy of such consideration as would involve holding over the Report stage and Third Reading until to-morrow. That is a very clear hint that we shall find ourselves at the end of the Committee stage to-day without any Amendment having been accepted by the Government.
    Taking all these circumstances together, the character of the Bill, the exceedingly short time that has been available for
    990
    preparing Amendments and the fact that the Government have indicated that they are, shall I say, indisposed to accept any Amendments which would involve a prolongation of the proceedings on the Bill, it seems to me and I submit it strongly to the Committee, that the Bill ought to assume a character which would justify this exceptional procedure, namely, that of an emergency Bill intended to deal with an urgent case. In order to secure that, in some degree, that element should be imported into the Bill, we have proposed that its operations should be limited to one year and that Parliament should then have an opportunity of reviewing the whole situation, if necessary, in the light of the experience gained during that year. The commercial community have had no opportunity of considering the terms of the Bill. We have had no opportunity of receiving representations from chambers of commerce, bankers or others who would be vitally affected by the terms of the Bill. Yet we are asked to put upon the Statute Book a Measure which is not intended merely to deal with the controversy now pending with Germany, but is intended to stand on the Statute Book for all time and to deal with any possible future case which may arise, not only with regard to duties, but with regard to any commercial war between ourselves and other countries arising out of quotas. These are matters which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday, have nothing to do with the German dispute.
    For these reasons I strongly urge that the procedure which has been adopted in this case cannot be justified. The Government must make up their minds whether this is an urgent emergency Bill to deal with a question which brooks no delay, in which case exceptional Parliamentary procedure might be justified, and the House, I am sure, would be willing to take an exceptional course. The alternative is to say that this is not an exceptional emergency Bill to deal with this particular case, but that it is to include general provisions which the Government consider useful. In that case more time ought to be allowed for consideration of the matter by the House and the country, and the Bill ought not to be passed under a procedure which will involve hurried and scamped legislation, not worthy of the traditions and dignity of this House.
    4.20 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken hitherto have voiced the common feeling that we are in an awkward position, owing to the procedure adopted in connection with this Bill. If it is an emergency Bill, the full discussion of all these Amendments would be inappropriate because we cannot, in the time available, seek for that consultation with the people who are affected which one would normally wish to have when dealing with a Bill touching so many different interests. I believe that the prevailing opinion of the Committee is clear on one point. It wishes us to place in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a complete weapon with which he can negotiate in the next few days. The Committee desires the right hon. Gentleman to have that weapon in his hands. It seems to me that it would be possible to satisfy both points of view if the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) were adopted, and the Bill limited as to time, even though it be in no way limited in scope.
    I should have liked to see incorporated in the Bill the pledge that was given to us last night, but I deliberately refrained from putting down an Amendment in that form, because I was content to accept the pledge as a pledge, and to leave it at that. As we cannot usefully discuss the Bill in all its details and implications, what I should like the Committee to say is: "We accept the Bill; we give the Chancellor these powers, but we limit the period." The period of one year is rather exiguous. Supposing we were to say three years? There would then be ample time to gain experience of the use of the weapon, if we require to use it, and if necessary the Bill could subsequently be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
    4.22 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I rise to deal only with the question of procedure. Personally in view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, I am satisfied. I have no arrière pensée in the matter. I do not care whether, in this Parliament, I vote for or against the Government in any matter. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was wholly fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I
    992
    do not think the answer of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the Government's attitude towards the Amendments was quite that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen. It is all a question of tone but I understood that the Chancellor's reply to the point which I put to him earlier was that he would, if the circumstances justified it, be prepared to consider Amendments. But I intervene really for the purpose of pointing out to the Committee a process which has been going on throughout this Parliament and previous Parliaments, and on which I think it necessary that the Committee should be fully advised.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen that the process of passing emergency legislation by getting a Measure through all its stages in two days, is one which should only be applied in very rare circumstances. It ought not to be applied to any legislation unless that legislation is (a) non-controversial, (b) unimportant, or (c) of a nature which shows a grave emergency to exist, involving either the safety of the realm or the prevention of grave injustice to some individual. No other legislation ought to be pressed in that way. I am sorry that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is not at the moment on the Front Bench. I am speaking with complete sincerity when I say that I am really terrified at the precedents which subsequent Parliaments—of which I at any rate hope to be a Member, possibly in Opposition—will be able to quote in regard to what has been done in this Parliament in the way of passing Bills through all stages in a short time.
    I am not going to vote for the Motion because of the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I venture without disrespect to utter that warning and I would add this. If there were Members now sitting on these benches or on the benches opposite, of the type which we used to have in this House, Members who took a real interest in procedure—unfortunately there are few today—they would have been horrified by what is being done nowadays by Governments, not one Government but all Governments. This is all because of what I would call the insane desire to get through all the business by a certain date. That is the real trouble. It is

    993
    not a case of emergency. Every Chief Whip says, "I must get through all the business by 21st July"—or whatever the date may be. "If I do not I cannot keep my people here." That is the real reason why Bills are pushed through in this way. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that this power of emergency legislation is one which it ought to exercise only with the greatest discrimination since otherwise when similar circumstances arise in the future, they may find difficulties in resisting an abuse of their privileges.
    4.24 p.m.
    Viscount CRANBORNE: The discussion has centred round the question of whether this Bill is an emergency Bill or not, and it seems to me that there has been a little loose thinking about it. It is possible to have an emergency which is an enduring emergency, an emergency which may recur, and therefore we might have to pass an emergency Measure in a great hurry without binding ourselves to use it only on a specific occasion, because it might be needed again. Such a Bill as that might be justified. At the same time I think it essential that in a Bill of that kind every provision should have some connection with the immediate emergency and that you ought not to put something into the Bill which has nothing to do with it. For that reason I was surprised as I think a good many other Members were to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say yesterday that Clause 2 had nothing to do with this emergency.
    I would submit diffidently that it might be used for this emergency, and that this emergency might require it. I do not know if hon. Members have read the speech of Dr. Schacht reported in the "Times" on 22nd June, in which he declared that Germany would reply to any such measures as this Bill by breaking off further intercourse with this country. I do not know exactly what Dr. Schacht meant by "further intercourse," but I imagine he meant some form of embargo or quota restriction. If that were intended I think, even under the emergency legislation, Clause 2 would be entirely justified. If that was not the explanation of the introduction of Clause 2 then I hardly feel that it is justified under emergency legislation. In any case, this is a Bill of such wide scope
    994
    that I very much hope that the Chancellor may see his way to limit the period of its operation in some such way as has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel). It is not because the Bill has any objectionable features in itself but because it opens up a wide scope for action by Governments in the future, that it seems to me that it should be in some such way limited.
    4.27 p.m.
    Mr. HOROBIN: I had not intended to speak at any stage of the proceedings on this Bill but as this discussion has arisen I should like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the difficulty in which a good many supporters of the Government who take a special interest in questions of this kind, find themselves. There is scarcely anything that can be said, by way of criticism or of warning at any stage of this Bill, or on any Amendment to the Bill, which might not handicap the Government in the very difficult negotiations which they have in hand. Therefore, it would seem best to me, and I am sure to other Members of the Committee, who have a special interest in these matters, to say nothing. But that is not to say that very grave considerations do not arise and that many of us are not very perturbed. If it turns out that an opportunity has arisen to separate from other matters involved, the particular negotiations which are on hand now—as to which there is no difference of opinion anywhere in the House—and to make it unnecessary for us even to speak upon Amendments on which it is very difficult to give even an indication of the sort of consideration which arises, without the possibility of handicapping the Government, it would remove very great difficulties which are felt, I feel certain, by many Members of the Committee and by those whom they represent. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to separate these two issues, it would meet the views of very great interests in the City of London and the country generally, and the grave and genuine anxiety among supporters of the Government, on the one hand not to say anything which might in any way handicap them at the present moment, and yet not to appear to support or pass without having raised any

    995
    objection to permanent measures which may easily have repercussions of an undesirable nature.
    4.31 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think there is no one in this Committee who would be likely to see, more than myself, the danger of introducing new precedents or attempting in any way to limit the rights and powers of the House to examine as carefully as they deserve all Measures on their merits; and I recognise the force of the suggestions that have been made that, while this Bill is introduced on account of circumstances which have suddenly arisen, it contains provisions which are not immediately applicable to those circumstances, and, further, that it is proposed to preserve these as a part of the permanent or semi-permanent weapons at the disposal of the Government of the day. With regard to the point made by my Noble Friend the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Cranborne), he is perfectly correct that Clause 2 might in certain circumstances be required to deal with further developments arising perhaps originally out of those circumstances which are the justification for Clause 1, and, while I was careful to state that Clause 2 was not directed against any particular country, yet I must reserve the observation that Clause 2 might be found exceedingly necessary in certain circumstances, whether Germany or any other country was the country in question.
    With regard to this particular piece of legislation here, I object to the observation of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) that it is scamped legislation. Hurried it may be, but hurried does not necessarily mean scamped. A great deal of care has been expended on the preparation of the Bill, and I do not think it deserves an epithet of that kind. But, in view of the observations that have been made, I would like, if I can, to meet the fears of, and the very legitimate criticisms that have been made by, hon. Members in different parts of the Committee. In its present form the Amendment limits the operation of the Bill to one year. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) that a year is rather short. He has suggested three years, which, on the other hand, may be
    996
    considered rather long. I will be prepared, if the Amendment can be altered, to make it two years instead of one year, and I very much hope that, by putting in that limitation, I may appeal to hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the Committee not to press the large number of Amendments on the Paper, the force of which, I think, will be very much mitigated by the fact that I have accepted this limitation of the period.
    4.35 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not acceded to the original request for one year, which I should think was amply long enough to see the working of this Measure and is obviously more than enough to cover the immediate emergency with respect to Germany. However, he has big battalions behind him, and if he will not go further and accept the one year, we shall be compelled to accept the two years, but I do so very reluctantly, because I feel convinced that one year would have been ample for this purpose, and there is no reason whatever for extending it to two years, particularly since at the end of one year it would be quite possible, if the House thought it desirable and if the circumstances justified it, to extend the operation of what would then be an Act, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    With respect to the change in the Bill that is now to be made affecting Amendments on the Paper, it may affect some of them, but it cannot affect the questions of principle which are raised particularly with regard to Clause 2 and one very important question of principle which arises on the Schedule, and there are other Amendments which will necessarily require careful consideration by the Committee, though there has been no intention from the beginning in any quarter of raising any obstructive opposition and no desire to prolong the Debate upon any of these Amendments. I think there are, however, a considerable number of Amendments on the Paper which will still require most careful consideration, even though the Act is to be limited in its operation to two years. So far as that concession extends, we are grateful for it, but our gratitude would have been greater if the original Amendment had been accepted.
    4.38 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure the Committee is grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having accepted what he considers a sensible form of the Amendment. Naturally nobody expects a Government with great powers like this Government completely to adopt the views put forward by the Opposition, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has eased the situation considerably by making this temporary and not a piece of permanent legislation. I do not think it will be possible not to move any of the remaining Amendments, because there are points which we think, genuinely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would like to have drawn to his attention with regard to the possible administration of the Bill, but I dare say, in the circumstances, it will not be necessary for us to divide on many of the Amendments.
    Mr. D. MASON: Before I ask leave to withdraw—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has nothing to withdraw.
    Mr. DENMAN: May I add my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I doubt if the acceptance of the Amendment will be the best way of treating the matter. When we come—
    The CHAIRMAN: I was about to make the suggestion to the Committee that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might perhaps come better in the form of a new Clause. There is an Amendment to that effect on the Paper, and, while I am not suggesting that the Government's Amendment should necessarily be in those words, that form might be the more satisfactory method of dealing with the question.
    Mr. DENMAN: Thank you, Sir Dennis, for making my point.
    Major NATHAN: May I be allowed to withdraw my Motion?
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. MASON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, after the second "due," to insert:
    "to a national of that foreign country."
    998
    We are anxious in this Clause that debts due to be paid shall be debts due to be paid to nationals of the country against which the Order is to apply, and we have in mind the possibility of a debt being contracted in regard to goods grown, produced, or manufactured, or consigned from any foreign country which did not, in the last transaction, belong to a national of that country, and because of the possibility of a national of another country acquiring goods grown or produced in the country to which the Order relates, we wish to protect that individual exporter of goods to this country from having to suffer the loss of the payment which has been made to the Clearing Office. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) referred last night to the case of a Dutchman who might have acquired a consignment of German produce, which was later sold to this country and which required to be paid for from this country, and unless special protection were made in such a case, he would be subject to a reduction of 20 per cent. at the Clearing Office, leaving him with only 80 per cent. of the value of the goods exported or of the debt due to him. One could multiply such cases, but I will content myself with mentioning that one and moving my Amendment.
    4.43 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not sure that the hon. Member has quite appreciated what would be the result of accepting his Amendment, which would confine the operation of the Clause to a national of the country in question and, therefore, to a German. The first result would be that every German exporter would appoint an agent in another country, and the whole purpose of the Clause would be destroyed. With regard to the fears which he expressed in the latter part of his speech, I think that point will be raised again by an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), in page 2, line 16, which proposes a system of indemnity, and I would suggest to the hon. Member that his point can be dealt with on that Amendment, when I think he will find that my hon. and learned Friend has a satisfactory answer to make.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: In view of the possibility of the point being met later, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.45 p.m.
    Sir S. GRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, to leave out from "Kingdom" to the end of the Subsection.
    This Amendment raises the whole question of how many and what classes of indebtedness are intended to be dealt with under the Clearing Office arrangement. Sub-section (2) divides itself into two halves. The first half deals with debts due or to become due, in respect of goods, or any class or description of goods, grown, produced or manufactured in, a foreign country and imported into the United Kingdom. The second half, which I am moving to omit, deals with debts due, or to become due to, or for the benefit of, persons ordinarily resident or ordinarily carrying on business in a foreign country, or to any class of any such debts as aforesaid.
    That second class of debts are debts which do not arise in respect of what, roughly, may be called the commercial transaction in the export and import of goods. They will include all that class of debts which the Financial Secretary stated yesterday were not intended to be dealt with under the scheme in the first section. They also include a number of other debts and payments, including payments by trustees to beneficiaries ordinarily resident in Germany, and a great many other cases of that kind. The reason why we are moving to omit these words is in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have an opportunity of giving to the Committee an explanation of the real scope which it is intended to give to the collection of debts by the clearing house. We think that, on the whole, unless the scope can be better defined, it would be better to limit it to the debts due in respect of goods in the first part of the Sub-section, and to omit the debts in the second part, a large portion of which it is already admitted by the Financial Secretary will not be subject to a charge, owing to the extraordinary commercial and other inconveniences that would arise.
    4.48 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is perfectly true that my hon. Friend the Financial
    1000
    Secretary made a definite statement that it was not proposed to include within the clearing, if we had to adopt a clearing office, anything but the particular value of German goods imported into this country, and that all financial remittances, bank balances, insurance payments and so forth would be excluded from the operation of the clearing. That declaration still stands, but I do not want to put that declaration into the Bill, because although it represents the position at the present time, we do not quite know what may be the position at some later date. We have to bear in mind that in Germany, as in many other foreign countries, there are the most drastic powers of control of exchange, and I do not like the idea of depriving ourselves of the power of retaliating in kind, if we must do so, in circumstances which I hope may never arise but which one cannot positively say will never arise. Therefore, I hope the Committee will be content with the statement of the position as it stands to-day and will not press upon us any further to diminish the powers we are taking in the Bill in a way which might perhaps hamper us at a later stage.
    4.50 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: The Amendment is really related to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on behalf of the Government, first at Question Time yesterday, and, secondly, at the end of his speech last night. At Question Time, in answer to a question put by me, he gave information on a question of fact, and then, although it had no relation to the question I asked, he took the opportunity, to use his own words,
    "to make it clear that there is no intention of treating bank balances as debts to be cleared or to use the powers of the Debts Clearing Office and Imports Restrictions Reprisals Bill so as to interfere with them in any way."
    That statement having been made, and realising at once the importance of it, and with the hope of resolving any possible ambiguity, I put a supplementary question, to clear up the situation as well as I could, and my hon. Friend went on to say, in reply to my supplementary:
    "There is no intention to deal with the matter in the way which he fears. It is permissive."
    I was rather persistent, and I asked for a reassurance. The Financial Secretary replied:

    1001
    "If the hon. Gentleman desires that reassurance, I can solemly inform him that what I have said once is true but I will say it again, and what I say twice is equally true."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1934; cols. 773–4, Vol. 291.]
    From what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said just now, if I understood him correctly, it is not equally true. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has declined, for the reason he has given to the House, to accept an Amendment which would exclude these bank balances. Without such an Amendment bank balances will be included within the purview of any order which may be made, subject to the operations of the Bill. The Financial Secretary, at the conclusion of his speech last night, said:
    "We do not intend to include in the clearing, bankers' balances, insurance payments, or financial remittances, but merely debts due in regard to German goods exported after the 1st July."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1934; col. 867, Vol. 291.]
    This Amendment is framed as nearly as possible in the very words of the commitment accepted by the Financial Secretary yesterday. That commitment the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I understood him aright, declines to put into the terms of the Bill, for the reason that, although he is prepared to accept that commitment so far as prevailing circumstances are concerned, circumstances may arise at some later date in which he may feel that these powers should be exercised. That is not a commitment at all, except of a most limited and restricted character. We are, therefore, justified in the Amendment after the broad statement made not once but twice by the Financial Secretary yesterday, and repeated in the Second Beading Debate, that bank balances will not come under the operation of the Bill, and after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is not prepared to implement that statement by putting it into the terms of the Bill, because he thinks, or he fears, or he apprehends that a time may come in the future, be it near or remote, when this Bill will be required to operate so as to cover these particular classes of property. I say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any persons engaged in business or in the commerce of everyday trading will be placed at the peril of having their bank balances estreated by virtiue of an Order overnight, and that includes insurance policies and other classes of
    1002
    property in the nature of investment. That is a very grave situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer places the commercial community in this country and abroad. It will have grave repercussions internationally.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is another Amendment later at the bottom of page 1556, to which I understand the hon. and gallant Member attaches some importance. That Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member and other hon. Members—In page 2, line 38, at the end to insert:
    "but no such order shall apply to debts due or to become due arising out of the relationship of banker and customer or insurer and insured or out of any transactions other than commercial transactions,"—
    deals with the matter which the hon. and gallant Member is now discussing. After listening to the hon. and gallant Member, I was almost obliged to think that he had anticipated the point at which the Committee had arrived and was speaking to that Amendment. We cannot have the discussion now and again on the hon. and gallant Member's later Amendment. If we discuss the matter now I do not think I should be able to select the later Amendment.
    Major NATHAN: I am much obliged to you for drawing attention to the other Amendment. I had put it down later than I intended. I am in your hands and in the hands of the Committee, but, in view of what you have said, I suggest that we should debate the matter now, and it may be that the other Amendment can be moved formally at a later stage.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that course is open to the hon. and gallant Member. I make a proposal for his consideration that this Amendment might be withdrawn and the point discussed on the second one when we come to it.
    Major NATHAN: In those circumstances I should withdraw this Amendment.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Having regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.58 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. EVANS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "ordinarily resident or."

    1003
    I move this Amendment mainly to provide the Government with an opportunity of giving an explanation. We have a certain amount of difficulty in regard to the classification of certain foreign nationals in this country. We find it rather difficult to grasp the precise significance of "ordinarily resident." Take the position of those refugees, who have found asylum in this country and are temporarily employed at our universities. There is nothing in the Bill which will prevent the sequestration of 20 per cent. of the salaries of those persons. I have no doubt that it is not the intention of the Treasury to act in any fatuous or spiteful way, but I should like to be told whether Such people would come within the category of "ordinarily resident." There are other classes of people and I should like to know whether they come within that category. I refer to those Germans who reside in this country but whose normal domicile is in Germany. They spend the greater part of their time here. Would any debts due to them on account of transactions in this country, without any reference at all to the importation of goods from Germany, but ordinary commercial transactions in this country, be subject to a charge of 20 per cent., or whatever percentge may be fixed as the clearing house rate? There is much that needs elucidation. I do not move the Amendment in order to weaken the hands of the Government. Certain elasticity is necessary in a matter like this. But there is a good deal of apprehension amongst various classes of people, and I would like a statement from the Government to elucidate the position.
    5.1 p.m.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): This is really in one form a continuation of the discussion that was just abbreviated. The words "ordinarily resident" are necessary, as otherwise persons would be appointed as agents to receive payment and thus would deprive us of the means of redress. But I can repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that clearing will be operative on the basis of 20 per cent. of the Customs value of the goods in the first instance, and will not in the first instance be applied to bank debts or any other kind of debts. So far as that is 'a reassurance to the hon. Gentleman I beg to give it.
    5.2 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: That is a most unsatisfactory answer, because this part of the Clause is not dealing with the ordinary commercial side. The hon. Gentleman said that this was to deal with the case where goods were sold through a third party—
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I said that the wider words were being taken, that this was the part of the Clause which gives the wider powers of which the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) are afraid. It gives the power over debts, whether bank debts or otherwise; but I gave the assurance asked for, that in the first instance the clearing would only be applied in respect of goods.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: That does not in the least answer the question which was asked, namely, what is meant by persons "ordinarily resident"? Take the case of a German who comes to this country, who plays bridge with the Financial Secretary at the Ritz, and the hon. Gentleman loses. Is the hon. Gentleman to settle that claim less 20 per cent.? Take the case of a waiter who comes over for a short period of time in order to learn English. He is "ordinarily resident" in Germany. When one tips him, has 20 per cent. to be sent up to the clearing house? Those are the sorts of questions that we have in mind. They can be put in more commercial terms. Is it intended to cover by this, first of all, the German who is out of Germany but is still "ordinarily resident" in Germany, though he may be here for a year or a couple of years? He may carry on a business here. He may have a business in the city of London, not a limited company but a business which he owns. But he is "ordinarily resident" in Germany. That business collects payment for him. Has he to pay 20 per cent. of it to the clearing house? Then take another case. Suppose you have an Englishman who is the agent of a British firm in Berlin and has resided there five or six or seven years— the agent for some big English firm who has become "ordinarily resident" in Germany. The English company transmit his salary from this country to Germany. Have they to send 20 per cent of it every time to the clearing house as being a debt payable to a person "ordinarily resident" in Germany?

    1005
    There are a great number of cases of that type which clearly have not been thought of and as to which there is great uncertainty amongst those people who have had an opportunity of looking at this Bill, though very few in the country generally have had that opportunity. People are disturbed to know whether they will be caught by this Clause. The Financial Secretary will notice that all that the order can do is to distinguish between "any class of any such debts as aforesaid". He can only classify in his order as he has classified in the Schedule. He cannot introduce any fresh classification into the debts. Therefore he cannot exclude the payments, for instance, of the English firm to its agent who is "ordinarily resident" in Germany. He has to include them if he includes generally debts which are payable to persons "ordinarily resident" in Germany. After this Bill is passed it will be no good for him to say, "We propose to make an order which will exclude this particular type, because it is a hardship." He will not be able to do that because he has no power under the Bill to do it. All he can do is to apply the Clause to "any class of any such debts as aforesaid." If it is not in one of the classifications which precede these words he has not power to include or exclude it by the order. I beg the Financial Secretary to give a more lucid explanation of what it is intended to cover. There are a great many people who are anxious to know.
    5.8 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: This matter gravely affects a considerable number of people. Hon. Members are familiar with the deplorable situation of the Jews, my coreligionists, in Germany. A number of Jews from Germany have been permitted to take refuge in this country. They have a certain amount of money which has been invested or put into banks or into businesses, or is in the hands of persons. Also a number of Jews who have left Germany have found refuge in other countries of Europe, but have nevertheless put money into English banks and English businesses. I ask the Financial Secretary whether those who have left Germany in such circumstances would be deemed to be persons "ordinarily resident" in Germany. They have left Germany as refugees and they are
    1006
    perhaps unlikely to return within measurable time.
    5.9 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Sub-section of the Clause, of course, falls into two parts. It is concerned with debts due in respect of goods and it is concerned with other kinds of debts. In both cases we are concerned with the remittance of money to Germany. The refugees to whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers presumably do not intend to send money to Germany.
    Major NATHAN: The second leg of the Clause refers not to where they are but only to "ordinarily resident." That term is very well known to lawyers. For instance it is in the Income Tax Acts. One is liable for Income Tax if "ordinarily resident" in this country, though one may be outside this country at any particular time. I may be putting a very limited case as regards the German refugees who may or may not come within the description of "ordinarily resident," but what is the Government view in regard to that?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I quite agree, and there never has been any concealment of the fact, that this is drawn in the widest possible terms. It is possible for the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) to devise a number of hypothetical instances and to ask how they will be the subject of an Order. If hon. Members will look at Clause 3 they will see that
    "An Order made under either of the fore-going sections may contain such provisions as appear to the Treasury or, as the case may be, to the Board of Trade, to be necessary or expedient for securing the due operation and enforcement of this Act and Of the Order and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, may contain provisions with respect to any of the matters or for any of the purposes specified in the Schedule to this Act."
    The Order may contain such provisions as are necessary for securing the due operation and enforcement of this Act, but, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, may contain provisions with respect to any of the matters or for any of the purposes specified in the Schedule to this Act. I am advised that the Order will define the circumstances in which the clearing is to take place and will contain all the necessary

    1007
    provisions. It is useful to be warned of the kind of cases that the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, but surely the Committee is prepared to accept the assurance that in the first instance the clearing is only to apply in respect of goods and will not apply in respect of other matters. Any Order which takes the procedure of the clearing further than that will be the subject of discussion in this House.
    5.12 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am very sorry to be persistent, but the matter is of such great importance that people ought to understand it. The Financial Secretary calls in aid Clause 3, which is the usual Clause dealing with ancillary matters that it is necessary to put in the Order. The Clause which gives him power to make an Order and the thing which can be put into the Order is the Sub-section of Clause 1 which we are now discussing. An Order made under this Sub-section may apply to all debts due. In that case the hon. Gentleman can only make an Order to include everything. As an alternative, the last words of the Sub-section, "or to any class of any such debts as aforesaid," he can either apply to all or to a class. As I understand a class the classification must be some classification which precedes the words "or to any class." The way you can judge what a class is meant to be is to look and see how the things have been classified in the preceding part. The learned Solicitor-General shakes his head, and I shall therefore be glad to hear his views.
    How is one to ascertain what was the intention of Parliament as regards classification? The word "class" is used, and the court would have to interpret it. An Order would be ultra vires if it dealt with matters with which it was not entitled to deal. It can either deal with all the debts or with any class. All debts would be quite simple, and anyone could understand it. Any class must mean some method of classification. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember the difficulties on the question of the classification of coal in the Act of 1930, where Orders could be made as regards the fixing of prices for different classes of coal. The classes of coal had to be specifically defined in the Act in order to avoid raising a difficulty as to what was meant by "class." As I read this
    1008
    Sub-section the only place in which one can ascertain what Parliament had in its mind when it was passing the Clause, is in the words that precede these words; there is nothing afterwards. The classification that precedes is quite clear. It is the classification of debts arising from goods and debts arising from other matters. Therefore any "class" would mean that you can either make the Act applicable to debts arising from goods or debts arising from other matters.
    5.15 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I think I can remove the apprehensions expressed by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). First of all, if one considers the words of the Sub-section, leaving out for a moment the words "to any class," it is plain that there will be a power to deal with one or all of the various debts because the words are "all debts." The word "all" may apply to
    "all debts due, or to become due, in respect of goods, or any class or description of goods, grown, produced or manufactured in, or consigned from that foreign country and imported into the United Kingdom,"
    or to all debts
    "due or to become due to, or for the benefit of, persons ordinarily resident or ordinarily carrying on business in that foreign country."
    I will pause there. In my submission, that would enable you to deal with one class, or the other class, or both classes. Now I come to the last words. The hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, reads them as if, instead of being "or to any class of any such debts," they were "or to any such class of the aforesaid debts." The word "such" is not related to class, but to debts.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Where is the classification?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The classification will appear in the Order. The Sub-section gives powers to deal with two particular classes of debts, one or the other or both. It can be made to apply to any class, and I should have thought that it gave power to classify the debts according to whatever circumstances seemed to the Commissioners to be necessary or expedient under the power which they have under Clause 3. So far as the Amendment is concerned, which, after all, is what we are discussing, I should

    1009
    have thought that it was obvious that words like "ordinarily resident" could be defined in the Order for the purposes of the Order. An Order of this kind would not be bound to take the definitions in other Acts, and these words could clearly be defined in the Order. They would avoid the case of the German waiter and such other cases as are outside the general intention of the Bill, which is to deal with transmissions of money from one currency to another currency.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think that either the Financial Secretary or the Solicitor-General has really answered the question. All they have shown are good intentions, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as is the road to bad law. The hon. Gentleman says that we should have an explanation in the order of "ordinarily resident." I do not know where he gets that from at all. The Clause refers to a class of "such debts" and does not say anything about the class of such persons. The point we have been arguing is, who are the persons ordinarily resident? A person may be owed a debt for salary or a gambling debt or anything you like, and you may classify them as certain sorts of debts, but I do not see how you are going to have a long list in the order and say that ordinarily resident persons are not this, that and the other and bring it under the words of this Subsection. That would be all right if it said that it should apply to certain debtors. It does not say that. It is entirely in regard to debts. I do not think our point has been in the least answered. The admirable intentions of the Financial Secretary are very nice, but they do not carry us any further.
    5.21 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: May I make a suggestion to the Government to enable us to bring this discussion to an end and to get on to other matters? I am not sure that all hon. Members are satisfied with the explanation of the Solicitor-General. We all accept the intention of the Government that the cases of hardship suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) should be avoided, and that refugees from Germany and other such cases should not be penalised in
    1010
    any way under this Bill. The question arises whether, if this Sub-section is passed, the Government will really have legal power to make an Order which will place upon the words "ordinarily resident" such definition as they think would be desirable. They can, of course, define the different classes of debts. The Solicitor-General made that quite clear, and there is power in this Bill to enable them to do so, but can you define different classes of residents? It might be held that if an Act of Parliament says "ordinarily resident" the accepted connotation of that term must be used. You cannot give any fresh definition by an administrative order, because that would mean the executive assuming powers which really belonged to Parliament. The suggestion I desire to make is that, since we are all at one in the purpose we have in view, the Government should look more closely at the points that have been raised, and, if they are advised that it would be desirable that the words "ordinarily resident" should also be open to classification as well as debts, they should put an Amendment in the Bill in another place accordingly.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I certainly accept it and give the assurance that we will look further into the point, and, if necessary, get an Amendment moved in another place.
    Mr. R. EVANS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.24 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
    "Provided that no Order made under this Section shall apply to debts due or to become due to persons ordinarily resident or ordinarily carrying on business in the United Kingdom, or to British subjects wherever resident, or to persons of British domicile (original or acquired), or to corporations incorporated by or under the laws of the United Kingdom, or of a country forming part of the British Empire as denned in the Import Duties Act, 1932, or to persons who are afforded His Majesty's protection and ordinarily reside, or ordinarily carry on business, in such a country."
    I regret that the Amendment is in manuscript and is not on the Paper, but

    1011
    there has been very little time to consider Amendments. With one exception, to which I will draw the attention of the Committee, the words are taken from the definition in paragraph (i) of Sub-section (6) of the Clause. The addition is the words "to persons of British domicile, original or acquired." It is a rather complicated formula, and I can explain the purpose of it perfectly simply. The Subsection which we are discussing relates to debts which may be due to persons ordinarily resident or carrying on business in a foreign country. My Amendment says, in effect, that if the debts are due to a British subject they shall continue to be payable to him and that the British subject who happens to be ordinarily resident in Germany or carrying on business there shall not for that reason be deprived of payment. If the payment due to him were made to the Clearing Office, he would either have this asset confiscated, as would be the case if there were no agreement with the German Government, or he would have to look to the German Government for compensation and receive German marks instead of British sterling to which he is entitled. I assumed when this Amendment was drafted that the Sub-section would remain as it appears in the Bill, and my Amendment is an addition to the Sub-section on that footing.
    In making the addition "persons of British domicile, original or acquired," I had a practical case in mind. I am only dealing with Amendments from the point of view of my own practical experience. It is the case of an English woman benefiting under a British will made by a British testator, who married a German and is ordinarily resident in Germany. Acquiring under British law the domicile of her husband, she is domiciled in Germany and certainly comes within the purview of this Sub-section. The House would hesitate before depriving a British-born subject under such circumstances of the right to receive the income left to her by her British father in a British will derived from British property. Not only should British subjects be exempted, but also those whose domicile of origin is British. Under Sub-section (6) of this Clause, when the money is collected through the Clearing Office, it is distributable among a certain class of persons,
    1012
    and included in that class would be those who come within the scope of my Amendment. It will be absurd to take from them through the Clearing Office and to give to them the possibility merely of receiving under paragraph (i) of Subsection (6).
    I cannot think it is the intention of the Government that British subjects who happen to be ordinarily resident or carrying on business in Germany should be subjected to the same disadvantages as German subjects carrying on business or ordinarily resident in Germany. It would be repugnant to hon. Members, and not least to right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench, that British subjects, because they happen to be living in one of 29 countries to which the Bill may be made applicable, should have to run the risk ultimately of not having the money due to them from this country, whether in respect of goods or otherwise, but that it should be paid to the Clearing Office instead of to them direct, and treated as if they were actually subjects of a recalcitrant Government.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee will, I am afraid, be at some disadvantage in considering this rather long Amendment, seeing that it does not appear on the Paper, but the effect of it is to provide that the clearing office shall not be entitled to collect debts which are due to British subjects, wherever they may be resident, or to persons who are in the United Kingdom. I thought the hon. Member did not make out a very convincing case for his Amendment. Surely a person who is resident in a foreign country in order to do business there does not expect to be relieved from the laws of that country and to remain under the laws of his own country; nor can he expect to be relieved from any disabilities which may fall upon that country by reason of the action of its Government. A persons doing business in a foreign country must accept the conditions of that country. In any event, apart from the merits of the case which the hon. Member has put forward, the effect of his Amendment, if carried, would make it perfectly easy for the whole purpose of the Clause to be destroyed, because any German exporter would only have to make his debts due to a British subject, and at once he would be relieved of the operation of the Clause.
    5.32 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: May I point out that His Majesty's representatives in Berlin are liable to the effects of this Clause, because they are ordinarily resident in Germany, and so are the British Consular officials resident there. It applies to all persons and applies to ordinary salaries. It applies to persons sent to Germany by British firms to represent them there. I do not think my right hon. Friend can have appreciated fully the implications of the wide provisions of this Sub-section as it stands.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has not appreciated the fact that the Bill is permissive, and that the operation of the Bill does not begin until an Order is made; and, therefore, although he may invent all sorts of absurdities which he says are possible under the Bill, it does not follow that they will be committed.
    Major NATHAN: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has pointed out, I think conclusively, that although it is true that the making of an Order is permissive what may or may not go in the Order is limited; only that may go in which is defined in the Bill. The class of debt comprised in the Bill is, I think, extremely limited, and there is no possibility of classifying under the terms of the Bill the persons to whom the Order is to apply.
    The CHAIRMAN: Are we not going back to an Amendment which has been already disposed of?
    Amendment negatived.
    5.35 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID EVANS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "that debt, or."
    In moving this Amendment I should like at the same time to refer to a subsequent Amendment of mine on the Paper:
    In page 2, line 9, after "part," insert "not exceeding twenty per cent. of such debt."
    If those two Amendments were accepted the Sub-section would read:
    "pay such part, not exceeding twenty per cent. of such debt."
    The object of the Amendment is that the amount to be paid by the importer and be collected should be restricted to 20 per cent. of the debt. Under the
    1014
    other provisions of the Bill it might be that 20 per cent. of the value, as was indicated yesterday, was in the first instance to be collected in order to meet this debt. It is understood that 20 per cent. was fixed probably in order to cover the amount required to meet the interest on these loans. I move this Amendment particularly in order to make the procedure and the machinery of the Bill as little onerous as possible to the trading community, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and the Financial Secretary will appreciate that unless this machinery works smoothly it may cause great disturbance to the import trade. One thing it might do would be to put a financial liability on a person before it became due. It may be that the Order will compel an importer to pay this amount in cash, because it is not yet clear, although we shall know later, whether the Order makes any alternative provision. In order to be quite sure on that point I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is only reasonable that this amount should be limited to 20 per cent. That would relieve the trading community of a considerable burden which might be imposed upon them.
    5.37 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member reverts in this Amendment to a subject which occupied a large part of the discussion yesterday. In this Bill we take full power to deal with all contingencies as they arise. We take full power over the debts due. The purpose of this Amendment is to limit the amount paid to the Clearing Office to not more than 20 per cent. of what is due. As was explained yesterday, and as has been reiterated to-day, we intend to exact 20 per cent. only of the Customs value of the goods. That will be paid to the Clearing Office. That should work smoothly, and there should be no interference with normal trade. If, however, Germany were to take certain other steps against us which might embarrass our trade, it might become necessary for us to take more than 20 per cent., and, if this Amendment were accepted, our powers would be extremely limited, and the whole purpose of the Bill would be ineffectual. I cannot do more than explain what the scheme will be in its initial stages and ask the Committee, in

    1015
    view of the fact that the time is now limited, to give us such powers to deal with these cases as other countries have, and I am sure that in these circumstances the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
    Mr. D. EVANS: In view of that explanation, and particularly in view of the time limit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.40 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after "otherwise," to insert:
    "as if in respect thereof the Clearing Office were subrogated to the rights of the person to whom but for such order the debt would be payable."
    The point of this Amendment can be put quite shortly. Under the Bill as drawn the English debtor becomes liable to pay in accordance with the terms of the Order, and to pay immediately. I do not think it can be the, intention of the House that the Clearing Office or the British Government should be in any better or different position in regard to payment than the person abroad to whom the debt is actually due, and I cannot think that the Government wish to alter the position of the British purchaser of the goods. What the Government want to ensure is that instead of the foreign vendor getting the purchase price the money shall be paid to the Clearing Office. A British purchaser when he buys goods does so upon certain specified terms as to the manner and time of payment. They have all been the subject of bargain and contract. I will put to the Solicitor-General the sort of case with which he and I are very familiar. It may happen that goods are brought on three months terms. Delivery is taken of the goods, and after the goods have been delivered it is found that they are in some respects defective, and an action for damages arises on the part of the British purchaser. What he very often does in such a case is to retain, and properly so, the purchase price or part of it to guard the damages which he has suffered, but under this Bill as drawn the British purchaser will have to pay the money to the Clearing Office. If he has suffered any damage by reason of the defective quality or late delivery of the
    1016
    goods, while it is true that he will have his claim against the German vendor he will be prejudiced in his chance of recovering anything because he will have parted with that which is, in a sense, the security for his damages, and that is the purchase price for the goods, which he is under no obligation to pay for another three months.
    Quite shortly, the object of this Amendment is to secure that the British Government are put in the same position, neither better nor worse, towards the British purchaser of the goods as the German vendor of the goods would be in. In other words, the British purchaser is not to be advantaged nor is he to be prejudiced. By subrogation, as the Committee will understand, is meant simply that the Government is to stand in the shoes of the foreign vendor. I do not think the Government mean more than that.
    5.45 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Amendment of the hon. Member raises two points. So far as the first point is concerned—and it may be really the only point covered by his Amendment—his question was: Has the Clearing Office under this Clause the right to demand payment when payment would not be due under the contract? As the Clause is drafted, the Clearing Office does not get any right until the debt is or becomes due. The words of the Clause are:
    "Every person from whom any debt to which the order applies is or becomes due shall, subject to such exceptions and conditions, and at such time and in such manner, as may be specified in the order, pay that debt, or such part thereof as may be so specified, to the Clearing Oxce."
    That is based upon the debt becoming due. To find out whether a debt is or is becoming due you must look at the original transaction out of which the debt arises.
    I think that meets the point which is raised with regard to the subrogation of the rights of such persons "to whom, but for such order, the debt would be payable." It is true that under the next Sub-section there is power to demand payment or security, in order to get goods through the Customs, and the point which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind arises more under that Sub-section than under this. The hon.

    1017
    and gallant Member will see that there is power for the importer to get his goods cleared if the Clearing Office give him a certificate that they claim no payment in respect of the goods for that time. As in many other parts of the Bill, the powers taken are very wide. There is a point which is worth bearing in mind on this and upon the next Amendment. So far as the future is concerned, all transactions will be entered into with the knowledge that part of the debt may be claimed. The cases where there will be hardships will be those where contracts have been entered into in the past before the provisions of this Bill were foreseen. What we can do is to see that there is administratively the necessary power to give proper relief in hard cases, in respect to which the power which may exist in the Bill is not and shall not be exercised.
    The second point which the hon. and gallant Member made was with regard to a possible claim for damages. That will have to be litigated of course, as between the vendor and the purchaser, by arbitration or by the courts, or by whatever it may be. It is hoped that even if this machinery has to be resorted to, that will he done under agreement. If, as the result of litigation of that kind, it became clear that although payment had been made there was a counterclaim for damages, that matter would certainly need adjusting. There are express words in the Clause making the necessary adjustments in regard to overpayments, and there is the wider discretion under which repayments can be made in proper cases. Where a man paid £1,000 as the purchase price of goods which, not being in accordance with the contract, were worth only £400, for the purposes of this Bill there would have been an over-payment; the Clearing Office would have had a sum equal to 20 per cent. of £600 more than on balance is due from the British importer to the German exporter. I hope that in view of these considerations the hon. and gallant Member may withdraw his Amendment.
    Major NATHAN: In view of the very full and courteous explanation which has just been given by the Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave the withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.48 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, at the end, to insert
    "and the Clearing Office shall indemnify such person against all claims, demands damages, costs, charges, and expenses which such person shall be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction in the United Kingdom or any other country to be liable to pay or suffer by reason of or arising directly or indirectly out of failure by reason of compliance with au order under this Act to pay a debt due to the person to whom but for such order the same would have been payable."
    On a point of Order. Before I speak to this Amendment, may I ask how the position stands in regard to the manuscript Amendment on the same point?
    The CHAIRMAN: The manuscript Amendment, being later than the Amendment on the Order Paper, will come on later.
    Major NATHAN: I was only wishing to preserve it.
    The CHAIRMAN: Both Amendments are additions and, if made, would follow each other.
    Major NATHAN: The Amendment which I am now moving is the one to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some reference earlier. It provides that the Clearing Office shall indemnify against a second payment any person who has paid money to the Clearing Office and has been forced to pay it over again elsewhere. That is putting it broadly. I hope the Solicitor-General will think that I am putting it fairly. The Amendment is designed to meet the case which I placed before the House yesterday. You have your German who has sold goods to a merchant in this country, and the merchant thereupon becomes indebted to Germany in respect of the goods. That debt has to be paid to the Clearing Office. On my assumption, which is based upon actual cases, the English firm is at the risk of having its property arrested in certain foreign countries, of which Germany is one, and of being mulcted in the price of the goods over again. The object of the Sub-section is to see that he does not pay twice, and that, if a court of competent jurisdiction abroad should award against him, and he has to pay a second time, to suffer damages or pay any cost in the matter, it shall be collected out of the Clearing Office fund from British debtors. That loss has to be made good to the British purchaser.

    1019
    In an earlier part of the Debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a reference, which I did not quite follow, in regard to this Amendment as satisfying the object of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell). The Chancellor's observation must have been based upon a misapprehension, because the hon. Member for Gower dealt with the position in which the debt was due to a German national. [Interruption.] I am using the term "German" because it is so much simpler to say "a German national." The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Amendment which I am now moving covered that case, but that must have been a misapprehension because it does not cover that case at all. My Amendment is merely designed to protect the British purchaser who happens to be in this country, has paid money to the Clearing Office and, for some reason or another, is ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction elsewhere to pay again. I do not think the Government will wish to put a purchaser to that risk.
    5.56 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Would the Solicitor-General be good enough to tell us what would be the position, if a judgment were obtained in, let me say, Germany against such a person, as regards recovery in this country on that foreign judgment? I think that under the Foreign Judgments Act it is now possible to obtain recovery of a judgment in Germany given by a duly authorised court of competent-jurisdiction upon a claim made in Germany against a British national. Suppose that as a result of the Clearing House taking 20 per cent.—or let us presume 100 per cent., and take an extreme case—the German national takes proceedings in Germany and recovers judgment. With his judgment, he comes to these courts and says, "I demand the execution of my judgment against the British citizen." What would be the position? The words of the Clause seem to absolve the British national from the effects of the German judgment, and from any action in this country.
    5.57 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I reply to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)? Although the Foreign Judg
    1020
    ments Act is on the Statute Book, it does not come into operation until a convention has been made. No convention has been made, and, in these circumstances, the hon. and learned Member will agree, the point is academic. It is one which nevertheless will be borne in mind.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the Solicitor-General. I was not aware of that in regard to Germany, but I believe there are countries with which conventions have been made.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL The SOLICITOR-GENERAL indicated dissent.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I was under the impression that there were. A convention obviously might be made, because that is the object of the Act. The Germans might bring the action in France and get a judgment there, if the debtor has business in many countries. The judgment could then be enforced in this country. It might not necessarily arise with Germany itself, but with any of the surrounding countries with whom we had a convention. If we have no convention, the point will not immediately arise, but I am glad that the Solicitor-General will bear it in mind.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have in mind various grounds on which a judgment could be enforced and an Order obtained, but the hon. and learned Gentleman would not expect me be to be able to answer straight away in regard to various and complicated cases on a somewhat new situation. So far as this Amendment is concerned, the point was very clearly put by the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). May I again remind the Committee of the point which I made on the last Amendment that, so far as the future is concerned, contracts can and will be made having regard to the position created either by the possibility of an Order or by an Order. It would be perfectly possible for people in their business dealings to safeguard their position with regard to this 20 per cent., so as to make it clear on the face of the contract that no action could be brought under the contract because the 20 per cent. is, in accordance with the law of the country where the debtor lives, paid to the Clearing Office.
    Therefore, the scope of this Amendment, which raises, of course, an im-

    1021
    portant point, is, I think, confined to contracts entered into in ignorance of this Bill. The Bill says that payment to the Clearing Office is a good discharge; that is to say, by the law of the country where the debt is payable, 20 per cent. of it has been discharged. I do not want to go into the subleties of what is called private international law, but undoubtedly the principle applied by the courts of all these countries is to recognise that debts are discharged if, by the laws of the country where they are payable, they have been discharged in whole or in part.
    Major NATHAN: Suppose the debt is payable in Germany?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That point will, no doubt, arise. One objection to accepting this Amendment is that it would expressly contemplate—and I do not think the Committee would desire this for a moment—that the courts of other countries would not recognise as a good discharge what we are saying by our law shall be a good discharge. I think it would be quite improper and wrong to put on our own Statute Book words which definitely contemplated a position of that kind. Although I am prepared to admit that the laws of some countries in certain circumstances, or, indeed, as a result of special legislation by way of reprisals, might refuse to recognise the discharge of this 20 per cent., it would be quite wrong for us to put any words of this kind on our Statute Book. I can only repeat to the hon. Member what I said in substance on the earlier Amendment, namely, that we are grateful to him and other hon. Members for raising points and cases of this kind which require consideration, and which, if they should occur, will require proper administrative elasticity. There is the difficulty about this, as about some other Amendments, that to put them in would be to some extent inviting or making possible evasion, which is undesirable. I should like to assure the hon. Member and the Committee that it is no intention of the Government that, under this Bill, bondholders should in effect be financed by traders paying their debts twice over, and that we are satisfied that there will be a sufficient elasticity of administration under the Bill as drafted, and under an Order if it be made, to enable in appropriate circum
    1022
    stances repayments to be made and hard cases to be considered, so that that very undesirable result may not arise. I hope that with this explanation my hon. Friend may be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
    6.4 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely the Solicitor-General will agree that, if a contract were made in Germany for payment in German marks by someone in this country, that would be a debt arising in Germany and would be subject to the domestic law of Germany, and that in a case of that kind the courts in Germany would accept jurisdiction and English courts would not. Therefore, this sort of case would arise wherever contracts were made in Germany involving payment in German marks, which is, of course, a fairly common case. But I understand now that the Government are giving an assurance or an undertaking that, in any such cases where a person has a claim made against him as a result of which he is bound to pay costs, expenses and so on, with regard to any money which has been paid into the Clearing Office, that money will be made good to him, and he will not suffer as a result.
    6.6 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not put into my mouth words which I did not utter. I said that it was not our intention in any sense that bondholders should benefit in effect by traders having to pay part of their debts twice over, and we were satisfied that there was sufficient elasticity in the Bill to enable hard cases of this kind to be dealt with administratively. I do not want to allow to pass without comment the words which the hon. and learned Gentleman has used, because I think they may have gone further and into rather more detail than I intended. So far as the point of law is concerned, I yield to him his superiority of knowledge of that branch of the law, but I think he will agree that in a great many cases the ordinary rule that the law applies where payment is to be made is applicable, and we want to preserve the implication to that effect.
    Major NATHAN: Does that mean that the Government, broadly speaking, are going to indemnify British purchasers against any ill result that may follow,

    1023
    as a result of a foreign judgment, by reason of their having paid the Clearing House?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, extremely undesirable to use words of such generality that they may be fixed upon afterwards as covering cases without a certain degree of investigation and so on. I hope he will be satisfied with my statement that it is not our intention that we should secure money as a result of British traders having to pay their debts twice over, and we are satisfied that there is sufficient elasticity to prevent that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.9 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that no person shall be called upon to pay to the Clearing Office under an Order made by virtue of this Section an amount greater than the balance appearing after setting off against any debts due or to become due as aforesaid from him the amount of any debts due or to become due to him from persons ordinarily resident or ordinarily carrying on business in the foreign country to which the Order applies."
    I have made a number of efforts this afternoon, to say nothing of yesterday, to bring to the notice of the Government the risks and dangers to which British subjects are exposed by this Bill. The Government have conceded most of my points, but have refused to do anything to ameliorate these difficulties and dangers. I hope I may be more successful this time. The object of this Amendment, the phraseology of which is necessarily rather long and unwieldy, is simply to ensure that, where a British subject is a debtor to Germany and is also a British creditor of Germany, he shall not have to pay what he owes and whistle for what is owed to him, but shall only have to pay the balance. In other words, it is a provision for a set-off between credits and debits. The position is perfectly clear, and I will not detain the Committee by arguing it further.
    6.11 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Amendment has a certain ingenious attraction, but it would be quite impossible to administer it in practice. The United Kingdom importer could in every case refuse to pay the 20 per cent. of the Customs value of the goods which he has im
    1024
    ported, on the plea that persons in Germany owed him money. The hon. Gentleman will see that he would be imposing upon us a very difficult task if he thinks it would be possible to verify every claim put forward in such circumstances. I am sure that, with his Vast legal experience, he will realise the impossibility of such a course of action, and on administrative ground", if on no other, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    6.12 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: Really, my hon. Friend has done himself much less than justice. This is not a new suggestion; it is one that his Department or the Board of Trade has actually administered in connection with a London clearing office—a clearing office with Germany. Under the Treaty of Peace Order of 1919 or 1920—I forget which—a clearing office was established between this country and Germany, and debits and credits were dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) has had great experience of these matters, as I myself have had, and hon. Members know that the system has been operated as a matter of everyday business organisation by the clearing office between the same two countries, and administered by either the Board of Trade or the Treasury. This suggestion, therefore, is taken from the Government's own procedure.
    As for the practical difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers, surely, there again, not only experience but common sense shows that he is mistaken. You have, for instance, the position of a British importer of raw materials from Germany becoming indebted to Germany in respect of those raw materials. Those raw materials are made up into manufactured goods, and, as manufactured goods, are exported to Germany. In respect of the raw material that has been bought from Germany there is a British debt to Germany, and in respect of the manufactured goods which have been exported to Germany there is a debt due from Germany to this country; it is possible that the debts may be actually between the same people. If my hon. Friend's answer were to be taken literally, it might mean that, while a British importer of raw materials would have to pay the clearing house for the raw materials, if he were

    1025
    to export to Germany as manufactured products the result of work on those raw materials he might not be able to obtain payment for them. Common sense is opposed to the answer of my hon. Friend, if I may respectfully say so, business practice is opposed to it, it would work great hardship, and, most of all and above all, the actual procedure which I now suggest has, as a matter of practical business, been followed for years under the Treaty of Peace Order by the clearing office established thereunder, in the everyday practice, of which I myself have had some part.
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Really the time has come, has it not, when the Government might pay some attention to the difficulties of commerce? Apparently at all costs, whatever happens, whatever inconveniences are caused, however it cuts across commercial practice and everything else, these powers are to be insisted upon in order that the bondholders may get their pound of flesh. Surely hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will not give the impression to the commercial community that they are going to close their eyes entirely to these considerations and are going to set up a system which, whatever the inconveniences caused, has got to operate because they have to get the maximum amount. The hon. Gentleman says it is difficult administratively. Lots of things are difficult administratively, but it does not mean that because things are difficult you cannot ever do them. It, surely, is a perfectly reasonable request, that a trader who has a counter-claim against someone in Germany for a sum of money which otherwise he may not be able to recover unless he can set it off against money that he owes to Germany, should be allowed to make that set off before making his contribution towards the bondholders' interest. There are many acceptance companies which have cross transactions with German exporters or importing firms and which may, as a matter of custom, have running accounts where things are automatically set off one against the other, and they pay only the balances. It is all that they are ever accustomed to pay. Under this procedure they will have to pay when the goods are exported irrespective of this custom of dealing with balances. They will have to pay the full price of the imported
    1026
    article, and they may find themselves in the position of being unable to recover the price of the goods that they are selling.
    6.19 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sure the Committee was not unimpressed by the grievance as stated, and I am sure it will equally appreciate that, if a right is given to every importer to refuse to hand over his 20 per cent. to the Customs upon the plea that he has a debt due to him from Germany, it would be extremely difficult to work this scheme. However, it is not our desire to do any patent injustice. We will look very carefully into the complaint that is made and, if it should be found to have substance and to be capable of being dealt with by way of an Amendment to the Bill, my right hon. Friend is willing to see what can be done in another place. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.20 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "on importation" and to insert:
    "at the date when in accordance with the conditions of the transaction out of which the debt arises the debt becomes payable."
    This Amendment deals with another question which was raised yesterday by my hon. Friend—the question of the date at which payment must be made by the importer of German goods. According to the Bill as it stands, it must be made at the moment of importation. But there are many cases where the importer has made his financial arrangements with a view to paying not at the moment of importation but at some later date, three or six months or whatever it may be. This proposal is to substitute for the time of importation a date when, in accordance with the conditions of the transaction under which the debt arises, it becomes payable, that is to say, not to put the importer in any worse financial position than he would have been in if the Bill had not become law. I suppose the hon. Gentleman will tell us that it is not practicable, because once the goods get away from the Customs quay there will be the difficulty of collection. Surely, even that is a matter where the difficulty can be overcome, and it does not seem to be a sufficient answer to say to the importer, "We cannot help your trouble. We have to pay these

    1027
    people their money and, though it may upset your entire business, you have to do it." Is that a sufficient answer to a commercial man whose business you have seriously upset for the benefit of someone else? He is not going to get any benefit at all out of the Bill. He is going to risk, possibly, the whole of his business and, if you are doing that, surely it is not quite reasonable to make him pay sums of money long before they are clue in the ordinary course of his commercial transactions.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a difficulty which has been foreseen, and for which I think I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman an assurance which will satisfy him. The proposal which he has made would give rise to the difficulty which he himself has anticipated, that the goods would go straight through the Customs house and we should have to depend upon the good faith and voluntary action of the debtor afterwards to make the clearing house acquainted with the time when the debt became due. Our method of dealing with that is to provide that all importers will be able to give a bankers' guarantee that 20 per cent. of the value of the goods will be paid to the Clearing Office on the date when the debt becomes due under the contract with the German exporters. The importer will be able to agree with the local Customs officer that security has been given, and he will not have to correspond with the Clearing Office in London.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.25 p.m.
    Mr. D. EVANS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end, to insert "at his option."
    The object of this Amendment is to get some little further explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the effect of an Order made under this Clause. The object is that the importer should have the option of providing what is necessary either under paragraph (a) or (b)—(a) without (b) or (b) without (a).
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite appreciate the point. I have looked into the matter, and4 I am advised that the true interpretation of the Clause is that the
    1028
    importer has the option that the hon. Member desires.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.26 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    "but no such order shall apply to debts due or to become due arising out of the relationship of banker and customer or insurer and insured or out of any transactions other than commercial transactions."
    The object of the Amendment is to put in terms into the Bill the undertaking given by the Financial Secretary last evening as regards bank balances. He gave the undertaking three or four times in terms which were certainly unlimited in point of time, but to-day the Chancellor of the Exchequer has eaten into that undertaking and made it, for all practical business purposes, nugatory. The Financial Secretary said yesterday:
    "we do not intend to include in the clearing, bankers' balances, insurance payments, or financial remittances, but merely debts due in regard to German goods exported after the 1st July. I trust that that assurance will assuage any fears that may have been entertained on the point.—[OFFICIAL REPOET, 25th June, 1934; col. 868, Vol. 291.]
    To-day he has so whittled away that undertaking and so restored the fears, which yesterday he almost relieved, that he said the undertaking only applies to the position in the first instance. Three or four times he has qualified, by the words "in the first instance," the undertaking which he gave yesterday. It is now clear that the undertaking is for all practical purposes worthless, and that words must be included for the purpose of enabling the trading community to be able to operate on the footing that their bank balances, insurance policies and the like will be free from the risk of being estreated. The words of the Amendment do not travel outside, but, on the contrary, keep strictly within the meaning, and indeed the terminology of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretaiy yesterday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said to-day that he cannot agree to being restricted in this way because he may need to use the powers at some future date. He has given from his place on the Treasury Bench in this House of Commons, notice to the citizen" of 29 countries to whom an Order under this Bill might be made to apply. At any

    1029
    moment overnight, without notice, an Order may be made in which their bank balances, insurance policies, whether marine, life, fire, burglary or whatever it may be, their every property may be taken from them either in whole or in part.
    I hesitate to use a word which comes most readily, but it seems to me irresponsible for any representative of the British Government to stand at the Treasury Bench and make an announcement of that kind to the world. I say with great respect, sincerely believing it, that the result will be to bring upon industry in this country repercussions which the right hon. Gentleman cannot, I feel sure, fully have considered. If the right hon. Gentleman were to accept this Amendment and thereby to make a statement to the world, that this particular kind of indebtedness should be free from interference, as the Financial Secretary yesterday on the part of the Government represented—as it now appears, wrongly represented—would be the case, then a great deal of the difficulty which may arise, and the ill-effects which may ensue from this Bill, I am sure, would be relieved.
    6.33 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Member has addressed his observations to me with a solemnity and portentousness as to be almost staggering. I am sure that the whole 29 countries to whom he so often alludes must be seething with emotion to know what my reply is going to be. It is more simple than perhaps he makes out. In the first place, the observation of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary stands. There is no present intention to apply the clearing to anything except a portion of the value of German goods imported into this country. It is perfectly true that if we do not specify in the Bill that we intend for ever to limit the operation of the Bill to these very partial measures, there remains the possibility that we may have to extend it at some future time. That, of course, applies to debts whether commercial or otherwise. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the danger and risks will be so frightful and terrifying for the members of the 29 nations that, one and all, they will withdraw at once from London all their bank balances and cease to make any more insurance payments unless we make it clear that there
    1030
    is no possibility of their being at some future time, in circumstances which we hope may never arise, made subject to this Bill. I doubt very much whether their fears will be as great as the hon. Member believes.
    But I would point out to the Committee that we cannot escape from this dilemma; either you must absolutely relieve all these fears, in which case you deprive yourselves of a weapon of retaliation which you may need in the future, or you must leave your weapon as it is and suffer whatever inconvenience may arise from the fears which have been so whipped up by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I would point out that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member would go a good deal further than, I think, he would desire, in that a commercial debt might be incurred or made through a bank, and in that case would come under the ban of his Amendment; since it would be a debt arising out of the relationship of the banker and the customer. However that is only a drafting point which could easily be put right but the main point is the one which the hon. Member raised, and hon. Members have to make a choice between the two alternatives which I have put before them.
    6.37 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I would make one comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It shows how entirely worthless is the undertaking which was given yesterday by the Financial Secretary. I will quote again the words used by the Financial Secretary:
    "we do not intend to include in the clearing, bankers' balances, insurance payments, or financial remittances, but merely debts due in regard to German goods exported after the 1st July."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June; col. 867, Vol. 291.]
    These words are perfectly clear and any hon. Member who heard them yesterday or who read them in the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning must have come to the conclusion that it was the intention of the Government that in any event these measures should apply only to commercial debts and not to the other classes of debt we have been considering. Today the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that the Government have no present intention—I took down his words—to apply Orders under this Act to bankers balances, insurance payments

    1031
    and so forth. It is impossible to tell when the intentions of the Government are going to change in this matter, but the right hon. Gentleman gave us no indication as to the length of time for which the guarantee of the Financial Secretary is to remain good. I would remind the Committee of one thing which was said yesterday in what I think was the very remarkable speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan). He spoke of the advice that he himself had had to give to his clients in the course of his professional business, and he said:
    "I may tell him that I have myself had to consider the question of whether bank balances were affected by the terms of the Bill, and I have been under the reluctant compulsion of advising that they were, and to my knowledge in a number of cases bank balances have already been withdrawn from this country in view of the provisions of the Bill.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1934; col. 836, Vol. 291.]
    These fears which were felt by my hon. and gallant Friend, and by the people to whom he referred, were apparently set at rest by the Financial Secretary in his speech yesterday, but they have inevitably been revived by the partial withdrawal which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. Does this Committee think that it is something to be taken lightly, that it should be necessary for my hon. and gallant Friend or for anybody else who is giving professional advice to those who have money which they wish to deposit in London that it is no longer safe to bank in London? I do not pretend to have any expert knowledge of these matters, but to me, speaking as an ordinary Member of this House, it seems to be a very serious matter that anybody should be under the obligation of giving advice of this kind. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will take the Amendment to a Division.
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. DENMAN: I hope, on the contrary, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not take the Amendment to a Division. I cannot help thinking that his speech and the one to which we have just listened are rather more calculated to create precisely that lack of confidence which the City of London might fear as a result of the working of the Bill. I
    1032
    believe that the commercial community will be well content to accept the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will realise that it is likely to last at least for the duration of the Act. I recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have a complete weapon, and in those circumstances I hope that the Committee will unanimously let him have that weapon.
    6.41 p.m.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not have given an unqualified instead of a qualified assurance. Undoubtedly the statement made by the Financial Secretary met the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unfortunately, has thought fit, I think, unnecessarily, to limit the undertaking.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In justice to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I wish to point out that the context of the observation so often quoted made it perfectly clear that he was expressing the present intention of the Government, and that the indications which I have made to-day were in no way inconsistent with anything which my hon. Friend said.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I realise that fact. I was not for a moment suggesting any lack of good faith. On the contrary, I was expressing regret that he could not have done away with those qualifying words. I do not want to take an alarmist view of the situation, but one cannot forget that for years London has been the financial centre, and above all, the insurance centre of the world. That particularly applies to Lloyds, who have given security to insurers in every part of Europe and in America. That fact has been a national asset and of great assistance to this country and produced an immense amount of business, and it has helped our shipping, and, not least, our merchants and our traders. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says—it really amounted to this—that he is going to use the fact that we are the financial and insurance centre of the world as a potential weapon in cases of emergency for commercial bargaining. I do not want to use exaggerated terms or to be alarmist, but, to put it at the lowest, it is not going to assist the insurance companies and our bankers in seeking business and insurance policies in competition with other

    1033
    countries. We have always, especially in regard to insurance, had a supreme position as. opposed to continental and American companies and any other organisations offering insurance operations. A1 at Lloyds applies not merely to shipping, but to an insurance policy undertaken by any of the big insurance companies and any of the members of that great institution of Lloyds. I really think that it is unnecessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he might at some future date within two years extend his operations from commercial debts, and, if there is further trouble on the Continent, to insurance policies. For this purpose it is quite unnecessary to say that. It is much better to give an undertaking to the House, to the country and to the commercial world; and that is all that we are asking.
    8.45 p.m.
    Sir JOHN WITHERS: No one realises more than I do the importance of the Amendment, and if it could be accepted it would be an admirable thing. But I also realise the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must keep up his sleeve a potential weapon; chat is absolutely essential. The question is whether the commercial community, and especially the insurance community, will be satisfied with the assurance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given to-day and which the Financial Secretary gave yesterday. I heard the undertaking given by the Financial Secretary, and I understood it to relate to the present and not to the future. I attended a meeting of insurance directors this afternoon at which this question was specially raised, because they have large German branches, which insure from Germany to England, and they were interested as to whether the insurances payable would come under the Bill. I am glad to say that when I explained the matter to them, the difficulties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the importance of his having this weapon, together with the fact that it was clearly the intention at the present time not to extend the operation of the Bill beyond debts due in respect of goods, they were satisfied, and were of the opinion that this should be made perfectly clear to everybody concerned so that there should be no possible misunderstanding in the matter.
    6.47 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making a mistake and that it should be made clear beyond any possible misunderstanding that neither at the present time nor at any future time, in any circumstances, will policies of insurance taken out in British companies by foreign subjects be attached by measures of this character. The right hon. Gentleman may say that he must have a weapon in reserve in case these controversies are pushed to extremes, but this is not a legitimate weapon; it is not a weapon which ought to be kept in reserve in any circumstances. It has been said that some of the speeches made in this House are, more than anything in the Bill, calculated to shake confidence. That is not so. We cannot assume that people will judge these matters by the speeches made in this House. Our insurance companies, which have a world-wide business of the highest possible standard, are subjected to constant competition by insurance companies in the countries in which they operate and in other countries which compete with them for world-wide business, and you may be certain that these competing bodies will not be slow to use any weapon which may be placed in their hands by legislation passed in this House. If an insurer in Germany, France, Italy or South America, China or Japan, who has been accustomed to deal with a British insurance company is told by a foreign company that there is exceptional British legislation which makes it possible, in certain circumstances, that the money he has insured for will not be paid, it will be a most detrimental factor in competition.
    The particular case which is in mind is this. A man may insure his life with a British company. He may die, and his widow is entitled to payment of the policy. At that moment there may be a measure of this sort in operation and the sum which then becomes payable is a debt. It is a debt, under this Bill, to a person ordinarily resident in a foreign country, and may be legally attached. It is possible that this is a most distant eventuality but, nevertheless, it is an eventuality. Everyone was satisfied by the assurance given yesterday by the Financial Secretary, which was understood to mean that the Government

    1035
    would not put this into effect. It is not in the Bill, and to-day it has been made clear that this is not to be put into effect here and now, but that circumstances might arise in which it would be put into effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, I think, making a mistake in reserving this particuar weapon. He should surrender it, and in the interests of our insurance companies say definitely that if a certain sum of money has been insured for in a British company by a person abroad that obligation will be
    honoured in all circumstances. That is essential, in my view, to maintain the high standard of reputation of British insurance companies throughout the world, and I think the Committee should make it clear that they desire that this should be done, and that words should be put into the Bill which will make it certain beyond the possibility of doubt.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 226.

    Division No. 305.]

    AYES.

    [6.53 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Milner, Major James

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Banfield, John William

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Holds worth, Herbert

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cove, William G.

    Kirkwood, David

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lawson, John James

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Dobbie, William

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    White, Henry Graham

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    McGovern, John

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanglly)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Christie, James Archibald

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Clarke, Frank

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Greene, William P. C.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Cooke, Douglas

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cranborne, viscount

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Balniel, Lord

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Blindell, James

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Borodale, Viscount

    Denville, Alfred

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Dickie, John P.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Doran, Edward

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

    Horabrugh, Florence

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Eady, George, H.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Burghley, Lord

    Elmley, Viscount

    Jennings, Roland

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Burnett, John George

    Emrys-Evane, P. V.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Carver, Major William H.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Pybus, Sir Percy John

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

    Locker-Lampion, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Stevenson, James

    Loder, Captain J. de Vera

    Ray, Sir William

    Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

    MacAndraw, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Storey, Samuel

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Rickards, George William

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Maitland, Adam

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Templeton, William P.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Milne, Charles

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Train, John

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Tree, Ronald

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Savory, Samuel Servington

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Moss. Captain H. J.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Water house, Captain Charles

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Weddorburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Pearson, William G.

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Peat, Charles U.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Penny, Sir George

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Petherick, M.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Major

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    George Davies.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, after "discharging," to insert "rateably."
    This Amendment and the subsequent consequential Amendment raise a point which we think of considerable substance which the Committee will wish to consider, and I do hope that the Government will give their assent to it. The Subsection dealing with the method of payment of moneys collected through the Clearing Office appears to introduce an entirely novel principle in the distribution of assets which have been collected for a number of creditors. We see no reason at all why there should be any priority in favour of any creditors. The payments to creditors might be made haphazard by taking names out of a hat, or might be made by specifying certain classes of creditors, as for instance, bondholders, or those who have claims arising out of other matters. It appears to me to be an entirely novel procedure. The whole object, the whole origin of this Bill arises from the fact that the Government are unable to tolerate discrimination of treatment against certain classes of British creditors, and the House is with them and affords them support. Here they appear to have certain discrimina-
    1038
    tions against the same class of creditors. They appear to contemplate differentiation of treatment between the same creditors. My hon., and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), in the course of a speech yesterday afternoon—a most illuminating speech of service to the whole Committee in these discussions—pointed out that any delay in the treatment in the case of the same class of debtors might cause serious inconvenience ranging even to bankruptcy and loss of business. We do not feel that there should be any possibility of discrimination in this matter. We do not feel that any creditor should be in a position of special favour under this Clause and, therefore, I beg to move the Amendment.
    7.5 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member is unnecessarily suspicious, if I may say so. There is no question of exercising favouritism in the case of particular creditors, but I think he will see that the effect of his Amendment would mean that all debts, all German obligations due, would be affected, and would include, for example, the Sinking Fund on loans and short-term debts and all British Empire direct exports through Germany, and the sum total of all these obligations would

    1039
    be very large—indeed, larger than that covered by the full Clearing Fund. Therefore it will be seen that we cannot contemplate this step. That is the reason why we are obliged to put in these words in giving priority.
    Mr. WHITE: I see the difficulty, and welcome the explanation given, but I do think that here is a point of substance. There is another real difficulty from another point of view. There are people, who have claims on this fund, who do not know what order of priority they are going to get. Every other speaker in the discussion has expressed anxiety that there should be no interruption of business or trade. There is nothing more likely to interfere with the course of business than any thought or knowledge that people expecting to receive money may have doubting the order of priority in which they will get it. I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and realised his points fully, but I do think there is a danger.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is any danger owing to doubt at the time the Order is made. Already it has been stated what the first Order would be. They know exactly what the priority will be there. If further Orders were made, it would be made equally clear what class of debts would be affected, and, therefore, I think there is no ground for the hon. Member's fear.
    7.9 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: The proceeds of the collection under the first Order are merely to be distributed among holders of the Dawes and Young loans. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said so, but I thought I misunderstood him. It sounds incredible. The position will be that money due to the British trader will be taken from him and paid to holders of the Young and Dawes Loans. The German creditor will have to take at the best German marks instead of English sterling which he prefers, but in the case when, money is due not only from a British subject but to a British subject, as the right hon. Gentleman has refused my Amendment, the British trader will be fined any money to pay bondholders without any machinery being provided. The collections are to be made from traders; the distributions are to be made in the first instance to bondholders. That will
    1040
    only work equitably or fairly provided there are no cross accounts between the British trader and the German trader; otherwise great hardship may easily result, and, indeed, will result.
    Is there not a further complication? How in the world does the right hon. Gentleman think that the British trader, who has sold goods to Germany, is going to get payment if there is any interruption or difficulty arising in trade and traffic between this country and Germany? I can understand the right hon. Gentleman saying, "I am going to collect all the money which is due from this country to Germany, and I am going to apply it to distribute it among people who are owed money by Germany." One may think it wise or unwise, but it is intelligible. But to take money from the British trader alone and to leave the British trader out in the cold, seems to me to require a great deal more explanation than we have had. The explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer only seemed one more reason for some Amendment to provide that some funds collected from British debtors to Germany should be distributed equitably between the British creditors of Germany. To prefer one particular class of creditor among your own subjects, and to make your own subjects find the money, seems an entirely novel procedure that needs more justification than we have had.
    Amendment negatived.
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, after "persons," to insert "of British nationality."
    The Amendment explains itself. As the Clause now stands, it seems to me that it might cover Germans resident in Great Britain, or Americans, French or any other foreigners. If there is to be priority at all it should be given to those of British nationality. I need not detain the Committee, because the object of the wording is quite clear.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Amendment has a more restrictive purpose than we have in view. It would mean that a Frenchman resident in London or carrying on business in London would have no claim upon the moneys to be distributed. We have thought it proper to include all

    1041
    persons ordinarily resident here or carrying on business here. If we accepted this Amendment it might put to some inconvenience those performing useful service in this country. I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with this explanation.
    7.15 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not think that that will satisfy anybody. The question is whether this money is to be distributed for the benefit of British nationals. I understand that it is not. British nationals, so far as they have any money left will have some share in it. Where it is a matter of putting British nationals to enormous inconvenience, surely the proceeds should be limited to British nationals. This is a matter between this country and Germany, and presumably this clearing house is being imposed for the benefit of our nationals. This is a measure by which the National Government is to use the strong right arm to protect the national interest. Why should some American who is ordinarily resident in this country, who lives here, say, seven months in the year and lives five months of the year in America and who happens to own some Dawes Loan get a part of this money? What has he done to deserve it? Nothing! Why should the strong right arm of the British Government be utilised for his protection? Surely his protection is the function of the American Government. If they want to set up a Clearing Office to protect their own nationals they can do so.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: He might be exporting goods.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: He might be, but I do not see that that has anything to do with the point. It would not mean that any debt was due to him from anyone in Germany. It is the other way round I think. My hon. Friend means that he might have imported goods, but that still shows no justification for this proposal. The people under the protection of this Government are primarily British nationals and if this inconvenience is to be suffered—and the greater the number of people who get a dip into the pot the greater the inconvenience to the trader, because the more he will have to con-
    1042
    tribute—surely the proceeds ought to be limited to British nationals
    Amendment negatived.
    7.17 p.m.
    Sir GEOFFREY ELLIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, after "country" to insert:
    "and debts due to any person in respect of such securities as may be specified in the order and which were on the date so specified in the beneficial ownership of any such person or corporation as aforesaid."
    The object of the Amendment is to remove what appears to be a clog on the negotiability of bonds. Under the Clause as it is drawn, there is only power to pay debts due to persons in the United Kingdom and British subjects. It would not be possible to get any payment made to a foreigner in respect of a bond which had passed from a British subject and which was British owned on 15th June. I cannot think that is the object of the Clause and the point has probably been overlooked.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I understand that the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed would be an improvement in the procedure and would save a good deal of trouble, I have pleasure in accepting it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    7.20 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out from "country" to the end of the Subsection.
    I feel that a somewhat hopeful atmosphere now pervades the Committee, though I would draw attention to the fact that the parties on whose behalf the last Amendment was moved are the rentiers. The paragraph which I move to omit seems to envisage some sort of agreement with the Government of another country that we should do their debt collecting for them. That seems to me to be a highly undesirable form of enterprise for His Majesty's Government. The paragraph says that the money may be utilised
    "in such manner as may be provided for in any agreement entered into between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of any foreign country.
    Presumably that means that His Majesty's Government might enter into

    1043
    an agreement with France that French debts should be paid out of the collections made from British traders and apparently such agreements can be made without any authorisation from the House of Commons. Such an agreement can be made at any moment, and the moment it is made it becomes effective without any order. It immediately becomes payable in accordance with the first part of the Clause. We do not see why the extremely dangerous and difficult procedure embodied in this Bill should be adopted for the benefit of other people. The Financial Secretary told me on a previous Amendment that he could not limit it to persons of British nationality because there might be people of other nationalities residing here and carrying on business, but surely it is not necessary to have a provision in the Bill that we should make this debt-collecting system available for other Governments and not merely other nationals.
    7.22 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The purpose of the paragraph is to enable us to make an agreement with the German Government in respect of the Clearing Office. I think it would be in the interests of trade, if we have to set up a Clearing Office, that it should be done as amicably as possible and that we should do it by an agreement with the Germans which would enable us to interefere as little as possible with the normal course of things. It might possibly be a feature of such an agreement that we should take certain steps to facilitate payments due to us by the Reichsbank. The hon. and learned Gentleman doubtless knows that the Reichsbank is responsible for interest and commission on the stand-still loans. That, of course, has to be paid in sterling, and it might be a feature of an agreement of this kind that the Clearing Office should release to the Reichsbank the sterling necessary for the payment of that interest and commission. That is all that there is in the paragraph, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is now satisfied that it is in the interest of trade.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I suggest that instead of the words "any foreign country" the right hon. Gentleman should insert "the foreign country." Those are the words used in the preceding Sub-section re-
    1044
    ferring to the country with which the Clearing Office arrangement is made.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will look into that point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    7.24 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: What will be the position of a British merchant who is under contract to deliver to customers in the United Kingdom goods which are either specified in the contract to be German goods or goods which can only be obtained from Germany? What will his position be in relation to those customers in the United Kingdom? It seems obvious that if an Order is made under this Clause the trader may be unable to obtain the goods which he has contracted to deliver. If an Order is made under this Clause impounding the whole of the debts due, obviously the German exporter is not going to send here goods for which he knows he will not be paid. Even if there is only a 20 per cent. deduction as is now proposed and intended by the Government, the German exporter may not think it worth while to send his goods here under that very considerable deduction. To illustrate the point which I have in mind, may I refer the Solicitor-General to a. case which arose following the outbreak of the War. The position of the importer in that case was similar it seems to me to what the position of an importer may be under this Clause. I refer to the case of the Blackburn Bobbin Company, Limited versus T. W. Allen and Sons, Limited, heard in the Court of Appeal in 1918. I quote the headnote from the King's Bench Division Law Reports, Volume II, 1918:
    "By a contract made in the early part of 1914 the defendants who were timber merchants at Hull sold to the plaintiffs 70 standards of Finland birch timber to be delivered to the plaintiffs free on rail at Hull, deliveries to commence in June or July, 1914, and to continue during the season which would terminate in November, 1914. The contract contained no war, or force majeure, or suspension provisions. Before the outbreak of war in August, 1914, the practice was to load timber into vessels at Finnish ports for direct sea carriage to England, but this practice was not known to the plaintiffs, nor did they know, as the fact was, that timber merchants in England do not keep Finland timber in stock. Up

    1045
    to the outbreak of the war the defendants had not delivered any of the timber and after that date, owing to the disorganisation of transport caused by the war, it became impossible for the defendants to obtain any Finland timber for delivery to the plaintiffs.
    In an action by the plaintiffs, claiming damages from the defendants for failure to deliver the timber, the defendants contended that the contract had been dissolved by the outbreak of war:
    Held, that the contract had not been dissolved, and that the defendants were liable in damages for the non-delivery of the timber."
    I may be wrong, and, if so. I hope the Solicitor-General will correct me, but on the face of it it seems not improbable that importers who have contracted to deliver German goods or goods which they can only obtain from Germany to customers in this country and who find themselves, as the result of an order made under the Clause, unable to effect that delivery, may be open to actions for damages. It would not be due to any fault of theirs. It would be due to this Measure and the circumstances which have given rise to it. If that be so, it would be an obvious hardship and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to clear up that point.
    7.29 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member has raised a point which I think is to some extent outside, though it no doubt arises from the general purview of this Clause. It refers to a case which would only, I think, arise, in the circumstances which he has suggested, under a contract entered into before the passage of this Bill. In contracts made subsequent to the passage of the Bill, these eventualities could be provided for. The case which he puts is one of an English importer who has undertaken to sell to someone here goods which he has contracted to obtain from Germany. Clearly, so far as this Bill is concerned, there is nothing in it which relieves the German exporter, so far as our law is concerned, from delivering the goods. If the German exporter does not deliver the goods on grounds not recognised by our law, the English importer will be in the same position as any other person who, having made a contract to deliver goods, finds that he is unable to do so. It does not seem to me that it is really an eventuality which can be related to this Clause. There is nothing in this Bill
    1046
    which would entitle a German exporter to refuse to deliver his goods. The hardship which the hon. Member suggested might arise as a result of the Bill is, of course, an eventuality which might arise as a result of all kinds of measures which are taken to-day, such as exchange restrictions and quotas imposed by one country or another. They may in fact prevent, or be used as a pretext to prevent, somebody fulfilling a contract.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The point which I was endeavouring to make is the position, not between the importer and someone in Germany, but between the importer and his customer in this country. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that an action for damages brought by customers in this country would lie against the importer?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I must have been more obscure than I thought I was. I thought I was dealing with the case of an English importer who has engaged himself to another English trader, and I was pointing out that there are many circumstances in which a man in that position, owing to the original seller defaulting, finds himself unable to deliver the goods and, it may be, exposed to an action for damages. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is nothing in it which in our law, or, so far as I can see, in any law, would entitle the German exporter to say, "This Bill having been passed, I am no longer bound to fulfil my contract." I was also pointing out that there are many measures taken by Governments to-day, in the general troubled circumstances of the world, such as quota restrictions and so on, which may either in fact bring about, or be used as a pretext for bringing about, a result which the hon. Gentleman deplores. Such a case is one which, one would have thought, is not a matter which can be dealt with in this Bill, or which it would be right to deal with in this Bill, because this Bill does not relieve the German exporter of his liability to deliver the goods. The case put is a very common case, which may arise in all sorts of circumstances, and one deplores it whenever it arises, whether it be due to the fact that the original seller has entered into a contract which he is unable or does not want, owing to the turn of the market, to fulfil, or whether it arises by reason of some

    1047
    quota or trade restriction. While one appreciates the point, I feel that it is impossable to deal with such cases in this Bill.
    7.36 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The position is not left in a very satisfactory state by the observations of the learned Solicitor-General. This is an instance of the un-desired and possibly unforeseen consequences which may result from legislation of this character, and an example of how detrimental it may be to engage in proceedings of this sort. Here you have two business men in England, one of whom makes a contract with the other, and has every intention of fulfilling it. Then there intervenes an event which is not of a commercial character at all. It is not that the persons from whom. he is buying goods default, or that he has gone to the wrong people and has not properly safeguarded his own interests. It is the British Government which steps in and, with the approval of Parliament, says that the German who has contracted to supply the goods is to be paid only 80 per cent. of what he has been entitled to receive, whereupon, it may be, the German will say, "In these circumstances I shall not deliver these goods." The German law may support him in that. Then, the Solicitor-General says, "Ah, but that is not in the Bill." No, of course it is not in the Bill, but it may be a direct consequence of the Bill, and here you have something which is plainly unjust, namely, that the man in this country who cannot obtain the goods from Germany as a consequence of this Bill is still under a legal obligation to supply them to his customer, and apparently his customer can sue him for damages and, on the precedent of the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), to which I think the Solicitor-General accedes, the customer could obtain damages.
    That is obviously an unjust thing as regards the merchant in England who has undertaken to supply the goods, and I think the Government should give this matter their attention. There are in many Acts of Parliament safeguarding Clauses which provide that in certain eventualities as a consequence of the Acts people are unable to fulfil their contracts, and that
    1048
    they should not be held liable if the default is not due to them, but is directly a consequence of the legislation passed by Parliament. Whether that is practicable in this case I cannot say. I am not a lawyer, and I should not presume to make a suggestion, but it seems to me, as a layman, that the point is one which requires attention. The learned Solicitor-General said he would deplore consequences such as this occurring, but if consequences are going to occur which are deplorable, we ought, if possible, to prevent them, and if by any means this point can be met, surely it is one which the Government should endeavour to meet, since it would be in such an event as that suggested a plain injustice that would be done against an individual, which the Government would not desire, and he would naturally hold Parliament accountable for possibly great financial loss which he has suffered, not from his own fault, but from ours.
    7.39 p.m.
    Major NATHAN: I suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that he put the case rather too high when he said that cases of breach of contract would not flow naturally from the operation of this Bill. I will give him an actual instance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer accused me of speaking with a solemnity which I hope was more apparent than real, and he indicated that he thought I was taking a number of exaggerated instances, but I hope I have been careful—I have tried to be—to give no instances except those that have come before me for actual consideration, and I will give an actual case now, the sort of case which arises every day. It is the case where an English importer of machinery from Germany sells that machinery to a British manufacturer. The machinery is delivered, not all at one time, but bit by bit, until the whole of the plant is put up—perhaps a new factory. The English importer has obligated himself towards the builder of the new factory to supply him with this machinery, and he has also entered into a contract to buy it from a particular German firm. One of the terms of the contract is that as the machinery is delivered the relative proportion of the price be paid.
    Part of the machinery is delivered, and this Bill comes into operation. The English importer has to say to the German, "I cannot in future pay you your

    1049
    price; I can only pay you 80 per cent. of your price." The German manufacturer then says, "That is a repudiation of your contract, and I am under no further obligation to deliver at all. You have repudiated your contract by saying you do not intend to pay for the future deliveries in accordance with the terms of our contract." The English importer then makes some kind of excuse to the manufacturer in this country who has bought the plant, but he says, "No, I cannot now complete my plant in accordance with all my arrangements, and I am put to great loss by reason of that fact. I have got to start all over again, buy the machinery elsewhere, and pay more for it, and I sue you, the British importer, for damages for your breach of contract." That is an action which flows more closely than the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) out of this Bill, I do not say as its legally inevitable consequence, but as its logically inevitable consequence, and there is nothing in the Bill to protect the English merchant from an action for damages at the suit of the English manufacturer.
    There are other cases that I might give, such as instalment contracts and the like, but I would suggest, even at this late stage, when we have had so many discussions on points of detail, that really your English importer is entitled to be protected by Parliament when an alteration is made in his situation, not by reason of any act of his own, whether of commission or of omission, not by reason of anything which he might reasonably have been called upon to insert in the terms of the transaction or the conditions of the contract, but by reason of sudden emergency legislation introduced in Parliament to meet an unexpected situation, as unexpected to the importer as to Parliament itself. It is difficult to devise a phrase or a Clause, I say quite frankly, but I suggest that the learned Solicitor-General should consider whether some provision is not possible saving the position of those who may be placed in jeopardy by an action for damages by reason of the kind of circumstance which I have placed before the Committee. I think it would ameliorate the position considerably if he could do that.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The speech to which we have just listened strikes me as revealing a lack of trust in what I would call the moral code of business. Surely, if there are two business people in this country and one realises the difficulty in which his business friend has been placed and that owing to German default he cannot get the order completed, he will not sue him in a court of law. If he does, it is contrary to the moral code of business people. If that is the standard of business people and they take advantage of each other in that way, I should think that it is a very queer position. I should have thought that in the case of business people of standing when it was recognised that, owing to a German merchant refusing to carry out an order, the business man in this country could not complete his part of the bargain, the other business man in this country would say: "It is not your fault, and I will not take advantage of a position over which you have no control." If I claimed to be a member of the Liberal party and the representative of business people I would not appeal to the Government as they have done. They stand for free intercourse of trade, without restrictions. If I believed as they believe I would trust my fellow business man and deal fairly with him. Instead of that, they are saying that unless protection can be given business men will be fighting each other in the law courts. I should have thought that they would have trusted each other.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board of Trade in certain circumstances to restrict imports from a foreign country.)
    7.47 p.m.
    Mr. ALED ROBERTS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out "or are about to be."
    This is a very curious phrase to appear in a Bill of this kind. The discussions have so far been of the greatest precision. We have dealt with abstruse points and each point has been cleared up or not, as the case may be. When we come to this Clause—which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us is not necessary in connection with the emergency and might have been left over and gone into more carefully—we find these very vague words,

    1051
    which give the Board of Trade power to impose restrictions if it appears to them that a foreign country has imposed restrictions or is about to impose restrictions. How will the Board of Trade have any idea that a foreign country is about to impose restrictions? They may have some idea when they see an intimation that restrictions are to be put on, but how can they know in advance that they are about to be put on? This Clause seems to give the Board of Trade the power to issue these retaliatory restrictions for almost any purpose they may think fit. If these words remain in the Bill the Board of Trade would be able to put on a quota against any foreign importation at any time, and if they were challenged they could say: "It appeared to us that this foreign country was about to put on quantitative restrictions." Whether they do put on those restrictions or not would not matter, because all that the Board of Trade would have to satisfy itself about was that the foreign country appeared to be about to put on restrictions. I should be glad if the Government would give us some indication of the circumstances they have in mind when asking for powers of this kind. In a Clause which is going to change the whole character of the present commercial relationships with other countries it would be desirable to have the provision worded in the most precise and most understandable way and not to leave a loophole of this kind, which does not make for that precision which one would expect in a Bill of this character.
    7.50 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): We propose to accept the Amendment, but not on the grounds on which the hon. Member has moved it, that there is any vagueness in the phrase. It is perfectly easy to tell when such action is to be taken by a foreign country, inasmuch as legislation in many cases would be introduced for the purpose. We intend to rely on the knowledge that will exist in foreign countries, after the passage of this Bill, that we have in fact power of complete reciprocal action if we feel that discrimination is being made against our imports. We do not wish to do more than take the necessary safeguards.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for his kindness in accep
    1052
    ting the Amendment. It will be a great improvement to the Clause. The Clause was undoubtedly vague and gave powers which were wider than the occasion really required.
    Amendment agreed to.
    7.51 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    (2) "Any Order made under this Section shall have effect only so long as such quantitative restrictions remain in force in the country to which the Order relates."
    The Minister for Overseas Trade has shown himself so reasonable and so desirous that the Bill should be strictly limited that I have every hope he will accept this Amendment. I am particularly glad that the Minister now in charge of the Bill is the Minister for Overseas Trade, because he has been working hard from the time that he began his office stimulating trade for the mutual advantage of all the countries concerned. There has been no Minister more diligent in seeking that desirable end. He has been going to and fro throughout the world trying to break down barriers, to remove causes of suspicion and to bring our country in amicable agreement with other nations. For that reason, I think he will accept this Amendment.
    The Clause allows this country to retain the power, in case of necessity, of retaliating when quotas are put on our goods, thereby limiting the opportunities of our manufactures to find markets. The form of retaliation is to impose a quota on the offending country. It ought to be made, quite clear, however, that as soon as this weapon has achieved "its purpose and succeeded in wiping out the offending quota on our goods which has interfered with our trade the quota on the foreign goods should be removed. Suppose Germany reverted to the undesirable practice of fixing a quota for British coal and we in return fixed a quota on, say, German glassware or German toys. The whole purpose of this policy is to stop the interference with our trade. What we want to be sure about is that as soon as Germany has taken off the restrictions, say, on our coal, automatically the powers given under this Bill will no longer be used against any particular article of that country.
    We have had some experience in Ireland. It was made quite clear the other

    1053
    day in regard to the restrictions on the importation of Irish cattle that the Government are not prepared to remove them, even if the Free State no longer fails in her obligation to meet her interest of the Land Bonds, because in the meantime we have created a vested interest in this country. Strong vested interests have been created here who have gained benefit from the restrictions on the importation of Irish cattle. In the present case, once we have put a quota on German imports we may find that pressure will be exerted upon the Government from interests in this country to retain the quota on German imports. We want to narrow the purpose of the Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted that principle. The operation of the Bill has been limited to a period of two years. It has become not a permanent Measure but a temporary Measure for a particular purpose. Is it not reasonable when the Government are asking for these new powers to ensure that when they have gained their end they should not take advantage of the Act for other purposes, in order to protect interests that have been sheltered. The Amendment would not limit the negotiating powers of the Government, and I hope it will be accepted.
    7.57 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Baronet must not be surprised if I say at once that we cannot accept the Amendment, and for a reason which I can give to the Committee in a very few words. It would be the normal policy of the Government to retain the retaliatory prohibition or restriction on imports only so long as the occasion for the retaliation exists. Immediately the reason for the retaliation was gone we should wish to remove the restriction. What the hon. Baronet is asking us to do is to insert an Amendment which would set up an extraordinary procedure, for it would make the operation of Board of Trade Orders dependent on the action of some foreign country. Our administrative machinery in this country would have to function automatically on account of the action taken in some foreign country. If this Amendment were passed and became law, I could conceive that British officials would be liable to legal proceedings and penalties for restricting imports on goods when an action had
    1054
    taken place in a foreign country of which they might not be aware. The Committee will appreciate that somebody has to decide whether the discrimination against our goods and the cause for our complaint have been effectively removed, and that decision must be made by His Majesty's Government. Therefore, I put it that we are not unreasonable in adhering to the view that in point of fact the proper procedure will be for the Board of Trade, as soon as the Government are satisfied that the reason for the action under this Clause no longer exists, to revoke the original order by a subsequent order under Clause 3, Sub-section (2). That would be laid before Parliament, it would become immediately operative, and the retaliation would be at an end. The procedure suggested in the Amendment would not be practicable.
    8.1 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The answer of the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt good in point of form, but not in point of substance. I see no reply to his contention that the effect of this Amendment would be that British subjects would be bound by action taken in some foreign country, but it is no answer to the contention of substance of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. The Minister says quite truly that the proper procedure would be that, if and when the cause of the action had been removed, the order could be revoked by a subsequent order of the Board of Trade. That clearly would be the right procedure, and I suggest that it should be inserted in the Bill. This part of the Bill is called "Import Restrictions Reprisals," but there is nothing in the Bill which makes it clear that when the cause for reprisals has been removed the action taken will terminate.
    What we consider might be the case is that some Government which believed in quotas for their own sake, finding them in force under the terms of this Bill, would not agree to the action taken against the foreign country being repealed if the foreign country were prepared to discontinue the action which had been the original cause of offence. If you had a provision in the Bill that as soon as the cause had been removed the action taken here would be at an end, our Government would be bound,

    1055
    when the foreign Government gave us redress, to repeal its action; but unless there is some such provision in the Bill that would not be obligatory, and it would be left to the choice of the Government of the day whether or not to remove the quotas. The right course would be in another place to put in a provision precisely in the terms which have been suggested to the Committee, namely, that if and when the cause of the action had been removed, the Board of Trade can by subsequent order revoke the action which it had taken. I press that on the Government. The Government have been conciliatory and they have made great progress with the Bill. They have accepted an Amendment and limited the operation of the Bill to two years. They have endeavoured to meet the wishes of the Committee, and I suggest that the same spirit should be shown in this case. On that understanding, I think my hon. Friend might be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir P. HARRIS: On the understanding that the Minister will do his best to meet our objections by inserting the necessary words in another place, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
    8.6 p.m.
    Lieut.-Golonei COLVILLE: I cannot give the undertaking asked for. It should be quite clear by this time that the purpose of this Clause is simply to meet discriminatory action with an effective method. With regard to the procedure under the Import Duties Act, where we have powers, in the event of discriminatory taxation being imposed, to apply taxation here, it is left to the Government to remove that discriminatory taxation as soon as the evil has been removed, bet me give a practical instance. In a very few days time, I am glad to say, we are to end the dispute with France on the subject of discriminatory taxation and quotas, and we shall not retain our discriminatory taxes for a day longer than is necessary. I hope that the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and his friends will see that the intention of the Government is not in any way to set up a network of permanent quotas, but only to deal with the question of discrimination against our trade.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I have great confidence in the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    8.8 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: We oppose the Clause. We consider that the Government have made out no case whatever for including it in the Bill. This Measure has been brought before us as essentially an emergency Measure. It arises out of a definite dispute with one particular country Germany, and the proposals in the Bill for dealing with the German situation are contained in Clause 1. The Chancellor told us quite frankly that Clause 2 has nothing to do with the emergency, or with Germany at all. He comes before the House with the excuse that some traders have indicated to him that it would be rather useful to have this power, and so he thinks he will include this Clause. It is an extraordinarily wide-reaching power. It is brought before us under conditions which do not permit proper consideration. The Bill has to be got through in two days. The Report stage, Third Beading and Committee are alll taken on the same day. It is obvious that in those circumstances no substantial Amendment could be allowed.
    It is against all precedents for a Bill other than an emergency Bill to be passed under such conditions. The Chancellor takes advantage of this quarrel with Germany to tack on to his proposal for dealing with that situation, a power which he thinks he would like to have The House is so accustomed now to giving all kinds of extreme powers to the Government that the mass of Members do not take any particular notice. The kind of language that the Chancellor used in introducing his Bill was rather noticeable. If it had been a previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), one would have understood it, because he always uses the language of war. But the present Chancellor is a man of peace. He told us, however, that he would like to be armed with a useful weapon. That indicates very clearly the attitude of the Government towards international trade. International trade is not on the lines of an

    1057
    exchange of commodities between different countries; it is a battlefield, and the Chancellor is waging a war, and he now thinks he has got a particular weapon. Whether it is an offensive or defensive weapon I do not know. It never matters very much.
    All of a sudden the Government have discovered that there is a very dangerous thing called a quota, and they want to be able to meet it. I do not know what they have been doing during the last two years, whether they have been shunning the company of the Minister of Agriculture, who has lived and talked of the quota day after day. In fact the quota is that Minister's favourite instrument or weapon. A sudden suggestion is made, "Oh, we never thought about the quota before, and now we find it is going to be used or may be used against us." It is noticeable that this Clause arms the Chancellor against some danger that has not yet occurred. It is quite in the best line of militarism. We are always told that all armaments are purely defensive. If you ask a defence Minister against what country he is arming he can never tell you. Here we have exactly the same thing with regard to trade. We have no suggestion that there is any particular country aimed at. In fact the Chancellor said expressly that it was not aimed at Germany or any other country. It is just a power that he would like to have.
    Increasingly we are having this habit of the present Government, of Bills being brought down, unconsidered, all of a sudden, and containing a number of provisions for some of which there may be a case of urgency which could be put, and others which are just something which the Government think they would like to have. It is a very dangerous precedent. If anyone on the Labour or Independent Labour Party benches suggested doing any such thing he would be denounced from one end of the country to the other as a destroyer of the rights of Parliament and everything else. It is against all the traditions of this House to combine in one Bill two Clauses so utterly distinct as these, one framed for one purpose and the other for a wholly different purpose. We think, too, that the Clause is far too wide. As far as I can see it enables the Board of Trade to act on the complaint of any particular vested interest. It is
    1058
    on applications from vested interests that this Government mainly acts. Question Time in the House is taken up a good deal by vested interests. They are not confined to this country.
    If someone is interested in oranges from Palestine or tin from Nigeria or anything of that kind, and they think they would rather like to be free of competition—and people in this House who believe in the competitive system are always endeavouring to free themselves from competition—they now have a convenient method of doing it. They can represent their hardships to the Board of Trade, which can approve an Order, and they are rid of their competition. They can find somewhere that a particular country in the British Empire is suffering from some restriction imposed by a foreign country, and if they can establish that they have a good case for retaliation. They will be really in the position of common informers, but they will not go round to the Board of Trade for the benefit of the country. Every trader will be on the look out to see if he can find a quota which affects some part of the British Empire, and he can then go round to the Board of Trade and say, "What about that restriction we wanted to get through? It is true it was turned down by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and therefore we cannot get it that way; but here is a chance to work it in under this Bill as a quid pro quo for a gross injustice that is being done to Tristan da Cunha."
    Under this Bill we shall get what the Lord President of the Council once said we should get, and what was given as a reason why tariffs were put in the hands of a committee of three, namely, every possibility of every kind of wangling by vested interests. Above all, these vested interests will be in the happy position of being able to say that they are vindicating the honour of the British Empire and, of course, will have nothing to say about the consequences to themselves. This is a vicious Clause and the method by which it has been introduced—under cover of a disagreement with Germany requiring urgent action—is against all the traditions of this House.
    8.18 p.m.
    Mr. D. MASON: I rise to support the rejection of this Clause. It is so wide and all-embracing that it has been im-

    1059
    possible in the time at our disposal to have Amendments to it thoroughly discussed. Let us examine one or two points in the Clause. I observe that the President of the Board of Trade is present; his name is on the back of the Bill. Under this Clause, he will have power in certain circumstances to make orders prohibiting importation of goods from a. foreign country. It is true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has courteously met us on these benches by limiting the duration of this Clause to two years, but a great deal of damage to trade may be done in that time. This Clause gives immense powers. Sub-section (2) says that:
    "The countries to which this section applies are the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, Newfoundland, the Colonies, the British Protectorates and Protected States, and any territory in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted by His Majesty and is being exercised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom."
    The Clause may affect 29 countries. We are being asked in one day to pass a Measure for a specific purpose and which contains a Clause which is not necessary even to meet the crisis. It is being rushed through under cover of a crisis in another direction which one admits exists. To ask us to subscribe to a Clause of this character is not respectful to the House of Commons or to any section of it. Whatever our views may be, we are entitled to express them and to communicate with our constituents and various bodies like Chambers of Commerce in order to get their ideas of the particular commodities and trades which may be affected by this Clause. In the last Sub-section very arbitrary power is given to the President of the Board of Trade.
    "Anything authorised under this Act to be done by the Board of Trade may be done by the President of the Board, or in his absence by a Secretary of State."
    That is a blank cheque to the whole Government. If the President of the Board of Trade should be absent, any Secretary of State can apparently carry on anything authorised in the Bill. That is really defying the rights of this House. Although we are in a minority, we are entitled to have some deference paid to our opinions, and we shall get as large a Division as we can to protest against this Clause being carried.
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. R. T. EVANS: I also oppose the retention of this Clause. I think that the Committee has demonstrated to-day its support of any action that may be necessary on the specific issue with Germany, and it is not quite playing the game with the House or with the country that a proposal so far-reaching, so full of potentialities, should be introduced under the cloak of an emergency. I do not think there is a dissentient voice raised in opposition to the strong action which may be necessary in regard to Germany. I cannot but feel, however, viewing the world situation, that we are at a critical moment. Here we have talk of reprisals and retaliation. We have all been thinking of the possible improvement of world trade and trying to generate more good-will and conciliation between nations; we have been looking forward to a stoppage of the shrinkage and to a widening of the channels of the streams of commerce; and here we are, I cannot but feel, discussing equipment for a new trade war. I am not suggesting that there is anyone on the Government Bench who desires that. I feel certain that every hon. Member, and no one more than the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretaries, is anxious to increase world trade, but my reactions, which are instinctive, perhaps, rather than intellectual, lead me to feel that on this issue we are building up armaments.
    Viewing the world, we see every nation oppressed with its burden of debts. It is the tangle of debts that is the main inducement to economic nationalism. Every nation has been trying to sell more than it did and to buy less than it did in order to build up a favourable trade balance wherewith to meet its foreign obligations. We cannot dissociate the economic depression from this tangle of debts. We are facing up to a new development in these debts. Here we have one country repudiating its obligations. As I pointed out earlier in the Debate, we have seen practically every debtor country resorting to some subterfuge or other to lessen its burden. It was inflation in the case of France, thereby wiping out something like four-fifths of her contractual obligation. We have one country after another breaking down under the strain. Germany has defaulted without any justification, for I believe its

    1061
    motive has been political rather than economic, and in facing up to that situation we are contemplating equipping the Government with a new economic armament. Who can tell what the developments may be? Who can say what other nations may resort to the same action as Germany's? I cannot help feeling depressed at the outlook conjured up by the talk of this kind of economic warfare.
    I feel that Clause 2, and the action which it implies, opens up a whole vista of possibilities. I cannot but feel that it is not quite playing the game. The Government has the whole-hearted support of the House for any action it takes in connection with Germany, but here it is asking Parliament to endow it with stupendous powers, which may bring tragedy to the world. It is an issue worthy of far more attention than has been possible in this Debate. While anxious to support the Government in its action, and anxious that nothing should be said or done to weaken its position in its negotiations with Germany, I feel constrained to vote against it on this issue. I cannot imagine the Government using these powers drastically, I cannot imagine such insanity besetting the mind of anyone; but I do feel that there are consequences so far reaching and tragic in their possibilities that Clause 2 ought not to be included in the Bill, and reluctantly I must declare that I have to vote against the Government.
    8.30 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I feel that the Leader of the Opposition has rather disregarded the realities of the situation. The surprise is not that we are asking for these powers now but that we did not seek them long ago. The House accepted the principle more than two years ago in the Import Duties Act. The principle was that where discriminatory measures were applied to our goods by foreign countries, we should be in a position to reciprocate in such manner as would ensure fair treatment for our exports. It is within the memory of all Members here that that position was accepted by the House. What has developed since to make it necessary for us to seek these powers in relation to quotas as well as import duties? In an answer I gave yesterday I showed that some 21 countries were employing quotas of vary-
    1062
    ing degree, many of them over a wide range of industries. We cannot object to a country applying a quota in its own interests as long as it applies that quota fairly, but when that country applies a quota in such a way as to discriminate against British goods, we should feel that we were neglecting our duty if we did not arm ourselves with the power to secure the removal of that disability.
    The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) has asked why no time was given for trade organisations to be consulted. I hope he will believe me when I say that a number of trade organisations including the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Industries have constantly pressed the Government to arm themselves with effective equipment to deal with this growing tendency to apply unfair quotas. In taking these powers which we are seeking to-night, we are only doing what is absolutely necessary to the interests of our export trade. I am asked why this should be done hurriedly, why we should not deal with the matter in a more leisurely manner. One reason, and a. most cogent reason in my opinion, is that it is urgently necessary to secure these powers in view of the forthcoming Recess, particularly as similar powers are possessed by most foreign countries, and foreign countries, in handling their quotas in respect to United Kingdom goods, will treat those goods with more respect if the United Kingdom possesses the powers which we are seeking under this Bill.
    I have been engaged under my right hon. Friend in a number of commercial negotiations. It would not be proper for me to mention the names of any country in which we may have a fear that unfair quotas are likely to be operated, but I assure the Committee that we are not dealing with any phantom, but are dealing with realities when we speak of the application of discriminatory quotas. Without mentioning the name of any countries, I can assure the Committee that there was one case where we were under a serious threat of discriminatory quotas which would have meant a very considerable diminution in a wide range of our export trades. We secured temporary satisfaction by an arrangement but we are hoping to conclude a

    1063
    more formal arrangement, and in the view of the Government it is necessary for us in the negotiations which we are entering into—I do not necessarily mean entering into immediately, but those which we shall enter into in future—to have at least as effective power to deal with the menace of unfair quotas as we have to deal with the menace of unfair duties. I hope I have shown the Committee that we do not bring this proposal forward in any bellicose spirit. We shall demonstrate, I hope, in the next few days as regards our trade with France that so soon as we get satisfaction in respect of discriminatory treatment against our trade we will be ready to remove our discriminatory counter measures. In that spirit I ask the House to accept this Clause, which only equips us for carrying out a duty we owe to our exporters.
    8.35 p.m.
    Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade has replied to the case which has been presented to the Committee. The necessity of using Parliamentary language has meant that that was not the most effective reply that could be made. The whole Committee and most people outside are very appreciative of the attitude which hon. Members above the Gangway on the Opposition side have taken towards the general principle of the Bill, and it is all the more regrettable that they should, in the vernacular, knock their ankles up against this particular Clause. I should have liked unanimity. On the face of it, there is support for the idea that this provision for the regulation of quotas is something external and outside the Clearing House provision, and that it ought to have been dealt with, if dealt with at all, by means of a separate Bill. I suggest that that is not the case. The questions of the quotas and the Clearing House are so intimately bound up that to attempt to separate them would destroy the Clearing House provisions.
    I do not think we can possibly examine this question unless we put it in the historical setting of German trade with this and other countries. Those of us who are intimately connected with industry are terribly conscious of the fact that for two or three years the Germans have been using our money and through
    1064
    the subterfuge of the scripmark, the rentenmark and all the various marks that they have invented, they have been subsidising their export trade at our expense. There is no subterfuge in all the gamut of commercial affairs which the German Reichsbank do not know and do not employ, and they will keep on doing it. By a Bill providing for a Clearing House you are saying that, 20 per cent. of the value of the goods which descend into this country shall be taken in order to liquidate German debts to England, but you are not making any provision whatever in respect of English goods going to Germany. What is likely to happen? Those of us who know the German psychology appreciate that feeling, not onyl in the national sense but in the industrial and commercial sense, is rapidly hardening. I can visualise quite clearly what the German reaction to the Clearing House arrangement would be. You establish your Clearing House and get it working—
    The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that the Clearing House is not included under the Clause which we are discussing.
    Mr. RAMSAY: I appreciate that fact. I was just about to make the point that, if you establish the clearing house, within a month the Government will have to come to the House for permission to impose quotas because of the retaliatory action taken by the German Government against this country. If you do not have the quota arrangement, giving the Board of Trade powers to demand equal treatment by Germany of us, you might as well abandon the whole Bill. I hope the Opposition will not continue their present attitude. We are a great democratic country making a gesture, not of defiance, but of defence against methods which are obnoxious to the people of Great Britain, and, unless we are prepared to make that gesture complete and to arm ourselves with weapons which will become absolutely necessary, it would be better to take no step at all. Unless this Clause is embodied in the Bill, an object which hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have at heart will be defeated. I beg hon. Members not to proceed with their opposition.
    8.40 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I do not know if the speech of the hon. Member for West

    1065
    Bromwich (Mr. A. Ramsay) was directed towards facilitating the progress of the Measure, but so far as I am concerned it has had a contrary effect. The speech of the Minister was the type of innocuous speech which contains the maximum of pleasant manner and the minimum of content, and which is desirable from the Treasury Bench in circumstances like the present. The hon. Member for West Bromwich got down to the issues involved, and those issues are the real basis for the opposition coming from the Labour party and from the Liberal party. The hon. Member describes this as a gesture against something in Germany which is obnoxious to the people of Great Britain. Does he mean the present regime in Germany? This is not a gesture against Hitlerism. If it were, I would not be supporting the opposition to the Clause. Any demonstration that this House can make—
    Mr. RAMSAY: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will realise that I did not use the term "Hitlerism" at all. I regard the attitude of this House and my own attitude at this juncture as a gesture against repudiation of honourable agreements and against the tendency—call it incipient if you like and not developed—for one country to attempt to bully other countries throughout the world.
    Mr. MAXTON: I was coming to that as the alternative which the hon. Member might have in mind as something obnoxious. This point as to the repudiation of foreign debts being obnoxious to the people of this country requires a lot of elucidation to me. I candidly admit that I cannot make these very fine lines of demarcation between some repudiations of debt and certain other repudiations of debt. I do not know just when a repudiation of debt is legitimate and when it is not legitimate. I know from my experience in this House that sometimes it is all right. Invariably, when we are doing it, it is all right, but when anybody else is doing it, it is all wrong. It is all a matter which end you are, as to whether it is wrong or whether it is just and statesmanlike. The hon. Member says that the first part of this Measure would be ineffective and inoperative if Clause 2 were not attached. I get more and more interested every day in the depths to which modern private enterprise and capitalism has come.
    1066
    In our innocence, many of us accepted the suggestion that all that private enterprise and private capitalism needed to get it going swimmingly was a tariff policy. That was going to be the great panacea to solve all the difficulties of international trade and to set our industries on their feet. We did not have that very long before we found that that was not enough. We wanted a clearing house, an arrangement for the regulation of foreign debt payments as well. Now we are told that that is not good enough, but that it must be backed up by a system of nation regulation of quotas and by the imposition of discriminatory methods against foreign countries. I want to know, is this the end? Are we finished now? Is this enough with which to arm the Government? If we allow this Measure, have we the assurance of the National Government that international trade and modern capitalism can carry on successfully, meet their financial obligations and carry through their industrial and commercial processes now that there is a system of tariffs, a tariff advisory committee, a clearing house for debt, and a quota system? Will that be enough? What is to be the next dose? The Minister, in defending the Clause, says that the reason for the urgency is the Autumn Recess. Can he assure me, as a simple Member of the House who admitted candidly yesterday that this is not my special line of political interest, that, if he gets Clause 2, that will carry us through the Autumn Recess?
    Mr. EADY: Take the advice that Mr. Asquith gave.
    Mr. MAXTON: That slogan was not the slogan of a National Government, or of any great Conservative Prime Minister. Always when a Government gets into power it adopts that attitude, but it is not a very noble one or a very intelligent one; it is a sort of Derby day, Ascot frame of mind—
    The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member come back to Clause 2 of the Bill?
    Mr. MAXTON: I was answering the hon. Member for Bradford—I do not remember at the moment which division he represents—
    Mr. EADY: It does not matter.
    Mr. MAXTON: Oh, yes, it does; the other Bradford Members are very par-

    1067
    ticular, but I am sorry that at the moment I cannot recollect the hon. Member's geographical division. Can the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department give the Committee any assurance that, if he gets Clause 2, this will be the last thing that he will ask for, until at least another Session of Parliament? Will this take us through the present year, or have we to get something else? I am very interested in the process. I believe, personally, that a stage has been reached where there is only one possible way of dealing with foreign trade, and that is by the State assuming the complete responsibility. I believe you have got to a stage where you have to have a State monopoly of foreign trade—of what is coming in and what is going out. Why the Government should follow this system of instalment trading I do not know, because quite obviously it is not possible with any hope of success to work up a bastard, hybrid system that is partly private trading and partly State action. There must be either the one or the other. The Government are leaving private trade responsibilities as rapidly as they can; they are taking two huge steps in this present Measure, and I ask them, why not face the responsibility intelligently, in a Measure brought before the House for the purpose of organising national trade, instead of in a Measure that is brought before us under the excuse of entirely different purposes?
    Yesterday the Government came to the House and asked for this Measure for a limited, specific purpose; but they put in Clause 2, which has only the very slimmest relationship to that purpose. The hon. Member has made the point that Clause 1, to which, as he pointed out, the House was generally ready to agree, is not an effective instrument—that it is useless, futile, that it is only Clause 2 that matters. But Clause 2 is a wide and general thing spreading over the whole world. It is not limited to the question of Dawes Loans, Young Loans, or Germany; it is world-wide in its operation. Hon. Members on the Liberal benches have laid some stress on the fact that the Government have limited the operation of the Measure, including Clause 2; but nobody here is so innocent as to believe that, after this Government have set up a machine which is going to cost £75,000 a year, and have
    1068
    got that machine working under competent men, it is going to be cut off at the end of two years. If this system is working, and a new Government comes into office, either composed of Members on the Labour benches, or of Members on the Liberal benthos, or a combination of both—it is a bit of a nightmare, but one surely is allowed to speculate on these political futures—whichever one of those Governments happens to be in power when the present one goes out, as it indubitably will, if this machine has been set up and is in action it will not be scrapped, but will be carried on.
    Look at the Minister himself. His Department has been condemned to death I do not know how many times. The Department of Overseas Trade has been condemned to death again and again by successive Governments, and yet there the Minister sits to-day in charge of this important Measure, while the President of the Board of Trade sits silently beside him in a subordinate position. Do not let us delude ourselves with any idea that this is a temporary Measure for temporary purposes. If it goes on to the Statute Book, and the quotas are set up, and the office is staffed and set going, and particularly if there is an income coming in, it will not be temporary. Let me give a relatively small example. In pre-War days it was an absolutely unknown thing in this country to have a passport system. We set up a passport system and a visa system as a department of the Foreign Office. It has gone on continuously since the War under successive Governments, Labour, Conservative and National. There is a staff there who have a vested interest in its going on; there is an income from the payments made by foreign visitors; and the institution goes steadily on, although the reasons which forced its establishment originally have long since passed away.
    That is what you are doing here to-night. You are setting up a permanent instrument for regulating foreign trade, and the question we should be discussing is whether we are setting up an efficient instrument which can do the job in an efficient way or whether we are simply slapping down two spasmodic unconnected ideas that happened to start into the mind of the responsible Minister at the moment when he got angry about the

    1069
    repudiation of the Dawes and Young Loans. That is what the Measure is, a legislative expression of the bad temper felt by the responsible Minister of the Crown at the moment he heard that the Germans were going to repudiate the interest on those loans. That is all that this is, a bit of bad temper, when really, on the general issue of the regulation of foreign trade, some thought and some statesmanship is required—some serious planning and some serious regulation. Instead of that, we get a bit of bad temper, unrelated, in some respects, contradictory proposals in the same Measure, merely in order that the British Government may act as a debt collector for bondholders who were foolish enough to put their money into these investments.
    If the British Government are going to start as debt collectors for all the people who have made investments, whether on the Stock Exchange or on racecourses or anything else, they are going to have a devil of a busy time in the next 10 years, because most of the investments are going to be bad ones. While one has no hope of rejecting the Measure now, I trust that in subsequent stages they will take out this bit, which has no relation to the immediate problem to be confronted, and, if they feel that it is necessary to do something more in the way of regulating foreign trade, if they are prepared to tell us that their policy during the last two years has failed completely and that something more is needed than tariffs and tariff boards and bi-lateral agreements between nation and nation that the President of the Board of Trade has spent most of his time on—if they tell us that all this has proved a frost and a fiasco and the whole thing has to be approached in some new way, that will be a different proposal which we shall be ready to look at and discuss in a decent and friendly way. I agree that it is not fair on a relatively minor issue to bring forward a trade policy which is a major issue in a Measure of this description. I Hope those
    who are responsible for the opposition will carry it to the Division Lobby and, if they do, I promise them that they will get from Independent Labour what they will get from no other party in the House—100 per cent. support.
    3.59 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: A good test to apply to the repudiation of debt by a Government is whether that Government have deliberately manipulated the situation as a matter of policy which makes the payment of the debt difficult or impossible. The Minister just now made no pretence whatever that the provisions of this Clause are necessary in any way to help the Government in dealing with the emergency that has arisen out of the German repudiation of debt. If he had said that in the opinion of the Government it was very important to arm them with these powers for dealing with the German situation, that would have had considerable weight with me, but, in view of the fact that it has been made clear that the Government do not require these powers at all for the German emergency but are asking for them for quite other matters of long-range policy, I do not think we ought to consent to incorporate it in the Bill. It seems to me an abuse of the situation. We quite agree that it is reasonable to rush through a Bill in the course of two days to deal with the specific case of Germany, but to attach to it a Clause which in the ordinary way would lead to considerable debate and negotiations with trading organisations throughout the country is not fair to the House. We are all anxious to give the Government all the powers necessary to deal with the situation, but I do not feel that it is playing the game to force upon us, as part of the same Parliamentary manoeuvre, a wide policy of a totally different nature.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 60.

    Division No. 306.]

    AYES.

    [9.2 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyart T. (Leeds, W.)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Alexander, Sir William

    Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

    Burghley, Lord

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Blindell, James

    Burnett, John George

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Boulton, W. W.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Cassels, James Dale

    Cayzer, Mal. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Christie, James Archibald

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jennings, Roland

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Copeland, Ida

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Scone, Lord

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

    Levy, Thomas

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Danville, Alfred

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Skeiton, Archibald Noel

    Dickie, John p.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Dower, Captain A. V. G.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Drummond Wolff, H. M. C.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Eady, George H.

    Maitland, Adam

    Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Milne, Charles

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Stevenson, James

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Stones, James

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Templeton, William P.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Pearson, William G.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Greene, William P. C.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Grimston, R. V.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Gunston, Captain D. W,

    Petherick, M.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Wallace. John (Dunfermline)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Whyte, Jardine Bell

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Rankin, Robert

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ray, Sir William

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hepworth, Joseph

    Held, Capt. A. Cunningham

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Rickards, George William

    Captain Austin Hudson and Major

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    George Davies.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Milner, Major James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    John, William

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

    Cove, William G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith. Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, William James

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    White, Henry Graham

    Dobbie, William

    Lunn, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    McGovern, John

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Wilmot, John

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.

    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 3 (Contents of Orders), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Orders to be laid before Parliament.)
    9.10 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, to leave out from "Parliament," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
    "and no such order shall have effect until it has been approved, by both Houses of Parliament."
    This is an Amendment to which we attach considerable importance. I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that by the Second Reading of this Bill his hands have been materially strengthened in negotiations which are to take place with Germany. Many of us dislike the provisions of the Bill. They offend most of the principles to which we are attached and which we believe are of importance to British trade, but we realise that special circumstances have arisen which make it necessary to depart from the pure doctrine of encouraging trade. But the discussion has shown that we realise that the Government and Government Departments are being armed with very considerable powers which might be used to deal with problems far beyond the scope of the particular issue which has been the justification for this peculiar kind of legislation brought forward as an emergency and rushed through after two days discussion. After all, the Government Departments do not know the possible reactions to their policy. The effect on trade interests of hasty Orders made under this Bill may be very injurious to a very large number of business interests.
    The great purpose of the House of Commons is to control the Executive. Slow and cumbersome machinery has been built up purposely to control the Executive so that the great public in years gone by, in the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries, might be sure that their interests were not interfered with by the Executive without having an opportunity through their elected representatives of putting their point of view or ventilating their grievances and being assured that every interest in the country would be properly considered. That is why we go through the old and antiquated procedure of taking the Mace off the Table. That is why Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair and the Chairman of Ways and Means takes charge of our proceedings whenever "financial proposal is before
    1074
    this House. It is in order to be quite sure that before a tax is imposed any interest affected can be expressed, and, through the Committee of this House, properly discussed. If that be the case in order to pass taxation, it is surely equally necessary when, in this interest or that interest, you interfere with the ordinary channels of trade, or a business man's contract, or limit his right to trade with this or that country by the machinery of quotas or by setting up a clearing house as is provided for in Clause 1 of this Bill.
    If the Executive, without the knowledge of the House, make an Order on the advice of some Minister, it cannot be altered without moving a Vote of Censure, and hon. Members know the difficulty of such a proceeding. The Minister may say that he did it for the best, although certain trades may have been ruined and contracts already made broken. The House should retain its immemorial right to confirm policy before it is put into operation. That is all I am asking by the Amendment. The Government only desire these powers to deal with a particular case. When that case arises and the right hon. Gentleman can show that British interests have been unfairly treated, this House will treat him in the same way as it did yesterday, the Order will go through, just as the Bill did yesterday, after a comparatively few hours of Debate, and without a Division.
    I want to retain the control of the House of Commons. These are times when it is necessary to stand firm in defence of our ancient privileges. It is the fashion for a certain type of politician to say that our procedure is out of date. It may be slow and cumbersome, but, at any rate, it gives the traders of this country the right to make business arrangements without fear of a Government Department coming down and by setting up a clearing house or a system of quotas upsetting their legitimate operations. Economic nationalism and tariff barriers which have been set up all over the world are a serious danger to trade interests, and on the top of all that we are imposing this new risk, because the operation of this Bill can be set up without the House of Commons being able to exercise control. Almost every week manufacturers and business men write to me to say that they have been taken by

    1075
    surprise by some Bill of the Government which spells ruin to them unless it is altered or modified. The only security they have are the representatives in the House of Commons. I want to retain that security, and the only way is to substitute the words of the Amendment for the words in the Bill.
    9.20 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is very unreasonable of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) to come forward with this proposal. He talks about the immemorial rights of the House of Commons. He knows perfectly well that the procedure in the Bill is the same as that under the Import Duties Act; and he also knows perfectly well that Parliament does not sit all the year round, and that if we were to accept the Amendment months and months might elapse before any Order at all could be made. He takes credit to himself for having strengthened our hands by passing the Second Reading without a division, but now he wants to make our task more difficult. The House is to have an opportunity to confirm an Order, it has to be submitted to the approval of the House, and a Resolution has to be passed; surely that is enough for anybody.
    9.22 p.m.
    Mr. D. MASON: I think the right hon. Gentleman is hardly fair to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). It is admitted that we have only had a limited period in which to discuss this Bill, which gives powers of a very wide character. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said that he was inclined to support arguments in favour of a proposal of this nature, and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has always been a defender of the rights of this House. This is an Amendment which asks that this House should be given an opportunity to discuss these Orders before they become law, and, as we have not had a full opportunity to discuss the Bill itself, I think that is a reasonable request. I appeal to those hon. Members who consider that there is more in this Amendment than meets the eye, to support it.
    9.25 p.m.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: As far as the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) is concerned, I would say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not only fair but more than fair in the treatment meted out to the hon. Baronet. Only the other day on the Milk Bill he and I asked for a Clause of the very kind which is in this Bill and said that every time it was not inserted in such Measures there would be protests. Now the Government is good enough to insert the kind of Clause we thought necessary, making the Orders effective only for a certain time unless there is an approving Resolution. The Government has adopted a Clause of the sort we asked for time and time again and we congratulate them. It is very mean of the Liberal party to ride off on something else. The hon. Member has joined me before in pressing this view on the Government. Nothing seems to satisfy him. That is the way with the Liberal party. The result is they do not get anything at all and they do not deserve it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clauses 5 (Expenses) and 6 (Interpretation) ordered to stand part of the Bil.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Short title.)
    9.27 p.m.
    Mr. WHITE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, to leave out "Reprisals."
    This word is not in keeping with the decorous and moderate terms in which this Bill has been argued in the House. When I first read the Title of the Bill, I was shocked to see this word, which has never appeared in the Title of any other Bill introduced into this House. Reprisals are strictly in keeping with the times and the conduct of business to-day. Trade no longer is a peaceful arrangement, but a matter of economic warfare. There has been no phrase or expression used in the course of the discussion on this Bill in any sense provocative. The whole tone has been one of anxiety to come to an agreement, to avoid the enforcing of the proposals in this Bill. I think the most provocative phrase consisted of two words which fell from the Financial Secretary last night, when he said that this Bill completed our armoury. That is strictly in keeping

    1077
    with the kind of powers existing to-day for trade. The word "reprisals" is a precedent, and I invite-the Government to remove it from the Bill.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not attach the slightest importance or objection to the word "reprisals."
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.29 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 12, at the end, to add:
    "(2) This Act shall continue in force until the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and no longer provided that the expiring of this Act shall not affect the previous operation thereof or any Order made thereunder or any obligation or liability previously incurred under this Act or any such Order or the taking of any steps or the institution or carrying on of any proceeding to enforce any such obligation or liability."
    I move this Amendment to carry out an undertaking I gave earlier in the evening to limit the operation of the Bill to two years. The Amendment also contains a proviso which is necessary.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. Should not this be a new Clause—not an Amendment to the short Title?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The practice of this House in many Acts has been to put limiting powers into the short Title Clause.
    9.31 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: We are thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this Amendment. I gather that the new words to be inserted will bring about a state of affairs, if an Order is made, where all debts accruing up to the date of the Order will be liable to pay the quota, and that everything that has been put down regarding these debts after the termination of the Act under the provision just brought forward, provides that the determining factor will be whether the debt arises before the termination of the Act.
    Amendment agreed to.

    SCHEDULE.—(Particular Provisions which may be included in an Order made under this Act.)
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
    In page 7, line 21, to leave out Subsection (v).
    In line 23, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that in the case of Orders made under section one of this Act, such punishment shall take the form of a money payment which shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the sum involved, and shall be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty."—[Mr. Dingle Foot.]
    9.32 p.m.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: On a point of Order. Would it be convenient to deal with these two Amendments together?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that if they both cover the same ground, it would be to the general convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. FOOT: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, to leave out Sub-section (v).
    This is not a point which affects the main purpose of the Bill, but I venture to think that the provision in Subsection (v) of the Schedule is rather an unusual one. It gives the Department in question the power of punishment when there is failure to comply with an Order. We are here asked to give to a Minister of a Government Department unlimited discretion to impose punishment and penalties. There is no limit to the extent of the punishment that may be imposed or the kind of punishment under this part of the Schedule. I would like to remind the Committee of one of the main recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee, that precise limits of the law giving power which Parliament intends to confer on Ministers "hall always be defined in clear language by the Statute which confers it, and that when discretion is conferred its limit shall be defined with equal clearness.
    That is a recommendation to which some of us attach a good deal of importance and it is one with which I think nearly all sections of the Committee would agree. In that recommendation the Committee refer to the law-making power. Here we are not only conferring the power to make laws of the kind to which they refer but, it may be that we are conferring the power to make criminal law. There is nothing here to show that the punishment to be imposed may not include imprisonment as well as a monetary fine.
    I am not going to say that this is without a precedent in our legislation. The time available for the study of the Bill has been short, and I have not been able

    1079
    to go through the Statute Book in search of precedents. But although it may not be entirely without precedent it is, at any rate, highly unusual and highly undesirable. The provisions which we have made from time to time for enforcing Ministerial Orders and regulations seem to fall into two categories. The first category is that of Statutes which give a Minister or a Department power to make Orders or regulations, and which also fix the penalty for a breach of those regulations. Such a Statute, for example, provides that for a breach of the regulations a court of summary jurisdiction may impose a fine not exceeding a certain amount or makes some provision of that kind. I give two examples taken almost at random from recent legislation, namely, Section 15 of the Import Duties Act and Section 35 of the Road and Bail Traffic Act of last year, both of which provide penalties for breach of the regulations in that way. The second category is that of Statutes which give power to a Minister to make regulations and to fix penalties but limits the penalty which the Minister has discretion to impose. An example of that kind of Statute is Section 10 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act under which the Secretary of State may make an Order and may annex a penalty to that Order not exceeding 40s.
    Those are the two principal ways in which we enforce orders and regulations which Ministers are empowered by Statute to make. This provision does not come within either of those categories. The Government are here asking for arbitrary and unlimited power. We do not know the extent of the penalty which they contemplate or the kind of punishment they contemplate. It may be said that any order which is made must be subject to the approval of Parliament within 28 days, but we cannot amend these Orders. We can only confirm them or reject them outright, and it is unlikely that the House of Commons would be ready to reject a whole Order simply because they thought the punishment imposed under the Order did not fit the crime. Some of us think this an important issue. We think that this is just another aspect of the new despotism. If it is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to accept the actual Amendment I hope it will be possible for him
    1080
    to find some form of words which will limit the discretion of the Minister and the Department and the extent of the penalty which they are empowered to impose.
    9.39 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The effect of these words in the Schedule is not to confer on the Executive any sinister or arbitrary new power. A breach of a Statute or Statutory Order is a common law misdemeanour, without any express words in the Statute or the Order and, as a common law misdemeanour, it is punishable, only on indictment and by imprisonment or fine, both unlimited in amount. Thus, if the Order did not deal with what punishment or penalties could properly be imposed, an offence would still be punishable on indictment at common law by imprisonment or fine to au unlimited extent. One effect of putting these special words in here is that summary proceedings can be taken. Another effect is that Parliament will see the limit which it is proposed to put on the punishment, which, but for this provision in the Schedule, would be unlimited. There is no intention to inflict excessive penalties. The second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member would make it impossible for imprisonment to be a penalty in any case. It proposes to insert:
    "Provided that in the case of orders made under Section one of this Act, such punishment shall take the form of a money payment which shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the sum involved, and shall be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty."
    I think the Committee will agree that that would be inadequate in the case of a person deliberately giving false information to the Clearing Office with a view to benefiting himself, at the expense of other members of the community who are loyally carrying out the duties which Parliament has imposed upon them, under the Act and the Order. As I say, we have no intention of imposing heavy penalties. I do not wish to tie myself down to figures but in order to show hon. Members the kind of thing which we have in mind I suggest the possibility of a fine of something in the nature of £ 100 in the case of failure to disclose or, to take the proper steps provided for by the Order, with the possibility of a sentence of three months' imprisonment in serious offences. The hon. Member is right in saying that in certain Statutes definite limits have been

    1081
    laid down to penalties. In this case that has not been done for the reason that this matter, as is accepted, I think, on all sides of the Committee, is one of considerable urgency. In view of that fact and as the Order has to be laid before Parliament and with the assurance that we do not desire to impose excessive penalties, I hope my hon. Friend will see his way to withdraw these Amendments.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Does this provision follow precedent or is this the first time that Parliament has been asked to legislate in this form?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot say at the moment, It is usual for a reference to penalties to be introduced into these Bills, otherwise as I have pointed out, the unlimited penalties at common law would be applicable.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Perhaps the Solicitor-General would ascertain.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: At the moment I cannot say whether there is any precedent for an express reference to punishment. The punishment might be defined in the Order.
    9.44 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I think this is a rather important departure. Not only can this Order define the amount of the penalty, but it can also define the crime.
    "failure to comply with the section under which it is made"
    might be made, by definition, to mean something which would be more easily infringed than the provision without any definition. The precise provision, the infringement of which is to bring the person who infringes it within the reach of punishment, might make a great deal of difference in the onus of proof and the likelihood of conviction. It surely has been the practice in penal Statutes of all kinds to lay down quite clearly, firstly what the offence is, and secondly what is the maximum penalty that may be inflicted for that offence. I am not certain to what particular matters this Subsection refers, because I think I am right—the hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the Customs Consolidation Act and the Acts amending and extending it which are applied with reference to Clause 2 and also the import of goods under Clause 1
    1082
    have themselves already got in them full penalty Clauses.
    Therefore, anything which arises under those, dealing either with the import of goods or with failure to pay, or payment of a certain portion of the money to the Clearing Office upon the imported goods, will be dealt with automatically under the Customs Consolidation Act and the amending Acts, by reason of the provisions which are already in the Bill. Therefore, the matters which, fall to be decided under this Sub-section (v) will apparently be outside the purview of the Customs Consolidation Acts and the penalties imposed thereunder. They would, I presume, therefore, only relate to such matters as giving false information to the Clearing Office or attempting in some way or another to evade some of the obligations under Clause 1, but with regard to Clause 2, it does not seem that there is really anything to which it could apply at all, unless to a failure to get a licence or something of that sort, and that would then fall to be dealt with under the penalties under the Customs Consolidation Act for importation without licence. If this is only designed to deal with the question of making false returns or false statements to the Clearing Office, surely it would be possible to insert provisions which laid down a maximum penalty for that crime or omission, as the case might be. It seems undesirable to lay down in this Schedule a provision by which the Department can provide
    "for the punishment of any failure to comply with the Order."
    Those are not very accurate legal terms, and a failure to comply with an Order might be something which, in the ordinary common law, would not be punishable as a crime. It might be that the form of the Order would make something into a crime which before was not a crime. To give an unlimited power to impose penalties, without this House laying down any maximum within which those powers must be imposed, seems to be a dangerous thing for this House to do. After all, we are still the guardians of the liberties of the people, and although it may be that we trust the right hon. Gentleman completely, as I am sure most of us do, still it does seem to be too great an abrogation of the powers of this House to hand over

    1083
    the definition of a crime and the assessment of the amount of punishment, entirely out of our control, to a Government Department.
    Although these Orders will come before the House of Commons, under our present procedure it is quite impossible for anybody to have any effective control over them. They come before the House, and then they have to be passed. I have suggested more than once that sooner or later these Orders will have to be dealt with in a Committee, where they can be controlled by the House in some degree, and not brought before this House, where they cannot be controlled at all, because they always have to be passed. The Government produce them and have to pass them, and no Amendments can be made to them. Therefore, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be far more satisfactory if this Sub-section were withdrawn, and in another place some more satisfactory definition inserted, more in accordance with what I believe to be the practice of the House.
    9.50 p.m.
    Sir P. HARRIS: My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) has made a very strong case against this exceptional departure from principle, and I think the Solicitor-General realised the importance of the point and that we were making a rather dangerous precedent. He said an Order would have to be laid on the Table, but he forgets that the Order would be in operation before being laid on the Table. Any particular Order has only to be brought before the House 28 Parliamentary days after it has come into operation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very contemptuous when I asked that, instead of the Orders having to come before the House after they were in operation, they should come before the House before they came into operation. Surely, if the Government claim under this emergency the right to define the kind of punishment, it justifies me more than when I pleaded that we should not give the Government this free hand to legislate by Order under the general powers given by a Measure of this kind. I think my hon. Friend made out his case, and that these words should be withdrawn, but if they cannot be
    1084
    withdrawn, I hope my hon. Friend will press the Amendment to a Division.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Might I ask the Solicitor-General to reply to my question?
    9.52 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My main point in answer to the Amendment to leave out this Sub-section was that if you do not have in some such words as are in this Sub-section, the penalty for breach of an Order is unlimited in amount of money and in period of imprisonment, and, therefore it is wrong to suggest that by providing that in an Order, where maxima could be imposed, you were therefore punishing people with a punishment which otherwise could not be imposed upon them. With regard to the question put by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), I am informed that there is no precedent for this particular provision, but, as the Committee will appreciate, this is a rather unusual area. It is not like the question of motoring regulations, where one is familiar with the kind of offence that may be committed. This is an area in which offences of a far more serious character than might be envisaged at the outset might be perpetrated or might arise. Therefore, if we did put maxima in the Schedule, they would have, out of caution, to be very high indeed, and certainly far beyond anything that it is our intention to put in the first Order; and I hope the Committee will appreciate that point, that it is not a case where the ground is already more or less surveyed, where you realise the kind of offence and the possibilities with which it is involved, and you can therefore insert a maximum penalty. It is the kind of case where offences of a more serious character than were envisaged at the outset might come to light. When Parliament puts in a maximum, it does so for the most serious kind of offence that it can contemplate. It is our intention to start the first Order with small penalties, something in the nature of a fine of £100, or three months imprisonment.
    9.55 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. and learned Member has rather disturbed me, because he says that the ground has not been surveyed. That is the trouble. This is an enormous hinterland, quite unsurveyed. We do not know what these offences may be or what the degree of

    1085
    culpability may be, if any. There may be a breach of an Order, which may be slight or great. We do not know what the penalty may be. It may be simply some matter of not complying with an Order, without any guilt about it at all. The Committee ought to be very careful about allowing a new offence, with entirely unregulated punishments, to be set up in a Bill like this, which has had very scanty time for consideration in the House. It is brought in as a matter of emergency and it proposes to give very wide powers to the Executive to formulate offences and to prescribe punishment of some kind which will come before us at night, on some Order. I certainly think that the Solicitor-General far from having calmed the mind of anyone will have disturbed the minds of hon. Members further.
    9.56 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The Committee is now faced with a really important question of principle. This is not some minor, unimportant issue which has emerged from the discussion, but one that touches very closely the whole principle of Parliamentary legislation and the relation of the House of Commons to the Executive. Let me remind the Committee precisely what is the proposal in the Bill now under discussion. The Bill gives power to Government Departments to make orders for imposing certain obligations on private citizens, but in the Schedule there appears the most extraordinary provision that an Order made under this Act may provide:
    "for the puishment of any failure to comply with the order, or with the section under which it is made."
    Simply that. A blank sheet given to the Executive to write in whatever they like of any penalty for any infraction of any of these Orders. It is said that all such Orders, including this provision, must be laid before Parliament, and that an Order in each House must be made to give it validity, but I would point out two important facts. First, these Orders must be accepted as a whole. They must be either endorsed or rejected. There is no question of examining them Clause by Clause. No Member of the House can get up and say "These penalties of imprisonment are too heavy. We think that that matter should be dealt with by a fine." The House can only vote "Aye," or "No." Only if there was a strong
    1086
    expression of public opinion and great agitation over a matter of this sort, might any alteration be made. Only if the House thought the matter was so grave that it ought to risk the rejection of the Order as a whole, might there be any amendment of any provision in it.
    Secondly, these Orders are to come into force and to have validity before Parliament has considered them. From the very moment that they are made they have effect, and if Parliament is not sitting two or three months may elapse before the matter comes before either House of Parliament. In the meantime these penalties will be applicable and, if the occasion arises, may be enforced. The Solicitor-General, in answer to my question, has told the Committee that this is the first time that Parliament has ever been asked to legislate in these terms. He says that if this were not done all sorts of terrible penalties would fall upon the subject, that the individual would be exposed to unlimited imprisonment and unlimited fine. But there have been plenty of Acts of Parliament creating misdemeanours of all sorts and imposing penalties, but never before has it been found necessary to insert a provision of this character. I have been a Member of this House off and on for 20 years but I have never before seen any provision approaching this. Always there has been limitation to one of two courses. It might have been proposed that the penalties in certain Acts of Parliament should apply. The Government might have said that the penalties in the Customs Consolidation Act, or any other Act that might be suitable or relevant, should be embodied here and applied in the Statute. That would be the reasonable course. In other Acts of Parliament it is frequently stated that in an Order a Minister may impose penalties not exceeding such and such penalties; fines not exceeding such and such an amount or imprisonment of such and such an amount. That is proper Parliamentary legislation, but for the House simply to pass an Act saying that a Minister may make an Order
    "providing for the punishment of any failure to comply with an order, or with the section under which it is made,"
    would be setting a most invidious precedent, and to do that in a hurry in a Bill which is proposed in this way, all of a sudden, with no opportunity for consider-

    1087
    ation, and with none of the legal Members of the House here to have their attention drawn to it, is most undesirable. I wish there had been present some of the private Members of the House who are lawyers, who on previous occasions have risen in their places and have spoken in objection and protest against provisions in Bills conferring excessive powers upon the executive and which, in certain circumstances, ousted the jurisdiction of the court in favour of Ministerial Orders.
    This is no new question. Under the leadership of the present Lord Chief Justice, Lord Hewart, there arose a very strong movement in protest against the growing tendency in Parliament of conferring upon Ministers arbitrary powers ousting the jurisdiction of the courts; so much so that a committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Donough-more, called the Ministers' Powers Committee, and that committee, in the most emphatic terms, protested against the growing practice in Acts of Parliament of inserting provisions giving excessive powers to Minsters. The matter came up in the course of this Parliament under an Agricultural Marketing Bill. I drew attention to the fact that that Bill included a provision that any Order made by the Minister should be held to be valid, whether it was within the terms of the Statute or not, and that no proceedings in any court could be taken to challenge any Order that was made under the signature of the Minister. When we from the Liberal Benches protested against that provision as being an invasion of the liberty of the subject and an excessive power to be conferred by Parliament on the Executive, the Government refused to give way, but the matter was taken up on the Motion of Lord Reading, who was supported by leading legal authorities in the other House to such purpose that the Government were compelled to give way, and that Bill was amended to enable Orders within a certian period of time to be challenged in the courts.
    Here we have as grave an invasion, and in some respects perhaps a graver invasion, of the principle that individual Ministers shall not be given excessive powers, and that their powers shall have specific Parliamentary sanction. I appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the Com-
    1088
    mittee to view this provision seriously. It is the first time that Parliament has ever been asked to legislate in these terms. I trust that it will not be left to those who sit on the Liberal Benches to make a protest, but that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) will receive some other measure of support. I hope that the matter will be considered, that the practice of previous years will be restored, and either specific penalties inserted or else the penalties already provided by Parliament for similar offences will be included in the Bill.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The criticism upon this paragraph has been of a twofold character; first of all that there was insufficient recognition of the words, and secondly that there was no mention of any maximum penalty. I recognise that there is a good deal to be said for the criticism, and although it appeared at first that there was some difficulty, I think I have now been able to get over it. Therefore, if the hon. Member is prepared to withdraw his Amendment I shall be very happy to submit to the Committee words which I think will carry out both the purposes, amend the words of the paragraph and also put in maximum penalties.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I appreciate the manner in which the Chancellor has met us, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, to leave out "failure to comply with," and to insert "breach of." This is the first of three Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 22, after the word "or," to insert "any failure to comply."
    Mr. DINGLE FOOT: We thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he has made, and we, of course, accept the alteration which he proposes.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I would like to tell the Chancellor that we are grateful, as far as the objection I took to the wording

    1089
    of the paragraph is concerned. The words that he now proposes seem quite satisfactory.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 23, at the end, insert:
    "So, however, that such punishment shall not in the case of a summary conviction exceed a fine of one hundred pounds or imprisonment for three months, or both such fine and imprisonment; or for a second or any subsequent conviction a fine of five hundred pounds or imprisonment, or both such fine and imprisonment."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Bill reported; as amended, considered.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Power of Treasury in certain circumstances to set up Clearing Offices.)
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out "class of any."
    This Amendment meets a point made by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged. The Amendment is not really to meet my point, but to meet a point which I thought would cause difficulty to the Government if it was not altered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, after "country," to insert "to which the order applies."
    I will not say that this Amendment meets a point of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but that it arises out of an observation which fell from him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    10.14 p.m.
    Mr. MANDER: I cannot help feeling that we all deeply regret that it has been necessary to bring forward this Bill to-day, and that circumstances of this kind have arisen. We on the Liberal Benches particularly regret that the Government have taken advantage of this opportunity, when dealing with something of an emergency nature in Clause 1, to include in Clause 2 something of a totally different nature which does not
    1090
    hang with Clause 1 at all. We think they have taken unfair advantage of the position they occupy in order to include a long-range policy which required a great deal of discussion. At the same time, regrettable as the Measure is, and certain as I think it is, if it comes into operation, to create chaos and dissatisfaction and harm to the trade of this country as to other countries, we have to ask ourselves, What is the alternative? Are we going to allow Germany for ever to walk over us, to break the Treaty of Versailles, and to manipulate the situation so that she goes free of all her obligations? I have heard in the course of the Debates on this Bill no suggestion of any alternative way of dealing with the situation. I cannot help feeling in the circumstances that it is reasonable for us to give support to the Government in asking for the powers that they require in Clause I to deal with the defaults by Germany. I am glad to see the Government taking resolute action in international affairs, and I only wish that on other subjects in regard to Germany a year ago they had been equally resolute.
    What is the situation with which we are faced in this question? I believe it is true to say that Germany has deliberately created the situation which has made it difficult, if not impossible, for her to pay the interest on the Young and Dawes Loans. I think it is a case of fraudulent bankruptcy, because the repudiation policy has been openly boasted of by the Nazi leaders at home for home consumption on many occasions. Dr. Schacht has made no attempt whatever to hide the fact that his personal policy is repudiation and that the Nazi Government intended to do everything in their power to carry out the policy which they are now attempting to enforce. In a recently published Nazi official programme a promise of repudiation is made as its most vital point in the war against international finance and loan capital; and it is further stated that this policy has the personal support of Chancellor Hitler. In these circumstances, what possible alternative have we to the Bill which the Government are proposing? Are we to do nothing at all? That would be an impossible situation.
    The first step towards repudiation took place in the spring of 1933, when the re-

    1091
    payments of credits to the United States and various European countries were made deliberately with the obvious purpose of reducing the Reichsbank reserves. No doubt Germany has had her difficulties, as all countries have. There is the trade slump, the tariffs that have been put up between all countries, quotas, currency restrictions, and the depreciation in the pound and in the dollar. Apart from that, I venture to say there are three other deliberate steps taken by the German Government which have created the difficulties which have made for the present depression. First, there is the well known fact that while they are unable, so they say, to transfer currency across the frontier for the purpose of paying interest upon this debt, they find no difficulty in transferring large sums of currency to Austria and to other countries for the purpose of carrying on propaganda, very often against the very foundation of the constitution of certain states bordering upon Germany. Is it not really impossible, in these circumstances, to accept what she now says at its face value?
    Furthermore, is it not equally true that she has pursued at home a deliberate policy towards certain members of her own community which has created an inevitable refusal on the part of their comrades, associates and friends to purchase German goods? As a result of the brutal persecution carried out in Germany there has been a revulsion of feeling which in itself has prevented the development of her export trade and, indeed, has severely crippled it. She has only to reverse that policy and to behave like a civilised nation and she will have no difficulty in once more building up her export trade. Again, in the last few months we have noticed that Germany has found it possible to obtain currency for the importation of large quantities of raw materials such as would be very useful in the manufacture of munitions of war, forbidden to her by the Treaty of Versailles. In these circumstances, again, we must look with the utmost suspicion on the statement that she finds it impossible to pay. I do not think there can be any doubt, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said and these real facts which I have ventured to go through, that the situation is one deliberately created, and that we must meet it in
    1092
    some way and devise a check to be placed upon Germany.
    It is stated that she could retaliate on the British Empire, but is that really so? Most of the materials she buys from the British Empire are raw materials required for the purpose of her manufactures. For instance, 90 per cent. of her wool comes from Australia. If she were to transfer her purchases from Australia to the Argentine or somewhere else she would have to pay more, and I think it would cripple her internal industry. Therefore, I think there is not very much fear in the way of reprisals against the British Empire. But I would submit that really the problem we are dealing with in this Bill is not an economic one at all, but a political problem. It is difficult to defend this Bill on economic grounds, but it is possible to defend it on political grounds. I am speaking, of course, of Clause 1. I am opposed to Clause 2. I am making the case against Germany on Clause 1, which is the only one which deals with the German situation. Clause 2 may be desirable, in the opinion of the Government, but it does not touch the really vital and urgent problem of Germany which we are considering to-day. I believe that the only way to deal with the present rulers of Germany is to speak to them with the utmost firmness, and to be prepared if necessary to follow up that firmness by acts. I believe that is the only language that those people understand.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Send warships.
    Mr. MANDER: They have been able to walk through the Treaty of Versailles as regards disarmament; they are in a position to do pretty well what they like without anybody lifting a finger to stop them. I am glad to know that here, at any rate, something is going to be done to prevent a complete surrender to the present Nazi Government in Germany. Clause 1 of this Bill is in the nature of an economic sanction. I would very much rather it had been put into force as a result of a decision by some international tribunal, and I hope the time will come when we shall have international machinery capable of judging a case of this kind on its merits and giving a definite ruling as to what should be done. But we have no such machinery in operation, we have to act as a State on our own, and I cannot help thinking,

    1093
    in spite of all the difficulties and dangers on the economic side, that in the circumstances of the world to-day, and in view of the deliberate default of the Nazi Government, we are taking the only steps available and that have been brought to our notice in passing this Bill, and if necessary, though I very much hope it will not be necessary, putting it into effect.
    10.25 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN WALLACE: It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). When economic issues arise, he and I are generally on opposite sides, but I am in complete agreement with every statement that he has made to-night. Like him, I look upon this Bill as a regrettable necessity. Any further argument on the subject was supplied in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. That speech confirmed all the impressions that I had about the attitude of Germany. A speech such as he delivered on the introduction of the Bill, as a responsible Minister of the Crown speaking of a great Power, was one of the most serious indictments of a European Power which has ever been delivered in this House, apart from the period of the War. This is a most important juncture in international affairs'. It is a serious reflection on the honesty of Germany that an exceedingly cautious Chancellor of the Exchequer, who weighs every word he speaks in this House, should find it necessary to say:
    "I am afraid I must record that, rightly or wrongly, the creditors of all countries no longer feel the confidence that they did in the good faith of Germany."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1934; col. 806, Vol. 291.]
    The present action of Germany recalls memories which we in this House would rather forget. As has been pointed out, that action has taken place at a most significant time when Germany is deliberately re-arming and when, upon a large scale, she is reconditioning her country. I saw in the "News Chronicle" the other day that Germany has just arranged for a five-year plan, during the accomplishment of which she intends to spend £160,000,000 on her roads alone. Just when she is re-arming and reconditioning, the moment is chosen for repudiation of the debt. It was well pointed out in the dispatch sent by the
    1094
    Foreign Secretary that there was no need for repudiation, and that the difficulties of Germany
    "were being aggravated by the political and economic policy of Germany herself and that the sacrifices offered by the creditors could only be justified if Germany did all in her power to preserve and improve her foreign exchange resources."
    There is no evidence whatever that Germany is endeavouring to do that. While we have no right in any way to criticise the form of any European Government, we have a perfect right to animadvert on any internal policy which is reacting against ourselves. I suggest that the internal policy of Germany—her anti-Semetic policy—has a direct relation to her present financial condition. It is not possible for her to embark upon a policy of ostracism towards the great Jewish race without putting in operation some kind of boomerang which will recoil upon the German people themselves, and I have not the slightest doubt that the policy which the Nazis have adopted towards the Jews in Germany will have the most disastrous results on the present regime. At this late hour I do not intend to delay the House, but I could not help remarking, in the Debate to which I listened yesterday, that some of the speakers who opposed this Bill had not a word to say in condemnation of Germany. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) confined his observations very largely to an attack upon the capitalist system, which in his mental outlook is very like what the head of King Charles was to Mr. Dick. He seemed to forget what the capitalist system has accomplished, and the enormous burdens that it has borne in the last few years; but I am riot going to touch upon that question, particularly now. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who took part in the Debate, had nothing whatever to say in condemnation of Germany—
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That is not correct.
    Mr. WALLACE: I always speak subject to correction, but I have not the slightest recollection that he had anything to say in condemnation of Germany.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: All I can say is that you have a bad recollection.
    Mr. WALLACE: As a rule my recollection is extremely good, and I am quite

    1095
    willing to pit it against that of the hon. Member. But I was surprised at the comparative unfairness of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton. I am quite aware that what politics has gained the law has lost in my hon. Friend, because he possesses many of the qualities of a great advocate. One quality he never fails to exhibit, and that is the minimisation of points which tell against him, and the emphasis of points which tell in his favour. For that I do not blame him. But yesterday, in speaking about the German default and the position which this country has been forced to take up, he devoted himself almost entirely to an attack on what he called the rentier. Upon the devoted head of the rentier he poured all the vials of his wrath; he was dispised and rejected. Who is the rentier to whose rescue we are alleged to have gone in this Bill? The rentier is generally a respectable man or woman who has a modest competency in life. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said—I gave him notice that I was going to refer to his speech to-night—
    "Here, however, we have the rentier, the moneylender, the fellow that sits and draws interest, as distinct from the man who goes out and tries to make something."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1934; cols. 849–850, Vol. 291.]
    The man who goes out and tries to make something and the rentier are very often one and the same man. A man who has spent a long life in business has saved a certain amount of money and invested it and becomes a rentier.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is really more suitable to a Second Reading Debate.
    Mr. WALLACE: I will not follow it any further. I may have an opportunity to refer to it at another time in competition with the hon. Member. I am extremely glad that the Government have taken this bold, decisive step in introducing this Bill which has the almost unanimous support of the House.
    10.36 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Government are to-night again engaged in a popular Measure. If you took a vote of the people of this country I should say almost 99 per cent. would approve of what you are doing. But that is no reason why responsible people in the House of Commons should not exercise
    1096
    their right of stating a case though public opinion may be against them. This is not the first time that Germany has defaulted. France has also defaulted. By the manipulation of currency countries have defaulted in the past, possibly not in the open straightforward fashion they are now doing, but by making the franc far less valuable than it was before, the same results were gained. I do not read the foreign Press. I do not travel. I am one of the few Members who have never been outside these shores. But I read the other week for the first time in my life American newspapers charging this Government with default on our payments. It may well be, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), that this is tantamount to a declaration of war against Germany. There is a terrible feeling against Hitler. The hon. Member who said that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) had not a word of condemnation for Germany, if he re-reads his speech, will find that, after a moving appeal by a Tory Member, he said that that appeal, moving and eloquent as it was, would find little response because of the horrible treatment the German rulers had given to the common people there.
    The real reason for the popular support of this Bill is not that the German nation has defaulted. It is not the rights and wrongs of the problem, but that the methods of the rulers in Germany are hated and despised by almost every human being in this country. It is said that it is to collect for the Dawes and Young Loans, and that the British Government have given a guarantee. If that be the case, why was it that the Government raised the Young Loan and the Dawes Loan? If it were Government money, why did not the Government raise a loan in the same way as they raise loans for their every day work and pass that loan across to Germany as Government money? But the money was raised distinctly at exceptionally high rates of interest. Why? Because it was not a question of lending it to the British Government, but to a foreign Government. To-day those people, who like Shylock, are demanding from a ruined Germany rates of interest which are a disgrace, are finding that their investments at a high rate of

    1097
    interest would have been much better at a lower rate of interest in this country. We have to pay the price. We may be right or we may be wrong, but great masses of comparatively poor people in Germany who have no more say in the ruling of the German nation than I have, are the shuttlecock.
    The dangers are not here, and they have not ended to-night. I see the danger of war. You cannot start an economic war without the other kind of war being just at hand. It is not far away from the feud of individuals. It starts in this way. It gathers momentum as the time goes on, and I see the beginning of a terrible clash which may well end in human slaughter. I say, speaking for the comparatively few for whom I speak in this House and not for any great numbers outside, even if it be the last thing I do in this House, that I look at this Measure with fearful forebodings and with almost the desire that this sort of thing should not be done. I think that those in charge of this Measure might have tried a higher statesmanship and have negotiated and tried something else. I see a danger of human slaughter emerging, and it is because of that that I have intervened in the Debate.
    10.43 p.m.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I desire to say only a few words to the House, but there are two things I wish to say. The first is to express appreciation of my hon. Friends and myself of the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues have conducted this Bill through the House to-day. They have shown a most conciliatory spirit. They have made concessions on a number of points, some of them of real importance and substance, and we should like to pay our tribute of gratitude to the Government for the attitude they have adopted. The second thing I wish to say is to explain more clearly the reason why we on these benches entertain a strong objection to Clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill has attracted the most attention but in the long run I believe that Clause 2 will be the most important. So much the more attention has Clause 1 attracted that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who has just made an eloquent speech, spoke of Clause 1 as if it were the Bill, and, while continually referring to the Bill, he dealt only with
    1098
    the aspect of the Bill which touches the dispute with Germany on account of her default.
    The necessity for Clause 1 we acknowledge and, therefore, we did not vote against the Second Reading. But Clause 2 deals with a wholly different matter, and we dislike it intensely because we are convinced that the whole policy it represents is on wrong lines. The advocates of Clause 2 say that if you are in a war you must fight or be beaten, and that if you are to fight you must have weapons. That is true and cannot be gainsaid, but it is the business of statesmen to obviate war whether in matters of trade or in matters of military action. The world is now beginning to realise, certainly with regard to armaments and also I think in regard to trade, putting the question on the lowest level that in modern civilisation the gains of victory are less than the gains of peace. In military affairs the whole world is beginning to realise that the gains of victory, whatever they may be, are less than the gains of peace; and we shall soon have to recognise the same truth with regard to trade wars, that the gains of victory are less than the gains of peace. Each country always declares that the other country is the aggressor. In every Parliament every Government says that they are compelled to raise their tariffs and adopt quotas because of the action taken by their neighbours. That is common form.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday men-tinoed by way of parenthesis that we have not hitherto imposed quotas in this country with the exception of a few cases of agricultural products, where quotas have been imposed for an entirely different purpose. Yes, but those few cases of agricultural products in the French Parliament are made the main reason for the action they have taken against Great Britain. Eloquent appeals of the French Government to French deputies to support measures against Great Britain are the result of the trifling quotas which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned as though they were of little importance. What is one man's parenthesis is another man's peroration. Each country in turn regards the action it takes

    1099
    against its neighbour as unimportant, while the neighbour regards it as the main reason and justification for the action it takes. The consequence is that these measures of retaliation have not proved successful in achieving the result for which they have been designed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Speech of this year made observations which I have quoted before and which must be quoted over and over again until they have been driven into the mind of hon. Members of this House and of the whole electorate. Speaking not on some casual or unimportant occasion, and making some not unconsidered observations, but on the principal occasion of the year on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears before the nation in his Budget Speech, always carefully prepared and fully considered, the right hon. Gentleman said:
    "The channels through which our foreign trade formerly flowed so freely are still blocked and, indeed, the passage seems to become more difficult as the spirit of economic nationalism continues to spread. We see new obstacles to international trade continually raised."
    He did not say that "after three years of effort through the weapon which you put into our hand we have been able to lower obstacles to our trade and get a freer flow of trade all over the world." He comes to Parliament and says that, as a result of three years' work, the position is worse than at the beginning. What else does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says:
    "The passage (of trade) seems to become more difficult as the spirit of economic nationalism continues to spread. We see new obstacles to international trade continually raised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1934; col. 904, Vol. 288.]
    That means, in effect, that he has written across three years of effort the word "failure." The only way in which a remedy can be found is for a general measure of economic disarmament to be adopted. The only opportunity given to the world to disarm economically was at the World Economic Conference, and that opportunity was defeated because the British Government came forward and said that, while they were not opposed to tariffs, they were opposed to excessive tariffs; though not opposed to quotas, they were opposed to quotas
    1100
    arbitrarily imposed. Those were the words of the leader of the British Delegation. That meant that our tariffs were right and those of other nations were excessive; our quotas were correct, but those of other countries were arbitrarily imposed. How was it possible under such conditions to arrive at international agreement? Quotas breed quotas. While we recognise that you must have weapons in this war, we think this policy wrong from the beginning, and that Clause 2 of this Bill to give fresh weapons to the Government is the aftermath of the breakdown of the World Economic Conference—a breakdown largely due to the policy of His Majesty's Government.
    10.53 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: There are still a few minutes left, and, really, after the speech we have just heard, particularly when the word "failure" was used, I must say something. It is not so long since the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a very satisfactory Budget. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken could describe the last year's work on the finance of this country as a failure. I wished to take some exception to the comparison made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) between the default of this country and the default of Germany. How can there be any comparison? That country was responsible for the most brutal militarism the world has ever seen, and all its horrible results, in which 12,000,000 of the flower of the world were slaughtered and 20,000,000 injured. To compare that country with this is beyond my comprehension. In addition, this country has forgiven a great many of its debtors and reduced its armaments. Germany, on the other hand, we know perfectly well, is arming and spending money on war implements, rather than using it to pay debts. There can be no question of comparison between this country and Germany, the country that violated the neutrality of Belgium. As an Ulsterman, I would like to take up the cudgels for this country.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir H. Betterton.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Right to and duration of benefit.)
    Lord Amendment: In page 5, line 9, after "this" insert "and the next following."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the House that a question of privilege arises on this Amendment as it affects the qualification for the receipt of benefit.
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Would it not be possible for the Minister to make a general statement on these Amendments which might prevent constant repetition afterwards and would enable us to know the relationship between one Amendment and another?
    Mr. LAWSON: I think the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is a good one. It will be for the convenience of the House to have such a statement from the Minister. As far as we are concerned, and, I think, it is the general opinion in the House, there is nothing material in these Amendments that we have need to oppose. As a matter of fact I think that in this case, the other House has turned itself into a revising Chamber and that they have done on the whole some useful work in that capacity.
    10.58 p.m.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. These Amendments are, for the most part, drafting Amendments, and those which are not drafting Amendments are Amendments designed to carry out undertakings which were given when the Bill was in Committee. If I may refer to one Amendment, which I think is the only one of substance in the whole of
    1102
    this long list, it is an Amendment which proposes to increase by one the number of members of the Statutory Committee. In the Bill as it left the House the number was fixed at five, but in another place an Amendment was passed increasing the number to six. It was impressed upon me in the course of our long discussions on the Bill that the importance of the Statutory Committee was more and more appreciated as the discussions proceeded. I had repeated requests from all quarters of the House that, first one and then another question, should be referred to the committee, and for that reason I thought it better to accept the Amendment that an extra member should be added. I accept what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said with regard to the general purport of the other Amendments.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If it meets the convenience of the House, I propose to put these Amendments in blocks, and I think I ought to take separately those Amendments which raise the question of privilege, as to which, as a matter of form, special entries will be made. I will put the first Amendment, which, as I have pointed out, raises the question of privilege.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to. [A special entry made.]
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with special entries.]

  COTTON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  11.5 p.m.
  Sir H. BETTERTON: This is an agreed Bill between the organisations in the industry concerned, and all the Amendments—they are very few—are drafting Amendments except two, which have been agreed between the organisations. There is no difference whatever between them. As this is an agreed Bill, I hope the

  1103
  House will have no hesitation in accepting the Lords Amendments.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  Mr. SPEAKER: With the permission of the House, I will put all the Amendments together.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That the Lords Message [9th May], communicating the Resolution:
  "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,"
  be now considered.—[Sir Frederick Thomson.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved,
  "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL [Lords].
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Lieut.-Colonel Moore.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL [Lords].

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Seven Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (POLICE SERVICES).
  PUBLIC MEETINGS (POLICE SERVICES).
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND.
  BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.
  BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FRANCE.
  FRANCE.
  ITALY.
  ITALY.
  CROWN PROPERTIES.
  CROWN PROPERTIES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CLACTON-ON-SEA AND SAINT MAWES) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
MINES (WORKING FACILITIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
DARLINGTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

AMENDMENT TO THE HOPS MARKETING SCHEME, 1932.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, to ask the noble Earl if he will agree to the complete publication of the Report or communications received in connection with the deliberations of the Committee appointed in April by the Government to consider the Hops (Amendment) Scheme. I think it is important

135
that we should have this Paper or these Papers before us. This Committee has sat for nearly three months, indicating a great divergence of opinion, and I think it is very important, before Parliament is expected to discuss this Scheme, that it should know all the results of the deliberations of this Committee. The Scheme, if passed, would have most important consequences. It would create a precedent for Parliament—
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, I do not think it is in order to make a speech under the guise of asking a question. It may be convenient, if slightly irregular, to put a question at the beginning of business, but it is not in order to make a speech which might call for an answer.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I was only venturing to explain the importance of publication because in another place yesterday the Government did not feel able to agree to the publication of the Reports or Papers received.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the Government fully appreciate the desire of your Lordships that the fullest possible information on this subject should be made available. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, who has decided in view of the interest which is being shown in both Houses of Parliament that it is desirable that the Report should be published in full. This will be done as soon as possible, and I hope the Report will be available to your Lordships to-morrow.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I ask the noble Earl whether there has been any dissenting or qualifying note, and if so will this be published also?
EARL DE LA WARR: The Report is a unanimous Report, and the whole Report will be published.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Including any dissenting or qualifying note that may have been sent in?
EARL DE LA WARR: I have not had notice of that question, and I really prefer not to answer it, except that I definitely say the Report will be published in full, and if the noble Viscount
136
wants anything further from me I am quite prepared to get that information.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Should there have been any dissentient note the noble Earl agrees to publish it?
EARL DE LA WARR: No, I did not say that. I have not had notice of this particular question. I was given notice of a specific question which I have answered. The noble Viscount has raised another point which I am quite prepared to enquire into and give him a reply. I do not wish to reply at the moment for fear of being inaccurate.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I ask, in connection with this rather unexpected question, whether the opportunity for discussion of this Order is going to take place in another place first and then here, or whether it is to be discussed here first?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am afraid I also shall have to have notice of that question. What I understood my noble friend Viscount Astor desired was an assurance that the Report should be published before your Lordships were asked to discuss it. I have not ascertained any comparative time table as between this House and another place, and I shall have to enquire into that before I can give a definite answer, but one thing I can do is to assure your Lordships it will not be discussed in this House this week.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not wish to take up time, but I have asked the noble Earl whether if there was a dissentient note it would be published? I am not sure if he has agreed to do that or not.
EARL DE LA WARR: No, but since the noble Viscount has asked me the question the information I have been able to obtain is that there is no dissentient note.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: No qualifying note?
EARL DE LA WARR: So I am informed.

CENTRAL (COAL MINES) SCHEME (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, with reference to the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order I beg to move that the Special Order, as

137
reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in view of the great importance of this Order I should have thought the noble Earl could have given your Lordships some account of it. It deals with what is still, I suppose, our second most important industry, that of coal milling, and it has a profound effect on the working of the 1930 Act. It certainly gives great powers to the Central Council and it does affect the livelihoods of many hundreds of thousands of workmen. If the noble Earl can give some word of explanation—and of course this part was not dealt with by the Standing Committee—of what is expected to be the effect of this Order, firstly, upon the men's wages in the mining industry, and secondly, on employment, I think it would be welcomed by your Lordships. I would only remind your Lordships that since the 1930 Act was passed there are 100,000 fewer miners employed. This is partly due to the greater use of machinery in the pits, it is true; still the effect of the Act has not helped employment in this very important industry. Moreover, your Lordships will be aware that the wages have not gone up. For example, in the County of Durham, there are still 40,000 miners earning only 6s. 6½d. a day at very arduous work.
As to prices, we were told it was hoped that prices would be raised by the original Act. I would like to ask the noble Earl whether this Order is expected to affect prices. The great inconvenience of the quota, which the prosperous mines have felt very adversely, has not had the effect of keeping up prices. When the Act was passed, the all-round price, I believe I am right in saying, was about 14s. 3d. a ton, and in the first quarter of this year the average price was 13s. 8d.—a very substantial reduction. In Lancashire the price has gone down from 17s. 1d. in the last quarter of 1930 to 16s. 6d. in the first quarter of 1934, and altogether the situation has not improved as we were led to suppose and to hope that it would improve. What effect is this Order going to have on employment, on wages, and on prices? I submit that
138
this is a very important matter, and as it affects a very large number of people in a most important industry any comfort the noble Earl can give us would, I am sure, be most welcome in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the questions which the noble Lord has addressed to me. With regard to wages and unemployment, all I can tell the noble Lord, without giving any definite assurance or prophesying as to the future, is that it is hoped the result of this Order will be to improve the conditions both in regard to wages and unemployment. As to the question of prices, I can only add here that I understand that it is also hoped and believed that there will be, as a result of this Order being passed by your Lordships' House, no further evasion of prices, such as there has been in the past. I think that answers the questions of the noble Lord. It is of course very difficult for me to give any indication as to what the result on wages and unemployment will be before the Order has come into effect, but all I can say is that it is believed, and certainly is hoped, that it will be most beneficial to the industry as a whole.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. Your Lordships will remember that last year a Select Committee was appointed to go into this question of Special Orders. The Committee examined it at great length and came to certain conclusions. The first net result of them is that all Orders requiring an affirmative Resolution will be treated in the same way, and the second result will be that the Special Orders Committee will have the same power as the Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House in referring an unopposed Order to a Committee. At present, under the Standing Orders, the Chairman of Committees can, if he thinks fit, refer an unopposed Bill to a Select Committee, but that power does not exist in regard to Special Orders. It seems that as they are very much on all fours it is desirable that the Special Orders Committee should

139
have the same power as the Chairman of Committees. They can do it in fact by making a recommendation to your Lordships' House, but that is a cumbersome method, and it does seem better that the same Standing Order or a similar one should govern all cases.
Moved, That the Standing Order relative to Special Orders be amended as follows:—
Standing Order 212, page 78, line 3, leave out from the beginning of the Standing Order to the end of line 11 and insert—
("In the Standing Orders the expression Special Order means any Order in Council, departmental order, rules, regulations, scheme or other similar instrument (hereinafter referred to as Orders) directed under any Act to be laid, or laid in draft, before the House where an affirmative Resolution is required before the Order or any part thereof becomes effective or is made or as a condition of the continuance in operation of the Order or any part thereof with the exception of (a) measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919; (b) any rules made under the Government of India Act; (c) any regulations made under the Emergency Powers Act. 1920; and (d) any Orders made under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932.")
Page 79, after line 46, insert:—
("In every case, whether such Petition has or has not been presented, when the Special Order in the opinion of the Committee raises an important question of policy or principle or departs from precedent, the Committee shall further report to the House accordingly and may, if they see fit, recommend that there be a further inquiry by a Select Committee.").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Standing Order amended accordingly.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to confirm three Provisional Orders made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs under the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts of 1905 and 1924. In the first case contained in the Bill the doubt as to the validity of the marriages arises from the fact that they were solemnised by a minister who was not an authorised person. In the other two cases the
140
doubt arises from the status of the building in which they were solemnised. Therefore the Orders to be confirmed by the Bill are of the normal type of Marriages Provisional Orders. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that such Orders have no effect until confirmed by Parliament. The facts relating to each of the places of worship affected by the Orders were sent to the Home Secretary by the Registrar-General, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, before making the Orders, had the usual inquiries made. In the three cases contained in the Bill the matter has been duly advertised in accordance with the provisions of the Marriages Validity (Provisional Orders) Acts, and in no case has there been any objection registered. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

RENFREWSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (EASTWOOD AND MEARNS) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—.(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (WORK- MEN'S COMPENSATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I hope it will not be considered unusual or presumptuous on the part of a member of your Lordships' House who has only been here two months to move a Bill after so little experience in your Lordships' House. But this Bill is a very simple one, its purpose being to make the law England the same as it is in Scotland in regard to a particular matter. It is perhaps not altogether inappropriate that a Scottish member of your Lordships' House should try to put right in England things which are already right in Scotland. The Adoption of Children Act, 1926, was introduced by a member who has affinity with Scotland. By Section 5 (1) of that Act it is provided that:
"Upon an adoption order being made, all rights, duties, obligations and liabilities of the parent or parents, guardian or guardians of the adopted child, in relation to the future custody, maintenance and education of the adopted child … shall vest in and be exercisable by and enforceable against the adopter as though the adopted child was a child born to the adopter in lawful wedlock …"
By subsection (5) of the same subsection is is provided that:
"For the purposes of the enactments relating to friendly societies, collecting societies and industrial assurance companies … the adopter shall be deemed to be the parent of the child …"
The Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act, 1930, follows the 1926 Act, except that in Section 5 (2) it is provided that the adopted child shall, for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, be treated as being the child of the spouses or one of the spouses who have adopted it and not the child of any other person.
Last year there was a case in the Court of Appeal—Ward versus Dorman, Long, Limited—in which a workman and his wife living in England had obtained an order under the Adoption of Children Act, 1926, to adopt a child, and the workman was killed by an accident which gave rise to a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. It was held that the adopted child was not entitled to receive the benefit conferred by the Workmen's Com-
142
pensation Act on the ground, amongst others, that the adopted child was not a member of the workman's family as defined by the Act of 1925. The result is this Bill, which was introduced by the same member of the House of Commons who introduced the Bill of 1926. It has passed through another place without any opposition at all. In Clause 1, subsection (1), of this Bill there are recited the degrees of relationship which entitle a claim to be made for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and it extends them to include adopted children. Subsection (2) of that clause ensures that in whichever part of the United Kingdom the child was adopted a certificate of entry in the Adopted Children Register shall be received as evidence throughout Great Britain. Clause 2 is more or less formal.
I may say that the Bill has been so drafted that the law may be the same throughout the United Kingdom, and I understand that if it is passed the Government of Northern Ireland intend to pass a similar measure. I venture to think that the object of the Bill is so eminently just, both to those who have practically undertaken the responsibilities of parenthood and to the children who look upon their adopters as parents, that your Lordships will undoubtedly give the Bill a Second Reading, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will support the Bill. I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, as the noble Marquess who moved the Second Reading of this Bill has intimated his desire that a representative of His Majesty's Government should give support to the Bill, I wish to reiterate that which was said by the Under-Secretary of State when the Bill was being discussed in another place, that it is the hope of the Government that this Bill will have a smooth passage on to the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whale House.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in moving that the Commons Amendments be now considered, I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I give a general survey of the Commons Amendments. After the question that the Commons Amendments be considered has been carried, I will, with your Lordships' permission, venture to move that the House agree with the Amendments en bloc, because I think that will be the most convenient course. The Commons Amendments appearing on the Order Paper seem at first sight very formidable but the majority of them are essentially of a drafting character. They have been introduced very largely as a result of representations made by the industry and others who will be affected by this legislation. Of the remaining Amendments there are two which have been introduced to meet special conditions under which some, but by no means all, gas undertakers operate. After examination these particular matters were deemed to be of sufficient importance to justify dealing with them in a General Act. The Amendments in question are the new clauses to be inserted after Clause 1 and after Clause 6. The Amendment to Clause 5, on page 7 of the Bill and the new clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 20 constitute in the main a re-arrangement, although I would point out to your Lordships that the alteration has also the effect of applying the provisions concerned to all undertakers instead of only to those who elect to avail themselves of the powers to be conferred by Clause 5 of the Bill. The Amendments to Clauses 12 and 19, the new clause dealing with the appointment of officers as directors, proposed to be inserted after Clause 21, the new clause to be inserted after Clause 23, the Amendment at the end of line 4 of page 29 of the First Schedule and in line 26 of page 30 of the Second Schedule as well as that on page 34 of the Bill, although not in the nature of drafting Amendments, are all more or less self-explanatory and I will not go into them further at the moment, though I shall be pleased to give any information regarding them that your Lordships may desire.
I would, however, direct your Lordships' attention particularly to the new clause, "Avoidance of provision in lease etc. preventing supply of gas," after Clause 21 and the new clause proposed after
144
Clause 26. The first of these new clauses prohibits local authorities, being owners of property, from using their power as landlords to secure provisions in leases, etc., preventing or restricting the tenants from taking a supply of gas. Apart from the fact that a provision on these lines has received your Lordships' assent in several recent Bills, I feel sure that the general policy underlying this clause is one that will be approved. The other new clause aims at making it easier for Scottish undertakers who are operating under the Burghs Gas Supply (Scotland) Act, 1876, to avail themselves of the Special Order procedure in seeking further powers. Under the existing law there are certain practical difficulties encountered and it is the intention of the new clause to remove them. My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I move that these Amendments be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS (SPECIAL INVESTMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read the third time. The Bill was discussed at considerable length on the Motion for the Second Reading on June 7 last, and after a Division the Motion for the Second Reading was carried. It has since passed through both the Committee and the Report stages completely unaltered, so it comes before your Lordships to-day as the same Bill as that to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading on June 7.

145
My noble friend Lord Darling has put down a Motion for the rejection of the Bill on Third Reading, which appears on the Order Paper for the first time this morning. I am unable to discover that my noble friend took any part, in any of the numerous debates and Divisions which took place on this Bill during last Session. He is, of course, entirely within his strict right in putting down this Motion for rejection, but as I understand the practice of your Lordships' House, when a Bill has received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House and comes before your Lordships for Third Reading in precisely the same form as that in which it was carried on Second Reading, it is extremely unusual to move its rejection. I venture to think that it would be a very unfortunate precedent if your Lordships were to act on the suggestion of my noble friend and in such circumstances as these to reject a Bill on Third Reading.
If it were not for my noble friend's opposition I should have contented myself practically with formally moving the Third Reading. I certainly do not intend to recapitulate any of the numerous arguments which have been offered on both sides during the last few years, but there are certain facts which perhaps your Lordships would kindly allow me to recall to your minds. The Bill is in entire accordance with the unanimous recommendations which were made by a strong Select Committee of seven members to which your Lordships, at the desire of the Government, referred the Bill last Session. The Bill was amended in accordance with those recommendations, and, so amended, it received the approval of the House. The Bill passed through almost all its stages last Session. The necessity for the Bill is as great today as it was, and I venture to think greater than it was, last year. I gave some reasons in moving the Second Reading for saying that the necessity is at least as great as, and perhaps greater than, it was last year. The number of accidents has gone up, the compensation paid to the sufferers is as miserable as it ever was, and more than that, the arguments which were used in favour of the Bill of last year on the Motion for its Second Reading are precisely the same as the arguments which could be used, and ought to be used, to-day.
For the benefit of those who were not present on the Motion for the Second
146
Reading, may I very shortly refer to some of the main points? The evidence which was given before the Select Committee was absolutely conclusive, that in the present state of the law there is grave hardship and injustice done in the case of pedestrians, often poor folk, trying to get compensation. I would quote only two or three words which were spoken by the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, after the Select Committee had made its Report in July last. He was referring to the position under the existing law of pedestrians who had suffered injuries, and he said: "We"—that is, the Select Committee—
"had overwhelming evidence of great hardship, in many cases amounting to injustice in the ordinary meaning of that word."
If the evidence to that effect was overwhelming, surely it is equally necessary now to bring in a Bill to remove that hardship and injustice; and I venture to think that this Bill does it.
The principle upon which this Bill is founded has been affirmed in this House time after time in the course of the last year. It is a fundamental point, and it is this: that an injured person is not bound before launching his claim to prove negligence on the part of the motorist. That is what has been rather roughly, and perhaps not wholly accurately, described as shifting the onus of proof. In the course of the debate we had high legal authority to the effect that, although this is an innovation in the Common Law of the country, there are precedents for it and it ought to be adopted by your Lordships. On the Motion for the Second Reading I quoted extracts from the speeches of various persons, and I do not think it would be right to weary your Lordships by quoting them again, but may I recall to your minds the fact that on no less than two occasions the Lord Chancellor made strong speeches in favour of that principle, and giving his reasons? The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, whose absence to-day we all deeply deplore, an eminent legal authority and an ex-Lord Chancellor, spoke to the same effect. On this principle all the members of the Select Committee were unanimous, and the Government themselves, from the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, which I quoted on the last occasion and which I will not quote to-day, appeared to me to adopt that fundamental principle, but my noble

147
friend Lord Plymouth said in the course of the debate that he would not pledge himself to all the details.
I think it will shorten matters if your Lordships will allow me to read certain passages from the very important Report of the Select Committee of which I spoke, which was ordered to be printed on July 6 last year. If your Lordships have that Report before you you will find that these points were carefully discussed in it. In paragraph 8 on page vi of the Report the Committee say:
" … the Bill referred to the Committee constitutes a departure from the Common Law of England, and strong exception has been taken to it on this ground.… The Committee think it right, however,"—
my noble friend, Lord Darling, I see, is taking a note and he will be able to reply, if he can, to the views which were put forward by the Select Committee—
"to point out that the general principle of the Common Law in this respect has already been subject to frequent and important invasions; for instance:—
(a) It has been held in the leading case of Rylands versus Fletcher … that where a person 'brings upon his land anything which would not naturally come upon it and which is in itself dangerous and may become mischievous if not kept in control, though in doing so he may act without personal wilfulness or negligence, he will be liable in damage for any mischief thereby occasioned.'"
They go on to say:
"(b) Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, where a workman suffers loss of life or personal injury arising out of or in the course of his employment, he is entitled to compensation from his employer without any regard to the fault of his employer …"
Then they point out that under the Air Navigation Act, 1920, where material damage or loss is caused by an aircraft damages are recoverable from the owner of the aircraft
"without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action as though the same had been caused by his wilful act, neglect, or default, except where the damage or loss"—
and this is the exception mainly embodied in my Bill—
"is caused by or contributed to by the negligence of the person by whom the same was suffered."
My Bill provides that where the loss is caused solely by the act of the victim the motorist is not bound to pay, and where there is contributory negligence the Bill,
148
following other precedents, reduces the damages. The Select Committee point out that the principle I have just referred to has been followed in the case of collision between two ships where both are negligent. It is pointed out that in eleven out of thirteen foreign countries about which the Ministry of Transport have obtained information negligence is assumed on the part of the motorist, unless the contrary is proved, and I am glad to say that the same principle has been adopted in several of the Canadian Provincial Legislatures.
The Committee go on to say in paragraph 10—perhaps your Lordships will pardon my reading this paragraph, because it really summarises far better than I can do the principle of the Bill:
"By reason of the precedents referred to above the Committee have regarded themselves as free to consider, entirely on its merits, the question as to whether, in the cases with which the Bill deals, good reason was shown for making a further departure from the general principles of the law of negligence. The Committee have come to the conclusion that some such departure is justified. They think, on the one hand, that a motor car upon the road, especially in view of the vast and constantly increasing volume of motor traffic, may be regarded to some extent as coming within the principle of liability defined in Rylands versus Fletcher. From the point of view of the pedestrian, on the other hand, it seems to the Committee that the roads of this country have—at all events in certain places and at certain seasons—been rendered, by the use of motor vehicles, places to which it is dangerous for pedestrians to resort; that, nevertheless, it is necessary for pedestrians to resort to the roads; and that where a pedestrian, without negligence on his part, is injured by a motorist whether negligent or not, he should be entitled to recover damages."
The last paragraph to which I need refer is paragraph 11:
"It may he said against this that it is a hardship on the motorist to be made to pay damages for an accident which was not attributable to his fault. The Committee take the view that this is, perhaps, a misleading way of regarding the question and would put it rather that the payment of compensation to innocent pedestrians who suffer injury is a duty, not so much of the individual motorist who does the damage, as of the motoring community as a whole, and that the increased liability of the motorist ought to be covered, as provided for in the Bill, by insurance against the increased third-party risk."
That point, that it is a hardship on the motorist to pay damages not attributable to his fault, was raised in a very definite

149
manner in Committee on the Bill last Session by Lord Halsbury. After a long debate the Amendment of Lord Halsbury was rejected by forty-one votes to five, on July 25, 1933. And may I say that on that occasion no fewer than four members of the Government voted in the majority and against the Amendment? If your Lordships have time to do it, and will study the OFFICIAL REPORT, you will find that there was, as I venture to think, a very striking speech on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Reading. It will be found in Volume 88, columns 1057 and 1058. The noble Marquess refused to vote for Lord Halsbury's Amendment, and voted in the majority against it.
The only other observation which I will make upon that case is this. There are undoubtedly a number of accidents on the roads the responsibility for which cannot be brought home to anybody, either the motorist or the pedestrian or the pedal cyclist, but these accidents often involve serious suffering and grave loss to the pedestrian or pedal cyclist. I ask your Lordships to answer this question. In a case like that, where you can bring home the cause of an accident neither to the motorist nor to the pedestrian or pedal cyclist, which is fairer, that the innocent victim (and the pedestrian usually is a very poor man) should get nothing and bear the whole loss—that is one alternative and the one which I take it Lord Halsbury desired to bring about—or that the loss should be shared by those 2,000,000 of motorists or owners of motor cars all of whom are compulsorily insured under the existing law? Having those two alternatives before you I have little doubt that your Lordships will say that the loss should not fall entirely upon the pedestrian.
Those are substantially all the points which I wish to raise now, but may I add this? The Government never opposed this Bill during the whole of last Session or during the previous Session of 1932 when the Bill, or a Bill less favourable to motorists, was read a second time. On the contrary, during many of the debates and Divisions of last year they repeatedly voted for the Bill, merely saying that they did not pledge themselves to detail. In those circumstances I ask those of your Lordships who supported this Bill and voted for it last year to maintain the conviction upon which you then voted and, the circumstances having in no way
150
changed, to support the Third Reading of this Bill and to be entirely uninfluenced by any change of view which has taken place on the part of the Government. I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING, who had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 3a this day six months, said: My Lords, I will, so far as I can make myself heard, address to the House a few of the reasons why I move that the Bill should be read a third time this day six months. If my voice is incapable of reaching any of your Lordships I may explain that that is due to my having been knocked down by a motor. I made no claim against the man who did it though probably he has deprived me of the advantage of being heard by many of your Lordships, and I am sure your Lordships make no claim either because you will not hear me well. I am sorry to find that my noble friend apparently has some sort of feeling that if I wanted to oppose this Bill, I should have done it long ago on the Second Reading, or at any rate should have opposed it earlier than this stage. But I was unable at that time to take any part in the debate and to oppose the Bill as otherwise I would have done. I apologise to my noble friend for having caused him such inconvenience.
LORD DANESFORT: I thank my noble friend very much for his words, and in the circumstances I quite understand why he did not oppose this Bill before. I fully accept what he says.
LORD DARLING: I am obliged to my noble friend. But, my Lords, I think I can assure him that I shall not use any argument to-day which was not used on the Second Reading by those who were here. This Bill, it is said, received a large majority on Second Reading. That must have been, not this Bill, in this Session, because I find by the OFFICIAL REPORT that the Bill was then supported by nineteen members and opposed by fourteen. It was said in that debate, and it has been said again by my noble friend, that this is a Bill to shift the onus of proof. I say it is not a Bill to shift the onus of proof at all. It is a Bill to render a man liable in damages—and it may amount to a criminal offence—when there is no proof at all. And that

151
is said to-day by my noble friend to be the principle of this Bill, to which your Lordships are asked to give your assent.
Why do I desire that the Bill should not pass this House with any majority at all? It is because it will go to another place, and it would arrive there with the imprimatur of this House. It would thus give the impression that your Lordships all agreed to this Bill because it had passed without a Division on Third, Reading. It passed its Second Reading by a majority of five, but I desire that when it reaches another place it should go as representing the real opinion of your Lordships, or of all of those who happen to be here. When this Bill was debated on Second Reading my noble friend gave what he said were the reasons for the Bill, and they were these. He said:
"May I mention two of the main reasons why under the existing law pedestrians and pedal cyclists are unable to obtain adequate compensation? One reason is this, that they very seldom can get adequate evidence. If a pedal cyclist is killed he is not there to give evidence."
That happens not only to pedal cyclists. If any man is killed, he cannot give evidence afterwards. I should be very much inclined to believe it if he could, but unfortunately I have never heard of a person who has met with a fatal accident giving evidence afterwards. That is one of the reasons which my noble friend gave—because the person was killed and could not give evidence. Therefore, he says, he is against the man who happened to kill him. The man may have done it entirely by accident. He may have been observing every rule that the law lays down, but because that man whom he hit is dead, compensation must be paid. If all of us who died got compensation for dying, our families would be rich and probably enjoy our decease.
Then the noble Lord said:
"The other reason is that the pedestrian or pedal cyclist is generally a poor person …"
Well, are we to compensate all poor persons at the expense of the rich? Is that the real substance of this Bill? And my noble friend says that the poor person is quite unable to fight the rich insurance company, which is always behind the motorist. If the company is always behind the motorist, if every motorist is bound to insure, whose fault is that? It is the fault of Parliament. It will not do
152
to reproach these people for having enough money to pay pedestrians who are injured or killed on the road, if Parliament has laid that liability upon them. No man now can obtain a licence unless he can satisfy the State that he has got the policy of some insurance company. And here let me ask for a moment: Why can he go on the road at all? He cannot go on the road at all unless he has got a licence from the State, for which he has paid, and the State, in giving him a licence to use a motor car, makes him insure against the risk of hurting third parties. Then how unreasonable it is to turn round, and to say to him: "You are doing a dangerous thing, you are a pest to the public, you must pay those whom you have hurt, whether you knew you were going to hurt them or not—even if you were at the moment really avoiding what would have been a dangerous us accident; if you injure a person on the road, you must pay."
It is alleged that this Bill is just: I consider it totally unjust. You take a person such as a pedestrian, give him a licence to use a machine, make him pay for that licence, enlarge the road, flatten the road with asphalt, maintain the road or leave it unmaintained, and then, when a man through no fault of his own meets with an accident on that road, you do not say: "Now I am the person to blame. I enabled you to do this thing. If anyone pays, I ought to pay." You say: "Oh, no, it is inconvenient for me to do that; it is easier to pick you out, an utterly blameless man, who has had no more to do with the hurt inflicted than the man in the moon." And as you cannot get at the property of the man in the moon, you get at the property of the nearest you can. You get at the pedestrian, take his property, and say: "You must now compensate this person although there is not an atom of evidence against you and although, if there is any evidence, it proves that you did nothing blameable at all."
The law of England under this Bill, which was introduced by Lord Danesfort and passed its Second Reading on his advocacy, would be this: that whether you are guilty or not—you may plead not guilty of any kind of act and for all that you have got to pay. We used to have a motto in the law—we have still—that what does not appear does not exist.

153
You will have to translate that into "It does not appear that you are guilty—you are not guilty—but the reasoning of the law is just the same as if you were. You must submit to a penalty just as though you were guilty." You plead "Not guilty," you have proved you are not guilty, but the Judge must not ask the jury whether you are guilty or not because he must tell the jury that that is wholly immaterial. You have got to pay whether you are guilty of the charge or not; and that will become the law of England. My noble friend has said it is unusual and improper to oppose the Bill on Third Reading, and it should not be done. What is the Third Reading for? If a Bill has got its Second Reading and Committee and the House still objects to it, what is the Third Reading for if the House is not to exercise its right of rejecting it? Is this Bill to go to another place with the impression that this House agrees with it?
LORD DANESFORT: I never said—I hope I never shall say—that no Bill ought to be opposed on Third Reading. What I did say was that when a Bill comes before this House on Third Reading which has been carried on Second Reading, and is precisely the same Bill as it was when carried on Second Reading, it is extremely unusual so far as I know to oppose it on Third Reading.
LORD DARLING: It is unusual for the same Peers to be here every day; and that may very well happen to this Bill as to any other. The principle, the important part of this Bill is in the first clause. My noble friend has said so before and he has said so again. These are the words:
"Where bodily injury to a person is caused by or arises out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road or in a place to which the public have a right, of access damages shall be recoverable from the owner of the motor vehicle"—
he need not be the driver—
"in respect thereof without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action as though the injury had been caused by his wilful act, neglect or default, except where the injury was solely due to the negligence of the injured person."
In the course of the speech to which I have referred my noble friend said this Bill would not reduce accidents on the road; it will do nothing of the kind and there will be just as many accidents as
154
before, the only difference being that persons who meet with them will have to pay for them.
Note these words: "is caused by or arises out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road." You can imagine many cases—I need not bore your Lordships with instances—where an accident on a road arises out of someone being there using his motor vehicle. He may be guilty of no negligence whatever. In fact the Bill says so. It will be just the same "as though the injury had been caused by his wilful act." No difference is drawn, no distinction is made, between the man who has taken every precaution with his motor car on the road and the man who has taken no precaution and has wilfully caused the damage. I am sure if your Lordships realised that this was the law proposed you would not allow the members of the other Legislative Assembly to be under the impression that you unanimously approved of that statement. That is why, at the risk of being discourteous, though my noble friend apparently has acquitted me of that, I propose this Motion.
This has been represented over and over again as a Bill to shift the onus of proof. Let me ask, what is the onus of proof? It is the burden of proof of negligence. It has been represented that all this Bill seeks to do is to shift the burden of proof of negligence. At present that burden is on the plaintiff, and if he sustains it he puts money in his pocket, but, if you shift the burden, you will take money out of the pocket of the man against whom you have not given any proof at all. That was pointed out in the course of the Second Reading debate by the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth. Giving a reason why the Government said they did not give any support at all to that part of the Bill, the noble Earl said this:
"If no one at all is to blame the motorist is, notwithstanding, to be held liable in damages to the third party, and where there is contributory negligence that no longer affords a ground of defence, although I agree it can be urged as a factor to be taken into account in the assessment of the damages to be paid."
That was not contradicted by the supporters of the Bill. It could not be in the face of the clause which I have read, and which contains the whole principle of the Bill. Without any fault on

155
his part a person is to be called upon to pay simply because he has a motor car, and has a Government licence, for which he has paid, to use that motor car on the road. He is not a wrong doer; he has committed no crime; he has committed no civil wrong; but it is said: "He has the insurance companies behind him and we mean to have the money because they can pay."
I ask, what is the justice of that? An insurance company is allowed by the State to insure a man on payment of a premium. That man obtains, by payment, a licence to use the road, and, if an accident arises out of the use of the road by a licensed man, that man, although an innocent man, for the reason I have stated and no other is to be made to pay. I cannot defend that. That such a thing is convenient to many people I have no doubt, and that many people would avail themselves of this Bill, I have no doubt. I might have done so myself if this Bill had been passed at the time I met with an accident. What did I do? I did what I thought was fair. I did not allege, and I did not suggest, that the driver or those who employed him had done anything wrong, or had committed the slightest negligence. I have been brought up to think that although negligence makes a man guilty of doing wrong, doing right does not render him liable to be penalised. I am of that opinion still and it is because I hold that opinion that I hope your Lordships will pardon my having imposed this speech upon you.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Darling.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure I shall be voicing the opinion of all sections of this House when I say how sorry I am to hear of the accident that has happened to the noble and learned Lord, and how glad I am that he has sufficiently recovered to be able to be back in his place. Without wishing to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, I would like to reinforce what has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. The noble Lord has told you that the provisions of this Bill have been accepted by your Lordships' House on numerous occasions. Last year your Lordships sent it to a Select Com-
156
mittee, of which Committee I had the honour to be a member. That Committee spent many long hours examining the witnesses, and a very considerable time before coming to its unanimous recommendations. The Bill was re-introduced this Session, and received a Second Reading by a majority vote. It was not changed by one word either on Committee stage or on Report stage. Then we come to its Third Reading and the noble and learned Lord puts down a Motion for rejection. I listened to the arguments that fell from the noble and learned Lord. They were arguments that had been put before us on several previous occasions, and I do feel that it is too late now to bring up these arguments again as a last resource.
With regard to putting down this Motion for rejection on the Third Reading, no noble Lord in the House would suggest that a member of this House has no right to put down such a Motion on Third Reading, but, in a case like this, where the Bill has received a Second Reading by a majority vote in this House and has gone through the intervening stages without being changed, there is no reason why the Bill should be rejected on Third Reading. Furthermore, there is this point, that as a precedent it might mean that in the future, where a Bill has received a Second Reading, a noble Lord on the day of the Third Reading of a Bill, would put down a Motion for the rejection of it without giving the supporters of the Bill time to come to the House, and thereby, as it were by trickery, get a Bill rejected. For those reasons I hope your Lordships will pass the Third Reading of this Bill.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced the Bill was careful to explain in the course of his remarks that the Bill had come to us entirely unaltered for Third Reading. Therefore, the injustice which the Bill proposes to perpetrate remains precisely the same. Let me give your Lordships one instance of what that injustice may mean. Your motor car may perhaps be standing outside your house. A cyclist avoiding a pedestrian runs into the motor car and is killed. The owner of the motor car will inevitably be held to be liable under this Bill. I submit to your Lordships that that would be the case under this Bill. His only way of getting out of that

157
would be to prove that the injury was solely due to the negligence of the injured person. If the cyclist runs into the motor car and is killed he is the injured person but he is not negligent. Fatal accidents may take place and the driver of the car may be exonerated from blame, but the driver will be held to be responsible and will have to pay compensation as if, in the words of Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, "the injury had been caused by his wilful act, neglect or default." His only hope will be to prove that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the injured person. When an accident takes place the difficulty always arises of securing reliable witnesses. There is any amount of evidence in such cases but much of it is very conflicting and very contradictory. Before the motorist can have any hope of justice under this Bill he must prove that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the injured person. I submit that that is one of the most difficult things to prove, if, indeed, it is not impossible. For these reasons, because of the appalling injustice which your Lordships are asked to perpetrate, I support the noble and learned Lord in his Motion for the rejection of the Bill.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: My Lords, I can only say that I hope your Lordships will not listen to the noble and learned Lord, because I do not think it is really quite a fair proposition. The noble and learned Lord, whom we are all glad to see has recovered after his serious accident, only read the beginning of the subsection. He did not read the proviso, which says that:
"where the injury was contributed to but not solely due to the negligence of the injured person there shall be taken into account in computing the damages the degree in which the negligence of such person contributed to the accident."
The Committee had a very difficult Problem to face and we had to assume that the motorist was to blame or we could not begin. At the present moment many people who suffer damage by a motor car cannot begin to bring an action to recover anything because they have to prove that the motor car was to blame. It is extremely difficult to get adequate proof. We had that put before us very conclusively. The result was that one was impressed by the default of our system of justice in carrying out the wishes of Parliament.
158
I cannot help assuming that Parliament intended that persons who were hurt on the road should have some compensation if it was not their fault. Otherwise, why should there be third-party insurance? Why should motorists have to pay premiums to the insurance offices? I cannot help saying that I should be deeply grieved if through an accident caused by my car a man who was injured had to suffer very seriously because he was a poor man, even though my chauffeur was not to blame. Yet at the moment I cannot do anything about it. There is a clause in this Bill which does do something to remedy that state of affairs. If a man who is injured is partly to blame and my car is partly to blame, as I understand it at the moment, an action would be brought and it would be decided whether my car was to blame or not. If my car was not to blame the man would get no compensation. As the law is at this moment, if there is any doubt as to whether my car is to blame, the man can get no compensation.
LORD DARLING: If there is a doubt, meaning that the jury have a doubt and cannot snake up their minds, there will be no verdict. Neither side will get a verdict.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: No. But if an accident has occurred as far as I am concerned I feel deeply grieved that a poor man shall be very seriously incapacitated because he is hurt. It seems to me a very serious fact that I cannot do anything to relieve that man's suffering. Of course this may be a burden on the industry, but I hope it will not. It is impossible to say how much it will put on the industry. In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 1 it is provided that where both parties were to blame the extent to which the person injured was to blame will be taken into account in assessing damages. It seems to me that that makes a very great difference compared with the present state of affairs. As to precedents, I understand that this is not far from the precedent applying to ships at sea where they have to share the cost of damages caused by an accident. It seems to me that we cannot continue the present miserable state of affairs. People are run over by motor cars and it is extremely difficult to know what has happened owing to the fact that there is

159
no reliable evidence. I refer to a poor individual purposely because a rich man would probably have a solicitor to help him. I am not so much concerned with the man who will not suffer by being incapacitated for months or weeks or even for days only: I am concerned with the man who has a family to keep and who cannot get proper legal advice.
We were informed that there are plenty of people to give rather questionable advice—people who go to an injured person and tell him that they can get the Court to say, or that they can get the insurance company to believe that the Court will say, that the motorist is to blame, and then ask him whether he will give them a certain proportion of the money received. Surely that is an iniquity, and if it is an iniquity I hope your Lordships will take this opportunity of making an alteration in the law. I am sorry that the first paragraph should appear to put the whole blame on the motorist but I cannot see any other way. We have no other suggestion by which we can begin to secure justice. Therefore I hope your Lordships will give the same decision, if we are brought to a Division, as you have given on previous occasions.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, because I feel that a certain misrepresentation has been made to-day in the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, said that there had been no change of circumstances whatever since the Bill was brought before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships have only to walk from here to Trafalgar Square and look at the road as you go and you will find a change in the situation—a change which has, I believe, caused one horse to mistake the road for a five-barred gate. That change is designed to provide greater safety for pedestrians, and it is proposed to make certain regulations, if they prove successful, governing these five-barred gates. If those regulations are made and your Lordships at the same time agree to this Bill, you will have regulations and law in completely opposite directions. You will have a pedestrian, who can do what he likes in the safety lane, doing it at the wrong moment, getting knocked over, and saying: "It is not my fault; but it does
160
not matter if it is my fault, the motorist has got to pay." That is one thing which we have got to take very seriously into account.
Another thing is that there is at the moment before another place a Bill which is designed to make the roads safer. By that Bill it is proposed to limit the speed of vehicles in certain areas to thirty miles an hour. I have no doubt that your Lordships have all read your Times to-day, but I will, with the permission of your Lordships, read a short extract from one letter on that subject, because I think it is very applicable to this Bill. It says:
"This absurd idea … will only lead to more deaths, as the selfish portion of the public, who are really responsible, criminally, I think, by their own carelessness, will only be more careless than they now are, and walk off the pavement more readily, without looking. Why, even the fowls and dogs are able to take care of themselves, having learnt to look before they leap!"
I believe that that is very true, and quite certainly it is true of this Bill, which I humbly submit goes too far in one direction and not far enough in another. It turns everything except a motor car into a pedestrian. It does not matter whether it has got four feet or two wheels or two feet, it is a pedestrian. It does not matter whether it is a coach, a cart, a tricycle, a bicycle or anything else, it becomes a pedestrian. You are providing protection for, and putting into a privileged position, a man who is at the moment the most dangerous road user and the cause of most accidents, the pedal cyclist. He is most irresponsible. He has a machine that can wriggle in and out of small spaces, and he does it quite regardless of the danger which he causes other people; but that man is to be put into such a position that unless you can catch him after an accident (which you very often cannot) and prove that he was the cause of the accident, you, as the driver of the motor car, or the owner of the motor car, will have to pay for the results of that man's action.
We have heard a lot about this Bill making it a question of payment according to the amount of your liability. That is not my reading of the Bill at all. My reading of the Bill is that if you can prove that the pedestrian has committed some slight culpable action which may

161
have partly contributed to the accident, then you can make him let you off paying a certain amount of the damage, but that unless you can prove that you will have to pay the whole of the damage, although the accident was not in the least your fault. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, if a cyclist runs into the back of a stationary car and cannons off into a pedestrian, then the cyclist may have been culpable and may possibly have to pay part of the damage, but the pedestrian who is injured by the cyclist will have a case against the motor car owner who was sitting in the house having dinner. That is not justice, my Lords, and I do humbly submit that for the sake of your own reputations you should not allow this Bill to go to another place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend Lord Plymouth, speaking on behalf of the Government, stated the objections in principle which were felt by the Government to the proposals contained in the Bill. I listened this afternoon with great admiration to the very powerful speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Darling, and as I listened I could not help wishing very much that we had had his advocacy available in the Second Beading debate, because the narrow margin by which the view of the Government was defeated in this House might easily have been reversed if only his arguments had been put forward in his own inimitable way. I cannot pretend that the decision of your Lordships' House on the Second Reading has altered the view of His Majesty's Government as to the objectionable character of the principle which is enshrined in the Bill now before your Lordships for Third Reading. On the other hand, I recognise that there has been long established in this House what I regard as a very salutary rule, and that is that, when a matter has been the subject of discussion and decision in this House, your Lordships will not re-open the same question and attempt to decide it in a different way during the same Session of Parliament. We accept a decision even though some of us may not like it.
That does not mean, of course, that you are never to vote against the Third Reading of a Bill if the Second Reading has been carried. That would be a quite unnecessary and illogical extension of the rule. There are obviously cases which
162
most of us can think of in which a Bill has come forward on Second Reading embodying a principle which some of us may have thought a good one, but in which Amendments are made in the Committee stage raising objections which to our minds become insuperable. There are on the other hand cases in which the general principle of the Bill commends itself to some of your Lordships, who therefore support the Second Reading, but who support it with the qualification that it is essential that some alteration shall be made in some matters for which the Bill provides, and that unless those alterations are made it will not be possible to support the Third Reading. I can even remember a very historic debate which took place not long ago on a Bill brought in by my noble friend Lord Salisbury as to which some of your Lordships, I think, expressly stated that in voting for the Second Reading they were not committing themselves to all the provisions of the Bill and that unless some alteration took place they would not find themselves able to support the Third Reading. Such cases obviously provide a proper occasion for the exercise of the right which your Lordships' House undoubtedly has to decide on Third Reading differently from the decision which was reached on the Second Reading.
But in the present case no such considerations can possibly be said to arise. The only suggestion of any alteration was the ingenious thought of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, in which I think he was more ingenious than correct, when he said that because some regulations have been introduced as to the comparative rights of way of pedestrians and motor cars on the so-called safety lanes on the roads, therefore something had happened which ought to alter your Lordships' decision. I cannot think that even my noble friend seriously believes that those instructions as to right of way have in any way materially altered the grievances which the Bill sought to remedy or the attitude which any of us ought to adopt with regard to the remedy which is proposed. In this case there is no change in the terms of the Bill which alters the attitude of any one of us towards its passage, and there has been no failure to deal with some particular objection raised which ought to justify a change of attitude between the Second and Third Readings. In fact, no altera-

163
tion was ever suggested in Committee by any one of your Lordships, and in those circumstances I rather hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Darling, who takes exactly the same view about the merits of the Bill as I do myself, may not think it necessary to press his Amendment to the point of a Division. If, however, he should, as he undoubtedly has the right, having unfortunately been unable to record his opinion on the Second Reading, consider that it is proper to press his Motion to a Division, then so far as the Government are concerned we cannot support a Bill to which we still have the same objection as that which we recorded on the Second Reading, but, on the other hand, we think it so undesirable that any breach should be made in the recognised practice, as I understand it, of this House, that a point once decided shall not be revised or reversed during the same Session of Parliament, that we should not think it right to support a Motion for the rejection of this Bill, and should not be able to go into the Lobby with Lord Darling.
I would add that we are able to take that decision on the present occasion with the less regret because, as we have already explained, through Lord Plymouth, the state of business in another place makes it impossible for this Bill to be considered without some special concession of Government time, and there is no Government time available for its discussion. It follows, therefore, that although the Third Reading will no doubt involve the approval of this House, so far as the present Session is concerned, there is no risk or hope, as the case may be, of this Bill reaching the Statute Book this Session, and in another Session we shall be quite at liberty to give expression to the view put forward through the mouth of Lord Plymouth. So far as the present Amendment is concerned, I hope it will not be insisted upon, but if we are asked to decide upon it, so far as the Government are concerned we cannot give it our support.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I was hoping that the Leader of the House might clear up one point which was raised by Lord Howe, and that was as to where a bicycle ran into the back of a stationary motor car and damages were claimed by the owner of the bicycle. I would like to ask the noble Viscount
164
if he can advise the House whether under the words of the Bill, which are "where bodily injury to a person is caused by or arises out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road," a motor vehicle can be said to be used on a road if it is standing still. If it is not so, I think my noble friend's point fails. I really want to say that I welcome the Bill on behalf of a humble class who still ride and drive horses. It seems to me that this Bill would be very considerably to their advantage, because it would enable them to recover damages when you could not really prove negligence on the part of any one, unless, possibly, on the part of the horse. That is a real grievance which is sometimes felt, and I think this Bill would go some way to redress it.
LORD DARLING: If I might with your Lordships' permission say a word after what the Leader of the House has said, and remembering still that members of the Government voted against the Second Reading, and spoke against it, I will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 6:
Application to Scotland.
6. This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—

(a) Nothing in Section two of this Act shall prejudice any right to recover damages in respect of fatal injury to a child under the age of fourteen, which any person may have by virtue of Section one of this Act, but such person shall not be entitled to recover damages or expenses by virtue of Section one and also under Section two.

(b) The expression "minor" shall mean "pupil"; the expression "solicitor" shall include a law agent as denned in the Law Agents (Scotland) Act, 1873; the expression "taxing officer" shall mean "auditor," and the expression costs" shall mean "expenses."

LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, there are two small Amendments which I ask your Lordships to make in this Bill. They are purely drafting Amendments in paragraph (a).
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("or expenses").
Page 3, line 16, after ("also") insert ("expenses").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason for this Amendment is that paragraph (b) was in the former Bill, and when that Bill was altered paragraph (b) got left in by mistake. It is not required in, or indeed suitable to, this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SPIRIT CONSUMPTION IN INDIAN PROVINCES.
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
[The Question was as follows:—To ask His Majesty's Government what was the amount, in pounds sterling, of the net excise revenue of India for the years 1930–31, 1931–32 and 1932–33 respectively; what was the recorded consumption of country spirits in 1932–33 in Bengal, Madras, Bombay, Sind, Bihar and Orissa, the United Provinces, the Punjab, the Central Provinces and Berar, Assam and Burma respectively; and what was the percentage of excise revenue as compared with the total revenue accruing to the Provincial Governments in each, case for the year 1932–33.]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, the reply involves several tables of figures. My noble friend will appreciate that these would not be easy to follow and with his permission I propose to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following are the figures:
1. Net excise revenue of India (converted into sterling at 1s. 6d. per rupee):

Year.

£

1930–31

12,581,942

1931–32

11,143,495

1932–33

11,168,278

The revenue is almost entirely received in rupees and the net figures represent gross receipts less refunds. Compensations are shown in the accounts under expenditure and have not been taken into account.
2. Recorded consumption of country spirits in 1932–33:*

Proof gallons.

Bengal

271,001

Madras

934,255

Bombay

†

Sind

†

Bihar and Orissa

455,763

United Provinces

443,403

Punjab

281,842

Central Provinces and Berar

188,289‡

Assam

153,053

Burma

44,256

* Excluding outstill areas for which statistics of consumption are not available.

† Figures not available.

‡ Figures for the calendar year 1932.

3. Amount of the gross revenue, the net excise revenue, and the percentage of net excise revenue to gross revenue of the Provincial Governments:

Provincial Government.

Gross revenue in 1932–33.

Net excise revenue in 1932–33.

Percentage of net excise revenue to gross revenue in 1932–33.

Rs. lakhs.

Rs. lakhs.

Madras

1,640·2

427·0

26·0

Bombay

1,525·2

350·9

23·0

Bengal

938·0

140·3

14·9

United Provinces.

1,145·2

122·3

10·7

Punjab

1,023·9

92·1

9·0

Burma

780·9

84·6

10·8

Shan States Federation.

34·1

0·7

2·0

Bihar and Orissa.

505·8

120·0

23·7

Central Provinces and Berar.

449·8

57·6

12·8

North - West Frontier Province.

66·2*

9·1

13·8

Assam

219·7

40·4

18·4

Coorg

11·8

2·6

22·5

* Excluding subvention from the Central Government. Compensations have not been deducted from the net revenue figures.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I mention what has been already indicated, firstly, that the Special Order relating to the Amendment to the Hops Marketing Scheme, 1932, will not come on for discussion this week, so that those who are interested may have time in which to consider the Report. Secondly, I understand that a

167
Bill is coming from another place some time late to-night dealing with the Clearing House arrangements which it may be necessary to set up between this country and Germany. This Bill passed its Second Reading yesterday, and is passing through all its other stages today, in the other House. It is essential that it should receive the Royal Assent this week, and therefore I shall have to ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Orders on Thursday and to
168
take the Bill through all its stages on that day. It will reach us late to-night, and will therefore have its First Reading on Wednesday, and will not be circulated until Thursday morning. No doubt in the circumstances your Lordships will be willing to form a preliminary view as to merits by looking at the form in which it has appeared in the Press, and at the discussion in another place.
House adjourned at six o'clock.

VISCOUNT DILLON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that Eric FitzGerald, Viscount Dillon in the Peerage of Ireland, has established his succession to the Viscounty of Dillon, and his right to vote at any elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes in force relating thereto, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords this day, that Eric FitzGerald, Viscount Dillon in the Peerage of Ireland, has established his succession to the Viscounty of Dillon, and his right to vote at any elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, which may be held in future under the Statutes relating thereto, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to
170
the following Bill have been complied with:
London Passenger Transport Board.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Mexborough and Swinton Traction (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order,

St. Helen's Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order,

Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order,

Nottingham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (INTERIM FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
Message to the Commons for leave for the Right Honourable Wilfred Guild Normand, K.C., Lord Advocate, to attend the Select Committee.